Newtown Shooting -- Ban Guns -- Why not change ....

[rednirb]

In the wake of Newtown shooting ( what happened is heart breaking) everyone is talking about banning assault rifles ...
I did not saw many mentioning that the CHL holders should be allowed to carry guns at all places (with exception to the places which are already guarded for example police stations etc)
Looking at the last few incidents they happened where CC is not allowed so the shooter knew all are sitting ducks in there.
Any thoughts!!

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[smolck]

You are using common sense and logic. Politicians and government in general uses knee jerk, media biased "uncommon" sense and idiocy.

[Brad426]

It's high time we discuss this topic on this site...

[mulle46]

To the anti-gun crowd, the answer is always ban, ban, ban. Even though almost every mass shooting happened in a gun free zone, they simply refuse to entertain the idea that a GG with a CCW could stop an active shooter. Its always the same thing, but hoping that this time its different for the gun control crowd. I think that the whole gun free environment, should be rescinded and allowing those with permits to carry. Arm those teachers willing to get permit/those who already do, train them, and harden the target. Active shooters don't want opposition, confrontation, they want victims. Once confronted, the shooter kills himself or gives up, when rounds start coming downrange at him, or have the potential to be.

[KBSR]

To the anti-gun crowd, the answer is always ban, ban, ban. Even though almost every mass shooting happened in a gun free zone, they simply refuse to entertain the idea that a GG with a CCW could stop an active shooter. Its always the same thing, but hoping that this time its different for the gun control crowd. I think that the whole gun free environment, should be rescinded and allowing those with permits to carry. Arm those teachers willing to get permit/those who already do, train them, and harden the target. Active shooters don't want opposition, confrontation, they want victims. Once confronted, the shooter kills himself or gives up, when rounds start coming downrange at him, or have the potential to be.

What he said!!! :)

[BIGSAM]

Double Post

[BIGSAM]

The terrible thing is, politicians, the media and these businesses that are pulling AR platform rifles from the shelves are all just twisting the hearts and true emotions of the people who feel for the victims and families.

Politicians are using them for a soap box. The media are using them for the ratings and ad opportunities and I believe stores like Dicks and CTD are just stripping the shelves until the price gets high enough to their liking. None of them really give a flip.

[sensei2]

i have given this matter (stopping/reducing mass killings) a great deal of thought, even before this latest incident, and the ONLY idea that seems to have a chance of making a difference is to have more armed good guys - and girls/women - at these sites.

the main problem with doing this is that there would probably be some innocent bystanders shot during confrontations between GG's and BG's. perhaps legislation similar to "good samaritan" laws which protect doctors who provide emergency care after accidents or disasters might be enacted to protect those with specified training against lawsuits stemming from their intervention (?)

[rmilchman]

If you want to stop these mass murders, muzzle the media. They glorify the shooters to the point of almost being a hero. The next individual comes along and says, hey John killed 10. I can do better.....

[sensei2]

If you want to stop these mass murders, muzzle the media. They glorify the shooters to the point of almost being a hero. The next individual comes along and says, hey John killed 10. I can do better.....

this is essentially what movie critic Roger Ebert (from Chicago!) said. see the thread, "Roger Ebert on Newtown". he doesn't say, "muzzle the media", but he says that media publicity has more to do with 'copy-cat' shooters than do violent movies.


"muzzling the media" would be a serious infringement on the First Amendment, and another case where the cost to our liberties would be too high (IMO).

[rmilchman]

this is essentially what movie critic Roger Ebert (from Chicago!) said. see the thread, "Roger Ebert on Newtown"


doing this would be a serious infringement on the First Amendment, and another case where the cost to our liberties would be too high (IMO).

They can report the news without the glorification. There are other circumstances where 1st Amendment rights are currently restricted.

[MrBuckwheat]

I think it is a distraction> Gun ban, gets peoples minds focused else where. They are working on tax deals, spending deals and other things at the same time. It is slide of the hand politics.

[1MoreGoodGuy]

Everyone needs to accept the truth and the truth is that this is about Good people and evil people.

All of the Good people need to set aside their differences and come up with logical solutions which will enable Good to triumph over evil.

The problems we face with this is there are a lot of people who refuse to accept the truth, refuse to set aside their differences, and refuse to use logic.

[multistage]

Oh, I dunno about the liberal media.

Seems to me that they are doing an excellent job of arming the holy mother out of the country. Gun shops will have a very merry Xmas, albeit most will be catching up on their sleep.

Anybody see Bloomberg the other night on PBS? Guy said there was yet another shooting in Chicago last Saturday. This is untrue. With the draconian gun laws of that city, there could not have been a shooting, because GUN LAWS WORK!!!!!!!!!!

There is no measure as to how much I detest that individual. A true disgrace.

[smolck]

To the anti-gun crowd, the answer is always ban, ban, ban. Even though almost every mass shooting happened in a gun free zone

Sometimes you have to meet violence with violence. Mass murder attempts are lose/lose anyways, you can only minimize the casualties by taking out the nut job first. An armed citizen with the proper training and intestinal fortitude to do what is necessary could have prevented or lessened the recent tragedies.

And for the love, doesn't CT already HAVE an assault weapons ban of sorts? Can't a normal human being think for themselves and realize banning doesn't work? It just isn't that hard of a concept, my 8 year old even gets it.

Some may say "yea, but these mass killers WANT to die so they don't fear armed citizens". I say "maybe so, but I can help them accomplish their goal a lot faster from a lot further away with my Glock than my fists". The difference being in scenario #2, they go down much sooner and lives are SAVED.