CCW

[darthtang aw]

Ok, we have discussed everything but this aspect. If everyone looks back at the recent and past mass shooting there is a glaring FACT that stands out. These are gun free zones. Do I condone open carry in these areas, no. But I feel these areas are targeted for these specific reasons. Every other area where mass shootings have been attempted that allow CCW on premises the deaths have been reduced considerably.
Examples.
-- Mayan Palace Theater, San Antonio, Texas, this week: Jesus Manuel Garcia shoots at a movie theater, a police car and bystanders from the nearby China Garden restaurant; as he enters the movie theater, guns blazing, an armed off-duty cop shoots Garcia four times, stopping the attack. Total dead: Zero.
-- Winnemucca, Nev., 2008: Ernesto Villagomez opens fire in a crowded restaurant; concealed carry permit-holder shoots him dead. Total dead: Two. (I'm excluding the shooters' deaths in these examples.)
-- Appalachian School of Law, 2002: Crazed immigrant shoots the dean and a professor, then begins shooting students; as he goes for more ammunition, two armed students point their guns at him, allowing a third to tackle him. Total dead: Three.
-- Santee, Calif., 2001: Student begins shooting his classmates -- as well as the "trained campus supervisor"; an off-duty cop who happened to be bringing his daughter to school that day points his gun at the shooter, holding him until more police arrive. Total dead: Two.
-- Pearl High School, Mississippi, 1997: After shooting several people at his high school, student heads for the junior high school; assistant principal Joel Myrick retrieves a .45 pistol from his car and points it at the gunman's head, ending the murder spree. Total dead: Two.
-- Edinboro, Pa., 1998: A student shoots up a junior high school dance being held at a restaurant; restaurant owner pulls out his shotgun and stops the gunman. Total dead: One.
In all of these instances the death toll was reduced and could have been far higher. Maybe, schools and other public venues should consider security with CCW training. It appears to atleast reduce the fatalities. Nothing we [put in place will ever completely prevent a murderer from committing a murder...but mass large scale shootings can be mitigated based off what I am seeing.
Discuss.

 

[uneverno]

Is mitigation the best we can do?
We need to ask some questions about our society.
1) What is different about our society vs, for example, Switzerland, where gun ownership is mandatory, that the gun related homicide rate is extremely disproportionate on the American side.
2) Why does "Gun Control" not work here?
3) Would better mental health care help the situation?
4) Does the FACT that we, as a Nation, freely violate the internationally agreed upon rules of warfare, to which we are signatories, in any way influence our citizens feelings that they should be, therefore, also free to violate the law?
5) Does the legal double standard to which we hold our citizens vs our leaders (both elected and corporate) have an effect on how people look at the law?
6) Do medications have an influence upon someone's behavior?
7) Is fast-tracking said medication's FDA approval potentially problematic?
8) Is the Mercury in some vaccines a potential mental development problem?
9) Do food additives, colorings or modifications (such as GMO) have a long term impact on human behaviour?
Unless and until we can, as a society, acknowledge that profit alone is not the best measurement of what is best for humankind, we render ourselves incapable of solving the problem. Not just this problem. All of them.
There is a point at which unrestrained profit is destructive to society. We must learn to recognize that point and enforce it.

 

[reefraff]

2. Gun control doesn't work for 2 reasons. 1 There are already millions of guns in circulation and it would take a violation of our constitutional rights to try to make a serious dent in the numbers 2 Being a basically free society it would be next to impossible to keep guns out even if there weren't a gagillion here already.
3 Yes, My wife works in a situation where she deals with malpractice cases. One reoccurring situation is people being released from a treatment facility because they maxed out the yearly insurance cap and then do something stupid to themselves or someone else.
4 I utterly reject the notion we freely violate the rules of war. We should demand Congress declare war, a constitutional provision both parties have no problem ignoring. But we grant conventions protections to people who clearly are not covered because they themselves do not follow the rules established by the conventions.
5 Ask Bernie Madoff if there is a double standard for corporate crooks. Our elected leaders should be subject to every law they pass. But like the reason we see pitiful candidates like 0bama and McCain end up their party's nominee for the highest office in the land there is no accountability for the politicians. That is we the people's fault. Only about half of eligible people register to vote and then only about 60 percent of those vote. I think Papa Bush was the last president elected by a true majority.
6 Obviously
7 In some cases. Fast tracking meds that have a record of success elsewhere in the world would be a good idea but overall we've learned through experience better safe than sorry.
Don't know enough about the others, or there isn't enough data available to answer, for me anyway.
The trouble with "enforcing" the proper profit is it violates the basic principle of capitalism. It is none of your business how much your boss makes. If you feel underpaid find another job. The government takes their cut through taxation. Other than enforcing wage and overtime laws, and workplace safety that is where their role ends as far as the worker employer relationship goes.

