(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.

Gun nuts are a cancer to reason and rationality. How many times have the buffoonish brutes of the NRA quipped something along the lines of "criminals don't obey the law" and expect that to be sufficient reason for their cause? Almost every day. Remember Harold Pallock's study in Cook County Jail? Yeah, I do. I remember how the NRA made buffoons out of themselves saying that Pallock's research supported their argument except, of course, they were patently wrong. Most guns used by offenders were purchased from legal enterprises from cities and states with weaker gun laws and then moved to the crime. It was easier to find means of buying guns and ammo legally than to acquire them illegally, as the black market prices were 200-500% higher in cost.

The gun restrictions are actually an incentive to exploit the weak infrastructure of America, and a disincentive of acquiring firearms locally. Yet no gun advocate will tell you that part, they'll just highlight the whole idea of straw purchases already being illegal as if all events are disengaged from each other, because the only way for the logic to hold up is not to look at an event beginning to end - only by cherrypicking certain factoids of a transaction can their lies hold any truth. This isn't a call for gun bans, but it's definitely a call for federal uniformity. Uniform gun laws should happen and it would be entirely constitutional as interstate commerce, since that's the majority of the problem in the first place.

1. criminals dont obey the law if they are gunna rob or kill someone or traffic drugs then having an illegal gun aint shit its like taking a piss and deciding to shit also
2. all guns were originally bought
3. anything else you care to say to make yourself look like Pseudo-intellect

Bold-faced lie. Nothing new, coming from you. Lying, cherrpicking, disengaging. Your tact is unimpressive and dishonest.

By that logic war zones should be some of the safest places in the world

Listen.....I get the whole criminals don't obey the laws but you're giving them legal source to gain these weapons to break the law. So far more weapons have yet to result in less gun crime.

Pretty much every nation which had mass shooting has made the law tighter reduced it gun crime

alright how do u get a gun legally? you normally buy it. it dont matter where or how it was acquired or what it is. soviet ak47s? they were paid for by the Russian goverment and whoever they traded with. glock handgun? bought by someone at a gun store or gun show. 30-06 hunting rifle is the same. it dont matter if its a tank or a ordinary shotgun they were all bought

I'm 18 and I received my permit to carry 2 months ago, approx. Now I admit the process was easy, and fast. However this is because I had absolutely no criminal record. I agree that criminals, simply don't obey the law. Meth, cocaine, weed (in most states) isn't sold in stores and is ofc highly illegal, yet are all readily obtainable if you know where to look. Guns, if made illegal or tighter restrictions put on them, would be the exact same way. Arming citizens, or even teachers, isn't going to stop mass shootings. tts not going to stop shootings. However it would give the innocent civilian an opportunity to defend themselves, or another innocent life.

The thing of it is, there's not many records of civilians stopping mass shootings with a gun, because those cases never had a chance to reach mass shooting status. A guy walks into a crowded area and starts shooting and kills 15, it makes national news, calls for gun control, etc.

Now take a guy walks into that same crowded area, starts shooting, and injures one before being fatally shot by an armed civilian. At best it makes local news. Every time an attacker is shot by an armed civilian, it could be the stopping of a potential mass shooting. But it'll never make waves like the successful attacks will. That's the problem that again goes back to media. It doesn't wanna show the news where there was no carnage, as that won't get ratings, and won't push agendas. But the news of a successful mass shooting? That will.