(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({}); Sadly, mass shootings are a thing in our society. However, far too many people are far too quick to place the blame on the gun, instead of the person responsible. We blame drunk drivers for crashing and killing people, bombers for creating bombs that kill people, and stabbers for stabbing someone...but yet when it comes to guns, we blame the gun and try to ban or restrict them. Today's mass shooting, like every other recent high profile mass shooting, took place in a so called "gun free zone" where it is posted by the owners that guns are not allowed. Here's the problem. CRIMINALS DON'T OBEY THE FUCKING LAW. So by posting up a facility as a gun free zone, all you are doing is making it an extremely easy target for someone planning something nefarious, since most law abiding citizens won't bring a gun into the gfz. Yet, look up at the times where someone with a gun stopped someone else who had opened fire. You don't hear about them, because they never had a chance to become a mass shooting since a good guy with a gun stopped the bad guy with the gun before he could do serious damage. Point and case: Gun control doesn't work, and gun free zones are like big painted targets for mass shooters. Now, I'm not so bad as to say we shouldn't have background checks, but instead of our government trying to institute MORE background checks and other restrictions like standard capacity magazine bans, Modern Sporting Rifle (omg it's a gun but it looks extra scary, lets ban it) etc. why not actually fix and enforce the current laws on the books? The current National Instant Check System should do the job, but being a government handled entity, it has it's failure. Fix that and enforce other laws instead of trying to take away the rights of millions of law abiding gun owners.


Rant Over.
Discuss.

A public that is armed is safer than a public that is unarmed. If every person is trained to use a firearm, how will criminals cope? Criminals of all sorts love defenseless victims. Let's not be victims! Guns save lives in self defense every day. Just don't expect to see that on the news! Let's also remember that most gun crimes are created by illegally owned guns.

The Second Amendment was put in place not just for ordinary home defense against burglars but specifically to guarantee that the nation could never be overcome by any military power foreign or domestic. If the five branches of the US military were beaten by, say, a nuclear holocaust, the only national defense left would be the civilians themselves. Any subsequent military invasion—probably armed with AK-47 variants—would find it very easy to overrun civilians armed only with lever, bolt, and pump action weapons.

I would really like to see your response to this:

"Almost all handguns are banned from civilian possession, ownership, purchase, or sale in the United Kingdom as a result of the Second Firearms Act of 1997. This was in response to the Dunblane Massacre, in which 43-year-old Thomas Hamilton walked into an elementary school and shot dead 16 children, aged six or younger, and one teacher before killing himself. He used four handguns.Now that modern handguns are no longer legal to have in the UK, let us take a look at some murder rates. The rate for intentional homicide in the UK in 1996—the year of the Dunblane Massacre—was 1.12 per 100,000. It was 1.24 in 1997, when the Firearms Act went into effect, and 1.43 in 1998. The rate rose to a peak of 2.1 in 2002 and has fallen since to 1.23 as of 2010. These numbers have, however, been called into question due to possible under-reporting of violent crimes in the UK.It cannot be denied that the rate of homicides via guns has fallen dramatically since Dunblane, but the rate of murders has gone up. To say these higher numbers are the result of fewer people able to arm themselves for defense is drastically jumping to a conclusion, but the fact does remain that more people are killing each other in the UK today than when guns were legal to have. Even the police are almost all armed with tasers instead, so handguns are very hard to come by. All the numbers are higher in the US, of course, where there are more people, and there have been no more school shootings in the UK since Dunblane.But in 2005, there were 765 intentional murders in the UK and most of these were committed with knives. Blunt objects follow, then strangulation, fire, and poison. Banning guns has halted rampage shootings, but it does not address the issue of people killing each other. In the US, the number of intentional homicides in 2004 was 10,654—a number that would have been much lower without access to guns, but still terribly high. Opponents of gun control are always quick to question how many victims of knives, clubs, and strangulation would be alive if they had had a gun."

Everyone is going to complain about people and weapons then forget about it in few weeks or months till another tragic events occur. It's a routine.

Cain killed Abel with a rock. Heart problem, not a gun problem. There will always be violence. America is obviously no exception. The problem is however, every time there is one of these horrific tragedies, the mass media goes on about it for weeks on end, and makes the perpetrator INFAMOUS. So other people see this, and decide that they want to copy it. The mass media needs to stop making these names famous, and people will stop. As for any type of restriction....again, it only affects law abiding citizens. It will do nothing but make the people who aren't trying to commit these crimes more defenseless. And as stated early in this thread, the 2nd Amendment is multi purpose. It allows for individuals to protect themselves, their homes, and those around them, but it also guarantees that Americans have a fighting chance against any potential government tyranny. Everyone who says it's impossible if quite foolish. Any government can try and impose martial law at any time.

Also, start allowing citizens to carry everywhere instead of restricting places and making them easy targets, and these people will think twice about trying to carry out a mass shooting since there would be a chance that an armed citizen would be there to stop them. That kills two birds with one stone. It reduces the number of mass shootings, AND doesn't infringe upon our second amendment rights. Think about it. The American founding fathers were so adamant about the rights of the citizens to own firearms, that they made it second only to the right of free speech.

You must login or register to view this content.

Intra or inter state commerce?