 

[reefraff]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW http:///t/393837/ccw#post_3504898
Ok, we have discussed everything but this aspect. If everyone looks back at the recent and past mass shooting there is a glaring FACT that stands out. These are gun free zones. Do I condone open carry in these areas, no. But I feel these areas are targeted for these specific reasons. Every other area where mass shootings have been attempted that allow CCW on premises the deaths have been reduced considerably.
Examples.
-- Mayan Palace Theater, San Antonio, Texas, this week: Jesus Manuel Garcia shoots at a movie theater, a police car and bystanders from the nearby China Garden restaurant; as he enters the movie theater, guns blazing, an armed off-duty cop shoots Garcia four times, stopping the attack. Total dead: Zero.
-- Winnemucca, Nev., 2008: Ernesto Villagomez opens fire in a crowded restaurant; concealed carry permit-holder shoots him dead. Total dead: Two. (I'm excluding the shooters' deaths in these examples.)
-- Appalachian School of Law, 2002: Crazed immigrant shoots the dean and a professor, then begins shooting students; as he goes for more ammunition, two armed students point their guns at him, allowing a third to tackle him. Total dead: Three.
-- Santee, Calif., 2001: Student begins shooting his classmates -- as well as the "trained campus supervisor"; an off-duty cop who happened to be bringing his daughter to school that day points his gun at the shooter, holding him until more police arrive. Total dead: Two.
-- Pearl High School, Mississippi, 1997: After shooting several people at his high school, student heads for the junior high school; assistant principal Joel Myrick retrieves a .45 pistol from his car and points it at the gunman's head, ending the murder spree. Total dead: Two.
-- Edinboro, Pa., 1998: A student shoots up a junior high school dance being held at a restaurant; restaurant owner pulls out his shotgun and stops the gunman. Total dead: One.
In all of these instances the death toll was reduced and could have been far higher. Maybe, schools and other public venues should consider security with CCW training. It appears to atleast reduce the fatalities. Nothing we [put in place will ever completely prevent a murderer from committing a murder...but mass large scale shootings can be mitigated based off what I am seeing.
Discuss.
I think a special CCW should be allowed for EMPLOYEES of school districts. Our state university system wanted to ban guns on campus and got shot down. I don't think idiot college students, drugs and Alcohol and gun are a good mix. But employees who have had extensive training for gun handling should be packing.

 

[uneverno]

Quote:
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///t/393837/ccw#post_3504926
2. Gun control doesn't work for 2 reasons. 1 There are already millions of guns in circulation and it would take a violation of our constitutional rights to try to make a serious dent in the numbers 2 Being a basically free society it would be next to impossible to keep guns out even if there weren't a gagillion here already.
3 Yes, My wife works in a situation where she deals with malpractice cases. One reoccurring situation is people being released from a treatment facility because they maxed out the yearly insurance cap and then do something stupid to themselves or someone else.
4 I utterly reject the notion we freely violate the rules of war. We should demand Congress declare war, a constitutional provision both parties have no problem ignoring. But we grant conventions protections to people who clearly are not covered because they themselves do not follow the rules established by the conventions.
5 Ask Bernie Madoff if there is a double standard for corporate crooks. Our elected leaders should be subject to every law they pass. But like the reason we see pitiful candidates like 0bama and McCain end up their party's nominee for the highest office in the land there is no accountability for the politicians. That is we the people's fault. Only about half of eligible people register to vote and then only about 60 percent of those vote. I think Papa Bush was the last president elected by a true majority.
6 Obviously
7 In some cases. Fast tracking meds that have a record of success elsewhere in the world would be a good idea but overall we've learned through experience better safe than sorry.
Don't know enough about the others, or there isn't enough data available to answer, for me anyway.
The trouble with "enforcing" the proper profit is it violates the basic principle of capitalism. It is none of your business how much your boss makes. If you feel underpaid find another job. The government takes their cut through taxation. Other than enforcing wage and overtime laws, and workplace safety that is where their role ends as far as the worker employer relationship goes.
2. Agreed.
3. So, in the absence of some sort of universal health care, this is simply something we'll have to get used to?
4. That Congress hasn't declared war is a violation of our own constitutionally enumerated rules. I don't get your argument in that regard at all. That both parties ignore the Constitutional requisite is irrelevant.
Secondly, we are signatories to the Geneva Conventions. That someone else violates them is no excuse for us to.
5. Bernie falls in the same category as Ken Lay and Martha Stewart. A publically excoriated Scapegoat from time to time assuages the masses.
6.So, should we maybe check into this, or just let the dividends run unchecked?
7. Great. "Some cases" is a great metric upon which to base a conclusion. Better safe than sorry falls far short of the mark though. Although corporations are under extreme pressure to produce profits in a crappy economy, that they would falsify study results is beyond the pale. That would be dishonest, and we all know the first tenet of Capitalism is: speak the truth, even if it's to your own detriment.

