Namely, law abiding citizens should be able to conceal-carry weapons. Although it couldn't stop all kinds of terrorist attacks, it could very well put a stop to most mass shootings.
Here we go again...
When I read this, in my head, this analogy comes to mind: "We could stop bombings by allowing all citizens to carry concealed bombs [to use in self-defense]."
Now obviously that is an absurd analogy, but it mirrors a lot of what you're suggesting: fight a dangerous weapon with another dangerous weapon, potentially put bystanders in harm's way, make it even harder to track/identify the good from bad, make it easier to obtain weapons.
The US has more mass killings than any other western nation, yet they also have concealed carry, clearly something isn't working here. Is the solution really "more guns, more guns?"
Even if the ones perpetrating these crimes have no gun permits, the existence of gun permits itself makes gun ownership commonplace, allowing the "crazies" easier acquisition and possession of guns
If you're not content taking your bogus statistics from the sort of blog with so little handle on reality it described Bloomberg as a "communist organisation", you can read the actual report
It excludes mass shootings if the shooters were gang members or robbers, if the victims were in [multiple] private homes, if concealed carry permits weren't handed out like candy in the local area or if the heavily armed guards in place throughout the incident were naval officers or law enforcement officials stationed there to stop shootings....
Trouble is, once you've concluded armed guards were shot because they were "gun free", anywhere where concealed carry isn't commonplace is also "gun free" and mass shootings in private homes don't matter to analysis of gun owners' ability to defend themselves you've probably concluded that rather more than 92% of the US population are in gun free areas...
Your source also says: "Climate Change isn't about the environment. It's about money and control, and the same is true with the anti-gun movement as well."
This should allow you to understand it is a really bad source. I guess that starting from that, it is easy to prove that the numbers you cite are wrong.
All in all, isn't it obvious that only gun-free zones is a better solution that only gun-allowed zones?
Comments
Here we go again...
When I read this, in my head, this analogy comes to mind: "We could stop bombings by allowing all citizens to carry concealed bombs [to use in self-defense]."
Now obviously that is an absurd analogy, but it mirrors a lot of what you're suggesting: fight a dangerous weapon with another dangerous weapon, potentially put bystanders in harm's way, make it even harder to track/identify the good from bad, make it easier to obtain weapons.
The US has more mass killings than any other western nation, yet they also have concealed carry, clearly something isn't working here. Is the solution really "more guns, more guns?"
More than half of these mass killings occur in "gun free zones." Who follows the law? Concealed carry permit holders. Who doesn't? The crazies.
Even if the ones perpetrating these crimes have no gun permits, the existence of gun permits itself makes gun ownership commonplace, allowing the "crazies" easier acquisition and possession of guns
How many of the "crazies" use legally (by local laws) acquired guns?
And if the killings occur in gun free zones, Concealed carry permit holders won't be able to defend themselves, right ?
"Since 2009, 92 Percent of Mass Shootings Have Occurred in Gun-Free Zones"
http://freedomoutpost.com/2015/10/since-2009-92-percent-of-m...
If you're not content taking your bogus statistics from the sort of blog with so little handle on reality it described Bloomberg as a "communist organisation", you can read the actual report
It excludes mass shootings if the shooters were gang members or robbers, if the victims were in [multiple] private homes, if concealed carry permits weren't handed out like candy in the local area or if the heavily armed guards in place throughout the incident were naval officers or law enforcement officials stationed there to stop shootings....
Trouble is, once you've concluded armed guards were shot because they were "gun free", anywhere where concealed carry isn't commonplace is also "gun free" and mass shootings in private homes don't matter to analysis of gun owners' ability to defend themselves you've probably concluded that rather more than 92% of the US population are in gun free areas...
Your source also says: "Climate Change isn't about the environment. It's about money and control, and the same is true with the anti-gun movement as well."
This should allow you to understand it is a really bad source. I guess that starting from that, it is easy to prove that the numbers you cite are wrong.
All in all, isn't it obvious that only gun-free zones is a better solution that only gun-allowed zones?