This is from Larry Correia. New York Times bestselling author, firearm instructor and former gun shop owner.
formatting link
The link leads to Monster Hunter Nation. He has trained some Utah teachers and wants them to be armed at school if they want to be.
Part of his comment on gun free zones:
Gun Free Zones are hunting preserves for innocent people. Period. Think about it. You are a violent, homicidal madman, looking to make a statement and hoping to go from disaffected loser to most famous person in the world. The best way to accomplish your goals is to kill a whole bunch of people. So where?s the best place to go shoot all these people? Obviously, it is someplace where nobody can shoot back. In all honesty I have no respect for anybody who believes Gun Free Zones actually work. You are going to commit several hundred felonies, up to and including mass murder, and you are going to refrain because there is a sign? That No Guns Allowed sign is not a cross that wards off vampires. It is wishful thinking, and really pathetic wishful thinking at that.
Hmmm, Are you going to arm your self with assault rifle and 200 rounds magazine or drum? You know wackos will come there with such a weapon with mass killing power in short time. I am not against owning fire arm, first step should be banning the ownership of assault type automatic weapons and high capacity magazines/clips. And owning a gun is one thing using it properly and well is another, how many owners are like that? Are always ready for surprise attack? If teachers are armed can they concentrate on teaching or be on the look oiut for the sudden danger? IMO, the more gun, the more possibility of trouble. No thanks no gun for me or my family.
Most commercial establishments have nothing to gain, and much to lose (from a legal / liability / insurance standpoint) to NOT make / announce that their property is a "gun-free" zone.
So right off the bat, we can assume that most commercial establishments (shopping malls, theaters, restaurants, factories, offices, hospitals) are gun-free zones. We know that many public-sector facilities (schools, libraries, gov't offices, court buildings, DMV, airports, etc) are probably gun-free zones even if they are not signed as such.
So in reality, where are the non-"gun-free" zones?
The roads, highways, side walks, maybe parking lots?
When you look at this aspect in a logical, rational way, anyone that wants to "hunt" people has many places to do it, and those places will never be a non-"gun-free" zone.
Let's unpack that one by looking at the most recent example (Sandy Hook Elementary School). The shooter made no attempt to hook into any social networks or leave behind anything that would give the world a statement or make him famous. I think the same can be said of the "Batman" theater shooter in Colorado, and the shooter at Virginia Tech.
But this brings up an important point.
If you know you are going to have violent, homicidal people, then why allow the sale and possession of such a dangerous consumer product like a firearm? The answer is that you can't stop the sale of something that has been publically available for dozens, even hundreds of years.
You can't curtail the personal firearm industry in the United States today. You could have maybe 50, 75, 100 years ago, in terms of the design / capability of these products, and over the years mandated that safety features be incorporated into their design by law much the same way that automobiles have air bags and ABS brakes.
The solution to this problem lies in the product itself - not in laws that govern who can sell them or who can obtain them, nor in laws that govern how consumers handle them.
If the US was suddenly confronted with people being electrocuted by toasters, even if the vast majority of people continued to use toasters without injury, you can bet that next year the old toaster designs would be replaced with new ones. The same problem-solving mentality is never applied when the consumer product in question is personal firearms. Why is that?
I remember the fire drills at school way back when I was a kid. Everyone went about their business unless the alarm went off. This would be similar, I think.
That would be a bad assumption in the majority of US states which allow concealed carry. The only places you could count on as being gun free are the sterile areas of an airport and in a court house.
The reality is most of the million licensed concealed carry people in Florida do not regularly carry but they could. I still know people who never leave the house without a gun.
Rarely have I seen such an announcement in any business.
ASS U ME if you want.
Have you ever been to one of those places? I've seen some rather strong armament at airports, especially in Europe. Courts and many government buildings have armed guards.
You think killing 26 people they would not put his name in the paper? He did not have to leave a Facebook message to get notoriety. Destroying the evidence only makes it more intriguing as to why he did it.
That is part of the solution. We also have to find what causes this type of behavior. Fifty years ago no one was shooting up schools that I'm aware of. Is it video games? Copycat violence? Preservatives in our food? Getting you picture on the 6 o'clock news? Violence has existed as long as mankind has existed but now it seems more concentrated at times.