 

[reefraff]

Quote:
Originally Posted by uneverno http:///t/393837/ccw#post_3504932
2. Agreed.
3. So, in the absence of some sort of universal health care, this is simply something we'll have to get used to?
4. That Congress hasn't declared war is a violation of our own constitutionally enumerated rules. I don't get your argument in that regard at all. That both parties ignore the Constitutional requisite is irrelevant.
Secondly, we are signatories to the Geneva Conventions. That someone else violates them is no excuse for us to.
5. Bernie falls in the same category as Ken Lay and Martha Stewart. A publically excoriated Scapegoat from time to time assuages the masses.
6.So, should we maybe check into this, or just let the dividends run unchecked?
7. Great. "Some cases" is a great metric upon which to base a conclusion. Better safe than sorry falls far short of the mark though. Although corporations are under extreme pressure to produce profits in a crappy economy, that they would falsify study results is beyond the pale. That would be dishonest, and we all know the first tenet of Capitalism is: speak the truth, even if it's to your own detriment.
Universal health care would be a disaster not just for the US but the world. All the advances in medicine we create would be greatly decreased if not for the profit factor.
The conventions were designed specifically to ensure everyone followed the rules. To be granted the protections you must follow the rules. There is absolutely no logical reason to grant terrorists those protections. That doesn't mean we sink to their level but as far as using harsh interrogations and such, have at it.
There are a whole lot more than Lay and Bernie. Head of US West, WorldCom Healthpoint ect.
Some cases means just that. If a drug has already been tested in other countries and has a track record then yes, fast track it. Also some experimental drugs for terminal illness. It requires the use of common sense which our government isn't too familiar with.

 

[uneverno]

Quote:
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///t/393837/ccw#post_3504933
Universal health care would be a disaster not just for the US but the world. All the advances in medicine we create would be greatly decreased if not for the profit factor.
The conventions were designed specifically to ensure everyone followed the rules. To be granted the protections you must follow the rules. There is absolutely no logical reason to grant terrorists those protections. That doesn't mean we sink to their level but as far as using harsh interrogations and such, have at it.
There are a whole lot more than Lay and Bernie. Head of US West, WorldCom Healthpoint ect.
Some cases means just that. If a drug has already been tested in other countries and has a track record then yes, fast track it. Also some experimental drugs for terminal illness. It requires the use of common sense which our government isn't too familiar with.
I'd really like to see an honest ROI on so called advances in medicine. A substantial enough portion of new drugs end up long term creating more problems than they fix to warrant some reassessment of the vetting process. Profit driven advances are, at best, questionable.
No, you're right, there is no reason to grant terrorists protections. To use "harsh interrogation techniques" (i.e. torture,) is a violation of the conventions though. It doesn't matter against whom the techniques are employed or whether they have signed. As a signatory ourselves, it's illegal to use those tactics. Againts anyone.
Of course there are more than Kennie and Bernie. They are the diversions. There are as many of them as are needed to camouflage the real crimes committed by Goldman Sachs and the Treasury department acting on behalf of the Federal Reserve.
Re: the drugs, though, most countries employ socialized medicine. I'm curious how you are eager to trust the test process in foreign countries when they don't work for profit. After all, as you stated previously, it's the profit motive that creates the advances in medicine, no? In the absence of a profit motive, I'd think those medications could be, oh, I don't know, potentially the equivalent of snake oil. Or maybe snake oil comes about as a result of the profit motive...

