http://www.nbcnews.com/news/investigations/what-georgias-extreme-new-gun-law-allows-n87491
In the wake of the violent shootings going on across the U.S. this past week, Georgia has now passed a bill pretty much allowing people with guns easier access to places which have previously been targeted by shooters. (Schools and Churches, really?)
I'm on the fence with this, for a a few reasons; there's no need to be carrying a gun in a school period. though it's already come to a point where people have to defend themselves. because too many psychotic terrorists are easily getting access to guns.
As for this, I don't know if you've been living under a rock but there have been about 2 or 3 school shootings in the past year or so, and African American owned church was shotup in South Carolina like 2 or 3 months back. guns are a growing problem in this country. and the NRA has been dead quiet since the mass shooting a few days ago in California.
Well the shooters have never had trouble getting into those places previously... They targeted these sorts of places because that's generally where large groups of people congregate, and are usually unable to defend themselves due to legislation about these particular places. This is great news. People can now defend themselves. You don't need a gun on a campus. But you'd much rather have one and not need it, than need it and not have it trust me.
I still find the idea that you’re going to defend yourself against someone going into the event with the intent of killing you without you knowing of their intentions hilariously silly. It’s the same thing with the reality of personal defense on the street or a fist fight in real life outside your own egocentric head, if a mugger comes up to you with a knife or a gun you have no time to react, none. You’re not superman, if someone is ready and you’re not they will be in your face with a gun quicker than you can draw yours it’s just the way things work in the real world. People seem to have this delusion that they become Jason Born in an active shooter situation when statistically it’s the exact opposite. The number of court cases where someone effectively used a gun to kill an attacker is tiny in comparison to the amount of attackers convicted for murdering someone who was also in possession of a gun. People with guns in these situations are more likely than anyone else to die. But at least they get to live out there martyrdom fantasy while endangering everyone else around them. Over inflated egos, Rambo fantasies, and tiny penises is all is see when I see gun nuts defending their right to carry an M4 into a Dunkin’ Donuts. The good guy with a gun is a myth of american culture atleast statistically speaking.
As I have spent a lot of time in areas like Georgia (ie Bible belt), I am just going to have to point out that to people there, this isn't really a bad thing. People in Georgia are huge on guns. For defense and for hunting and for sport. People like their guns. There have been a lot of laws like this one as of late (google the carry anywhere law or something like that). These laws really reflect the mindset of the people living there. And I would like to point out that California has some of the strictest gun regulation in the country, and you can see the good it did them. Meanwhile, to my knowledge, Georgia hasn't had a mass shooting in recent years. If people want to shoot up a place, then strict gun laws aren't going to stop them. Criminals don't tend to listen to laws very much and there are already more than enough guns for the criminals to get their hands on anyway. The Georgian mindset is that you might as well arm the citizenry since the criminals already have firearms.
Also, that quote, not allowing guns in school doesn't stop school shootings. There isn't some magic barrier around a school because it is a "gun free zone". It means that they can get in trouble for bringing a gun there though. And let me ask you. Would getting charged with having a gun in a "gun free zone" matter to someone who is planning to shoot up a school? Not likely. Would it matter to everyone else? Yes. That means that the shooter literally knows that no one else there has guns. Easy targets. That said, the kids can't legally have guns in school either as they aren't old enough for permits in basically any situation, but it could affect the faculty and staff.
Did I even mention gun control? I'm pretty sure I just said that good guys with guns are a non-factor in preventing gun violence. People who think otherwise always seem to be macho men with little dick complexes who walk around acting tough when in reality they are just as likely to die as anyone else when shit hits the fan.
Slaughter vs shootout. Pick one.
um no they are THE FACTOR
I would bet that just as many robberies end because guns jam as robbers being shot.
Well there is an idea. We need to look into increasing the rate of gun jams.
Except it rarely happens. All your doing by increasing the amount of guns in untrined hands is increasing the likelyhood of someone getting shot. Usually your "good guy".
"A class" thats funny. Look at the statistics for how many cops hit their targets vs how many cops get shot on the job. They have taken "a class" or rather been rigorously trained in the use of firearms up to the standard of the state in which they serve and they miss more often then they hit. What do they hit most often when they land a shot? Dogs...
How about being more concerned about the kinds of people who shoot people? You don't blame penises for rapes. You don't blame forks for obesity. These are people making choices. Why not work on the actual problem instead of baby proofing the nation?
Also, cops are by and large morons. They missed? Probably because they tried shooting the second or third time before getting their gun back on target. Anyone can be a cop. It really isn't hard. I wouldn't use them as your argument. reminds me of storm troopers to be honest.
Depends on how you define "mass shooting," really. The same day as the San Bernardino shooting, Savannah also had a "mass shooting." 1 dead, 3 wounded. We've had a total of 19 "mass shootings" in the past year in Georgia, mostly attributed to domestic violence or gang activity. This has resulted in 25 deaths and 69 injuries in the 19 "mass shootings" this far. Last year in the 19 "mass shootings" in Georgia, the numbers were 20 deaths and 76 wounded. 2013 had 7 "mass shootings" with 5 deaths and 30 wounded.
There have been plenty by the broader definition for sure. That said, I live in the further outskirts of "metro" Atlanta(I.e. the OTP 'burbs), and have for most of my life minus living in Macon when I was in college, and until maybe a week ago I hadn't seen a ton of people carrying. I walked into the store to pick a few things up 2 days ago and saw AT LEAST 6 different people with holstered pistols. This law change doesn't bother me one bit, in all honesty.
The argument always circles around to "well, if the criminal walks into a building with a particular unsuspecting victim in mind, that victim cannot tell the future and predict that to save themselves." And sure, I'd agree, but as cold as it might sound, it isn't about saving that particular person, it's about saving everyone else and limiting collateral damage.
If a gunman enters a building in order to attack Person A, he will likely end up killing or wounding many others before/after killing Person A. If an armed citizen can responsibly target and disarm the shooter by any means without putting others in more harm, then logically what could be 10 dead and 30 wounded could just as easily be 2 dead and 5 wounded. Still too many dead, still too many wounded...but in the grand scheme of things, a better alternative.