Do some / many / most / all public schools in the US have signage declaring they are a gun-free zone?
I wasn't counting any "duly-deputized" members of the law-enforcement community, nor anyone hired as armed security in those places (airports, courts and gov't buildings).
We are talking about civilians carrying personal firearms in public in this thread.
He wasn't even carrying his own ID at the time.
Did he kill those kids because he wanted to be famous (or infamous) ?
Or did he kill them *regardless* the media coverage that would result?
I know a lot of right-wing AM-radio talking heads have put forward the idea that the liberal media is facilitating and fostering these mass-murders because their coverage of the event is showing the next mass-murderer how he can be famous, but I don't buy that argument, and I'm sure a lot of other sane, rational people don't either.
Clinically-sane, rational people (which, by the way, includes right-wing AM-radio talking heads) are be definition incapable to know what drives insane, irrational people to do what they do. We are applying our own idea of why we might want to commit such acts (mass murder = become famous).
As I said above, we can't even pretend to know why he killed those kids. It's a foregone conclusion that when something shocking and disturbing happens, that the media is going to report it.
If he was driven by a voice in his head that told him to kill those kids
- do you think he gave any consideration to this so-called "fame" that you keep talking about?
Fifty (even 10 or 20) years ago, divorced single women with kids also probably didn't own an arsenal of guns like this woman did.
I'm sure there were troubled boys 50 years ago. The difference being their moms pantry didn't double as an armory.
Homo Gay, typical of Liberal morons to use the word "arsenal" to describe a small number of firearms owned by a civilian. I imagine if the woman owned a bag of wheat sitting in a 50gal drum, those of your ilk would describe it as a grain silo. If you understood history at all, you would know that there is a generation of kids emerging into adulthood who have been loaded with behavior modifying drugs since they were small children at the behest of the Liberal infested educational system. Little boys are drugged because they behave like little boys and they grow up to become psychotic adults. That didn't happen 50 years ago when firearms were more likely to be handled by children under adult supervision and approval. 50 years ago, even in cities which now have severe restrictions on people's right to own firearms, there would be a rifle team in many of the high schools where children were exposed to those evil guns and taught how to fire them. The damage done to a population by drug use is best demonstrated by the morons they vote into office who are drug addled themselves. O_o
There is is, the mark of someone who knows nothing about weapons and then proceeds to tell us what to do with ours. I won't continue explaining it because someone else in this thread already has....
and high capacity magazines/clips. And owning a gun is one thing
And isn't it nice that YOU have a choice, why don't you just shut up (until you know what you are talking about) and let the rest of us have OUR choice.
The basic answer is because the second amendment says it's a right that is not to be infringed. Every single objection you make about guns can be easily made about the first amendment right to free speech. We could solve a good many of our problems if we could just stop people from telling other people stuff we don't want other people to know, or that the gvt doesn't want the people to know. We could stop copycat killings by requiring the MEDIA to be gvt licensed and for all their stories to be passed thru a gvt censor to make sure nothing "bad" gets published. This whole thing is so stupid it's beyond understanding. WE HAVE THE RIGHT. If you don't like it then try to get the constitution changed.
Rubbish. You Have had gun massacres from day one in The USA. I assume you have run out of indians and now must massacre one another. You have been massacring people in other countries, even Canadians in
1812. It's a national problem as well as a personal problem.
A bit like the Roman empire. Collapsing in violence, depravity and corruption.
Funny (not ha ha) non of these things happen in the UK.
You can put most of it down to Hollywood and the violent video games now circulating. Eg the Arnie/Clint moveis They affect the brains of the simple minded.
We have the simple minded over here but they can't get hold of these weapons.
The prudent arm themselves because the gang bangers in Florida love to use Whitey for target practice. They especially love British tourists because they know the civilized Brits will be unarmed and helpless. ^_^
Are British schoolchildren pumped full of Ritalin to control their behavior or have the more Conservative humans kept control of the government run schools? O_o
You can put most of it down to Hollywood and the violent video games now circulating. Eg the Arnie/Clint moveis They affect the brains of the simple minded.
We have the simple minded over here but they can't get hold of these weapons.
...and yet again, the UK is ranked number two in world crime and here you are still envious of US. LMFAO!
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.