 

[reefraff]

Quote:
Originally Posted by uneverno http:///t/393837/ccw#post_3505044
I'd really like to see an honest ROI on so called advances in medicine. A substantial enough portion of new drugs end up long term creating more problems than they fix to warrant some reassessment of the vetting process. Profit driven advances are, at best, questionable.
No, you're right, there is no reason to grant terrorists protections. To use "harsh interrogation techniques" (i.e. torture,) is a violation of the conventions though. It doesn't matter against whom the techniques are employed or whether they have signed. As a signatory ourselves, it's illegal to use those tactics. Againts anyone.
Of course there are more than Kennie and Bernie. They are the diversions. There are as many of them as are needed to camouflage the real crimes committed by Goldman Sachs and the Treasury department acting on behalf of the Federal Reserve.
Re: the drugs, though, most countries employ socialized medicine. I'm curious how you are eager to trust the test process in foreign countries when they don't work for profit. After all, as you stated previously, it's the profit motive that creates the advances in medicine, no? In the absence of a profit motive, I'd think those medications could be, oh, I don't know, potentially the equivalent of snake oil. Or maybe snake oil comes about as a result of the profit motive...
You should read the conventions. The requirement of following the rules of war is what grants combatants the protections.

 

[ironeagle2006]

Okay you want to Know what Happens when the FDA Fast tracks Approval of Medications look at the Phen Phen cases or in my case Keppra and Vimpat. All of them in Europe and Asia had Massive Success and Seemed to work so the FDA Fast Tracked the Approval however the FDA did not realize the problems that the Meds Caused as they did not realize what the HELL happened a couple years down the line. Myself with the Keppra well when you try and Kill yourself multiple times and then with Vimpat end up with Heart Problems that will require in 20 years a Heart Transplant is what they are now saying. Yep No Pacemaker for me Ever before I turn 60 they are going to Rip out the First one and shove in a Replacement.

 

[theclemsonkid]

Go ahead and call me a socialist, or fascist, or whatever else you want... But you really want to look at the "root" of most of America's problems? Look no further than the culture that good old capitalism has created. I firmly believe that the downfall of this country can be almost exclusively tied to the sheer greed that capitalism has caused. Yes, I am a small business owner, so I appreciate capitalism to a certain extent. However, I don't do anything and everything for the bottom line. I still like to give employees more than what they are worth, close on Holidays, know my customers, and give people a fair shake. The sad part, is that most of the non mom and pop places (i.e. corporate America) would shove their own mother down a flight of stairs if it meant a few more bucks at the end of the day. Greed breeds envy, envy breeds anger, anger breeds hatred, and hatred breeds violence. I don't think it's a coincidence that the downfall of the "traditional family" runs almost exclusively in line with the capitalistic boom of the late 20th century. It's hard to worry about your family when you care more about your bottom line...

 

[acrylic51]

Quote:
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///t/393837/ccw#post_3505046
You should read the conventions. The requirement of following the rules of war is what grants combatants the protections.

 

[reefraff]

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheClemsonKid http:///t/393837/ccw#post_3505085
Go ahead and call me a socialist, or fascist, or whatever else you want... But you really want to look at the "root" of most of America's problems? Look no further than the culture that good old capitalism has created. I firmly believe that the downfall of this country can be almost exclusively tied to the sheer greed that capitalism has caused. Yes, I am a small business owner, so I appreciate capitalism to a certain extent. However, I don't do anything and everything for the bottom line. I still like to give employees more than what they are worth, close on Holidays, know my customers, and give people a fair shake. The sad part, is that most of the non mom and pop places (i.e. corporate America) would shove their own mother down a flight of stairs if it meant a few more bucks at the end of the day. Greed breeds envy, envy breeds anger, anger breeds hatred, and hatred breeds violence. I don't think it's a coincidence that the downfall of the "traditional family" runs almost exclusively in line with the capitalistic boom of the late 20th century. It's hard to worry about your family when you care more about your bottom line...
So then why is it that as government has grown larger and more intrusive, including more regulations on capitalism, things have gotten worse?
30 some odd years ago I worked jobs that required working holidays. That is nothing new and there isn't a damned thing wrong with it. Once upon a time workers in this country understood you worked your way up the corporate ladder. Jobs like working at Walmart have never paid well yet you see them demonized for not paying enough to support a family. NEWS FLASH! Working entry level, low skills jobs has never been enough to support a family. People used to wait to have kids until they had worked their way to a point where they themselves could afford to support their kids.

