POTUS plea to respectable gun owners to support "common sense" gun laws

[Blackhawk2001]

I know, I know. Saul Alinsky and all. But the bad thing about using those tactics, you **** off a whole lot of people.

Exactly WHICH people do you **** off? "No quarter given" doesn't necessarily mean getting in anyone's face; it DOES mean you keep to your message and never, never, never let up; that's what the Left has done over the past 60 years or so and look how they've changed the complexion of the nation.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

"Gun Free Zones will protect our children."

"If we get rid of guns, there will be no more mass murders."

For anyone who believes that, I present this little article from Chicago:

Illinois Army vet, 75, saves 16 kids from knife-wielding teen reportedly plotting mass murder | Fox News

 

[CPT Nervous]

"Gun Free Zones will protect our children."

"If we get rid of guns, there will be no more mass murders."

For anyone who believes that, I present this little article from Chicago:

Illinois Army vet, 75, saves 16 kids from knife-wielding teen reportedly plotting mass murder | Fox News

I heard about that. Hmmmmm. Wonder why this didn't get national attention...

 

[SSGSAD]

I heard about that. Hmmmmm. Wonder why this didn't get national attention...

BECAUSE, a GOOD GUY, with or without a weapon, NEVER stops a bad guy, at ALL !!!!!

 

[cbseniour]

The only common sense gun law is one that would help to prevent violent crime. Among legal gun owners violent crime is a very unusual thing. Therefore it would have to prevent dangerous, mentally ill or repeat violent criminals from buying guns. There are laws to prevent that now but violent criminals don't buy guns from Bradis or Point Blank or the Scottsburg ACE hardware. Violent criminals steal guns or buy them from someone who stole them. So we must pass a law forbidding criminals from stealing or buying guns from other criminals.

I can see how that might work can't you?

 

[bingley]

Many of these crazy mass-killers research what would be the best place to kill the most people. The Colorado movie shooter, the Louisiana move theater shooter, researched movie theaters that had no-guns signs. Guess which ones they picked!

I don't know why people assume that everyone obeys "gun free" signs. There are people who ignore them, and some of those people seem to be right here on INGO. They know these signs have no force of law, and worst that would happen to them if they were somehow found out is they'd be asked to leave (probably politely, too). In two of the Oregon shootings, there were people carrying on the scene, and in the case of the community college, the conceal carrier was violating school ban.

In these cases they weren't able to help or stop the shooter. There wasn't enough of a density of carriers, and I think this will continue. Realistically, your gun is for defending yourself. Running to the other side of the building to find the shooter is not a good idea for most of us. That means there will always be soft targets. Elementary school kids can't arm themselves. Their loving teachers are often not the sort of personality that will handle a firearm. So even if somehow you lift the federal law banning firearms in schools and approve all teachers for conceal carry, I'd be surprise if there are more than three guns on school ground at any given time. The mass killer can just execute one classroom, and he'll be done by the time one of the three guns foolishly risks his/her life and runs towards the sound of gunfire.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

I don't know why people assume that everyone obeys "gun free" signs. There are people who ignore them, and some of those people seem to be right here on INGO. They know these signs have no force of law, and worst that would happen to them if they were somehow found out is they'd be asked to leave (probably politely, too). In two of the Oregon shootings, there were people carrying on the scene, and in the case of the community college, the conceal carrier was violating school ban.

In these cases they weren't able to help or stop the shooter. There wasn't enough of a density of carriers, and I think this will continue. Realistically, your gun is for defending yourself. Running to the other side of the building to find the shooter is not a good idea for most of us. That means there will always be soft targets. Elementary school kids can't arm themselves. Their loving teachers are often not the sort of personality that will handle a firearm. So even if somehow you lift the federal law banning firearms in schools and approve all teachers for conceal carry, I'd be surprise if there are more than three guns on school ground at any given time. The mass killer can just execute one classroom, and he'll be done by the time one of the three guns foolishly risks his/her life and runs towards the sound of gunfire.

Gun Free Zones don't have the force of law in Indiana, but they DO have the force of law in other states, like Colorado and, presumably, Oregon.

I don't agree that it's "foolish" to run "towards the sound of gunfire." While personal protection is certainly a valid reason to carry a firearm, the desire to help others who might be in danger, while not universal, is certainly so common as to be considered almost instinctual. I'm not talking exclusively about firearms emergencies, either. How often does one person drown while attempting to save another one? Or how often does a civilian rush into a dangerous situation to attempt to save another's life? Happens often enough that we hear of several incidents every year. If I were armed and my loved ones weren't in immediate danger, I think I'd be inclined to want to try to mitigate the situation and save as many people as possible. Certainly there are other factors to take into account (such as if there are law enforcement personnel in the immediate vicinity), but it's not automatically "foolish" to try to stop a gunman.

 

[bingley]

Gun Free Zones don't have the force of law in Indiana, but they DO have the force of law in other states, like Colorado and, presumably, Oregon.

Do you have more information about this? A link that you can point me to perhaps?

I hope the guy who was carrying at the Oregon community college didn't get in trouble. He said he didn't want the police to mistake him as the mass shooter, and so he stayed put, choosing to protect the people in the same classroom as he was. That's a reasonable fear. I think people on this forum have even mentioned it as a concern during a mass shooter situation.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

US appeals court upholds bans in NY, Connecticut on semiautomatic assault weapons and large-capacity magazines

 

[Cameramonkey]

Do you have more information about this? A link that you can point me to perhaps?

I hope the guy who was carrying at the Oregon community college didn't get in trouble. He said he didn't want the police to mistake him as the mass shooter, and so he stayed put, choosing to protect the people in the same classroom as he was. That's a reasonable fear. I think people on this forum have even mentioned it as a concern during a mass shooter situation.

I assume he is referring to simply posting a sign on private property vs locations that apply under federal or state protections such as schools, federal buildings, courthouses, etc. There is a point of contention with some here on INGO what the true meaning of a "GFZ" is. Some want to say a GFZ by definition is anyplace that ANYONE says no, while others only want to count places that will get you arrested under the law simply for existing there with it.

In Indiana, putting a "no guns allowed" on your store's front door doesnt make it illegal per se. In Ohio on the other hand, provided you post the official sign per the statute (not just the text "no guns allowed" ) you would be violating state law by walking through the front door just as you would a courthouse, etc.

 

[chipbennett]

Do you have more information about this? A link that you can point me to perhaps?

I hope the guy who was carrying at the Oregon community college didn't get in trouble. He said he didn't want the police to mistake him as the mass shooter, and so he stayed put, choosing to protect the people in the same classroom as he was. That's a reasonable fear. I think people on this forum have even mentioned it as a concern during a mass shooter situation.

The UCC firearms ban did not carry the force of law. Violators risked no criminal charges; only expulsion or other school discipline.

Gun-Free Zone, all the same, though. Just no "force of law".

 

[Blackhawk2001]

Do you have more information about this? A link that you can point me to perhaps?

I hope the guy who was carrying at the Oregon community college didn't get in trouble. He said he didn't want the police to mistake him as the mass shooter, and so he stayed put, choosing to protect the people in the same classroom as he was. That's a reasonable fear. I think people on this forum have even mentioned it as a concern during a mass shooter situation.

I remember reading that in Colorado (or at least where the shooting occurred) that posted GFZs DO have the force of law. I think I remember the same being true of Tennessee. If you look at handgunlaw.us or google "state firearms laws" you can get to a site which keeps fairly up-to-date on handgun and long gun laws in each state.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Guns control groups forging alliance with Black Lives Matter - POLITICO