 

[darthtang aw]

Go ahead and call me a socialist, or fascist, or whatever else you want... But you really want to look at the "root" of most of America's problems?  Look no further than the culture that good old capitalism has created.  I firmly believe that the downfall of this country can be almost exclusively tied to the sheer greed that capitalism has caused.  Yes, I am a small business owner, so I appreciate capitalism to a certain extent.  However, I don't do anything and everything for the bottom line.  I still like to give employees more than what they are worth, close on Holidays, know my customers, and give people a fair shake.  The sad part, is that most of the non mom and pop places (i.e. corporate America) would shove their own mother down a flight of stairs if it meant a few more bucks at the end of the day.  Greed breeds envy, envy breeds anger, anger breeds hatred, and hatred breeds violence.  I don't think it's a coincidence that the downfall of the "traditional family" runs almost exclusively in line with the capitalistic boom of the late 20th century.  It's hard to worry about your family when you care more about your bottom line...
 
Have you ever worked for a corporation?

 

[bang guy]

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheClemsonKid http:///t/393837/ccw#post_3505085
Go ahead and call me a socialist, or fascist, or whatever else you want... But you really want to look at the "root" of most of America's problems? Look no further than the culture that good old capitalism has created. I firmly believe that the downfall of this country can be almost exclusively tied to the sheer greed that capitalism has caused. Yes, I am a small business owner, so I appreciate capitalism to a certain extent. However, I don't do anything and everything for the bottom line. I still like to give employees more than what they are worth, close on Holidays, know my customers, and give people a fair shake. The sad part, is that most of the non mom and pop places (i.e. corporate America) would shove their own mother down a flight of stairs if it meant a few more bucks at the end of the day. Greed breeds envy, envy breeds anger, anger breeds hatred, and hatred breeds violence. I don't think it's a coincidence that the downfall of the "traditional family" runs almost exclusively in line with the capitalistic boom of the late 20th century. It's hard to worry about your family when you care more about your bottom line...
Giving people a fair shake, I would think, would cause your employees to give you a bit more dedication. In many business areas that would improve your bottom line. I think many of the modern big business issues come from not having devoted employees and that is hurting their bottom line. Following your model I really believe they could improve. It's a penny wise dollar dumb scenario. The executives are just too browbeat by their shareholders to look at the big picture.
On the other hand, what alternate model would you follow? Greece? Venezuela? Mexico? Nigeria? I agree we ain't perfect and there's room for improvement but it's the best there is so far.

 

[reefraff]

I've worked for big corporations and little mom and pops. Worst boss I ever had wasn't the corporation. In any case I never had any problem drawing top wages because I put in the effort to do the job right. In a couple cases where I didn't think I was being treated right I went out and found better jobs.If you do your job well there is always someone willing to pay what you are worth. What a confusing concept.

 

[bionicarm]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW http:///t/393837/ccw#post_3505106
Have you ever worked for a corporation?
I've worked with and for corporations. I've seen the good and bad in both situations. Large corporations consists of "no name" executives at the top of the ladder. They dictate work ethics down the ladder to the worker bees at the bottom. I worked for one large corporation in the 80's for almost 10 years, and I honestly couldn't have told you who the CEO, President, or the various "Executive VP's" were. They never visited or talk to anyone at "our level", and the only communication you got from them was the standard Corporate letters that discussed business policies, benefit plans, or any major news releases concerning the business. Pay scales were set based on your field of expertise, education, and years of service. Every employee had a pay scale grade, and that grade had a wage variance from one dollar amount to the other. Any annual raises were based on performance variables, work ethic, attitude, and how you worked with your peers and superiors. They were also based on what "quartile" you were in at your respective pay scale. So if you were already at the 3rd or 4th quartile (top of your scale), your raises were significantly lower than if you were in the 1st or 2nd quartile. If you were at the top, you either had to find a way to get bumped to the next pay grade, or you simply didn't get any raises at all. Most grade bumps required openings, or a change to a different department, which meant you had to have other skills or change your entire career path. Management level positions normally required a Masters Degree in Business. In the IT Dept. where I worked, every job was so specialized, that there weren't any lateral moves or ways to move upwards in the business. CIO's were always hired from outside the organization. We had one IT Manager that worked for the company for 20 years, and he was never considered for an upper level position because he didn't even have a Bachelor's Degree. There were several college graduates with Business Master's that cam in, worked for the company for 5 or so years, and rapidly moved up to VP slots. So in that organization, the only way to successfully move up was to try and earn some sort of Masters degree, then hope you'd get recognized for your effort. Once you got to the top, the pay scale, bonuses (if any ever came around), and other "perks" were significantly higher than those at the bottom. We had one department that had 5 different levels of "executives". Every time I see that movie Office Space, it reminds me of this place.

 

[bionicarm]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW http:///t/393837/ccw#post_3504898
Ok, we have discussed everything but this aspect. If everyone looks back at the recent and past mass shooting there is a glaring FACT that stands out. These are gun free zones. Do I condone open carry in these areas, no. But I feel these areas are targeted for these specific reasons. Every other area where mass shootings have been attempted that allow CCW on premises the deaths have been reduced considerably.
Examples.
-- Mayan Palace Theater, San Antonio, Texas, this week: Jesus Manuel Garcia shoots at a movie theater, a police car and bystanders from the nearby China Garden restaurant; as he enters the movie theater, guns blazing, an armed off-duty cop shoots Garcia four times, stopping the attack. Total dead: Zero.
-- Winnemucca, Nev., 2008: Ernesto Villagomez opens fire in a crowded restaurant; concealed carry permit-holder shoots him dead. Total dead: Two. (I'm excluding the shooters' deaths in these examples.)
-- Appalachian School of Law, 2002: Crazed immigrant shoots the dean and a professor, then begins shooting students; as he goes for more ammunition, two armed students point their guns at him, allowing a third to tackle him. Total dead: Three.
-- Santee, Calif., 2001: Student begins shooting his classmates -- as well as the "trained campus supervisor"; an off-duty cop who happened to be bringing his daughter to school that day points his gun at the shooter, holding him until more police arrive. Total dead: Two.
-- Pearl High School, Mississippi, 1997: After shooting several people at his high school, student heads for the junior high school; assistant principal Joel Myrick retrieves a .45 pistol from his car and points it at the gunman's head, ending the murder spree. Total dead: Two.
-- Edinboro, Pa., 1998: A student shoots up a junior high school dance being held at a restaurant; restaurant owner pulls out his shotgun and stops the gunman. Total dead: One.
In all of these instances the death toll was reduced and could have been far higher. Maybe, schools and other public venues should consider security with CCW training. It appears to atleast reduce the fatalities. Nothing we [put in place will ever completely prevent a murderer from committing a murder...but mass large scale shootings can be mitigated based off what I am seeing.
Discuss.
And for every one of those instances, you can find the same where someone was present with a CCW and someone still got shot or killed. There were two officers at the scene of Columbine, both shot the suspects, but didn't take them down because of their body armor. The two killed themselves before the cops could get another shot in.
That incident at the movie theater in San Antonio? He worked at a Chinese restaurant next to the theater, and shot several shots in the restaurant towards his ex-girlfriend (she just broke up with him earlier that day). He then walked out of the restaurant and started shooting at a cop car that was responding to the shooting call. He then ran into the movie theater where this off-duty Bexar County Sheriff was working, shot his way to a bathroom, hitting one moviegoer in the back, when the cornered man was then shot by the off-duty cop. When this guy was running between the restaurant and movie theater, there was a CCW carrier that drew his weapon, and considered shooting at the guy. However, he "froze" (or better definition he acted "responsibly") because there were people running all over the place and he wasn't sure he could fire and not hit an innocent bystander. By the time he determined he could get a shot, he had already run into the theater.
Is your position that allowing CCW carriers in these existing public places that prohibit carrying on the premise will simply reduce the number of deaths, not eliminate them entirely? So to pacify the gun advocates that don't want to restrict their access to certain firearms, we accept minimal casualties over no casuaties at all?

 

[darthtang aw]

Yes that is my stance. Is yours an assault weapons ban would eliminate these deaths completely?

 

[acrylic51]

Bionicarm, I think that is most gun owners position here......You will never eliminate casualties, but will minimize the casualties IMO.....What if the CCW individual could have gotten a clean; clear shot when he first drew his weapon.....The may lay would have been over rather quickly......And the CCW individual was correct in his actions IMO.....Would you have had it any other way........

 

[beth]

The problem with the argument for the gun bans is that there is no reason to think that a killer will not kill because of a gun ban.
You can argue that forever, but that is a fact that you can't get around. Can you prove that stricter gun laws/bans is going to end crazed killing incidents?
Ban advertising such incidents via news outlets. That may work. Oh, but that hits the 1st Am.