Lets talk about guns and gun free zones

[rudeguy]

I carry a gun. A concealed pistol is usually on my person if I have pants on. Sometimes when I don't have pants on but that is a different thread. I carry a gun in case myself, my family or someone else's life is in danger. I want the option available to me to be able to defend myself. I don't hope I get to use my gun in anger. I don't hope I get to see the gory aftermath of me shooting someone. I am very happy that to date my gun has never left its holster in anger.

But more and more I am seen as some type of gun nut or psychopath because I do carry a gun. I really don't care and most who know me have no idea that I carry. The guy who rings me up for my super sized pop at the gas station every morning has no clue that I am armed every time I see him. The lady at the pharmacy I get my prescriptions filled at has no idea. I don't broadcast my firearms choice in real life because its just not a safe thing to do. Yet whenever guns are mentioned on the news or in a tv show, the person carrying the gun is made out to instantly be the bad guy.

I am licensed to carry a gun anywhere I go except "pistol free zones". These areas include schools, courthouses, entertainment venues with over 2500 seats, churches and a few other spots. My problem with that is these are the most common places that wackjobs choose to shoot up. Also every mall in my city has decided people carrying guns aren't welcome there. I know I have seen a few mall shootings in the news lately.

So why ban me from carrying in those places? I have passed 2 separate background checks, taken hours of classroom training, spent uncounted hours on the range and have read more about carrying and safety than I care to admit. But I am not allowed to carry in a movie theater because it seats more than 2500 people? Sports stadiums are banned too. Its only a matter of time before the crazies realize how easy of a target those would be. But I can't carry there in case I am there when that happens.

I don't understand why these gun free zones exist. Criminals obviously don't care about the laws banning them from carrying weapons in them. I am expected to leave my life up to chance in the places where help would take the longest to arrive? It just doesn't compute.

I don't understand how or why the media has made gun owners seem like the bad guys. More often than not, we are the guys you never even notice. We are the good guys who don't make the news because we don't do anything newsworthy. But let it be known that I own or God forbid, carry a gun? I am an evil monster.

Can someone please help me make sense of these things?

 

[Scotteq]

Because there are people who can not believe anyone who carries a firearm could possibly be "Good"

 

[highland145]

TLDR.

Except for your court house and barber, do any of those places have detectors?

 

[Mixolydian]

I don't care about guns.

 

[highland145]

I don't care about guns.

Have you gotten your tattoo yet? Because you don't know your history.

 

[nageov3t]

security theater to make people feel better.

like having to take laptops out of bags at the airport

 

[irishScott]

The only real rational reason (and it's a fairly weak one) is accident prevention. You don't want some high school kid walking down the hall with his hunting rifle, however innocently. Maybe his trigger discipline sucks. Maybe it's normally good but he didn't get enough sleep last night and his finger's on the trigger anyway, some kid in a rush to get to class bumps the rifle, trigger gets pulled and it goes off. Stuff like that. It happens in homes more often than it should, let alone more chaotic environments.

That said, people who are licensed and have passed the safety exam should be exempt. And at least around here, they usually are (a few types of locations are permanently off limits, but you can carry your gun a school provided you're a registered visitor and you have a CCW).

I don't think anyone could argue that gun free zones are effective against criminals. Not unless every entrance has a scanner and armed guards.

 

[SparkyJJO]

I don't think anyone could argue that gun free zones are effective against criminals. Not unless every entrance has a scanner and armed guards.

Well then it wouldn't be a gun free zone now would it :sneaky:

 

[irishScott]

I also agree that our portrayal in the media is disgustingly slanted for the most part. They don't get their facts straight, they lie and twist the truth to ridiculous degrees (down to outright fabrication in the case of Zimmerman) and anything they can possibly do to make us look like backwoods rednecks or psychopaths.

Whenever the next moron tries a mass shooting, because realistically speaking it's going to happen again sooner or later (hopefully later.. as in 1000 years later), I hope it's someone with a CCW who stops it, and that it gets caught on a security camera; and then I hope said CCW holder isn't a pompous dick about it.

 

[highland145]

I don't think anyone could argue that gun free zones are effective against criminals. Not unless every entrance has a scanner and armed guards.

Show me on mass shooting that wasn't a gun free zone.

 

[mmntech]

Penn Jillette put it best. People who want to ban guns are the same people who do not trust themselves with a gun. They fear that they will be the one who uses it for the wrong reasons.

On the flip side, I think the pro-gun crowd doesn't really understand how effective (or rather ineffective) they would be in a real firefight. Especially against a deranged shooter. As any military or law enforcement person will tell you, you don't want to get yourself in a standoff. That's a very dangerous situation to be in. You want to deescalate the confrontation before needing to resort to lethal force. Also, there have been fairly few incidents where an armed civilian has stopped a mass shooter. Illegal guns also remain a problem, and those badly need to be clamped down on.

 

[feralkid]

Show me on mass shooting that wasn't a gun free zone.

O.K.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Tucson_shooting

 

[MomentsofSanity]

Show me on mass shooting that wasn't a gun free zone.

IHOP, Nevada
Giffords shooting, Arizona
Hialeah Florida
Geneva county, Alabama

That's four. How many more you need?

 

[cpacini]

Serious question, do you actually thing that a stadium with 70000 people, many who are drinking alcohol, would actually be safer if we began to allow people to carry a gun into sports venues?

I cannot recall any shooting incidents occurring at a professional or major college sports venue. They tend to be relatively secure, bag/purse checks and sometimes metal detectors at entrances, Law Enforcement officers on site, etc. They would be a poor target for a lone crazy or a coordinated attack by a group as there are simply easier targets available.

If we did allow firearms in sports arenas there would be accidents, drunk people would do stupid things, and people would die. I cant see how that is better than what we have now.

 

[DaveSimmons]

If you've met the standards for concealed carry, and it isn't in a state (Texas?) where the standard is "you're breathing", then I see your case as different from Joe Shotgun who only passed a purchase background check to prove he hasn't killed anyone lately.

Joe Shotgun should be allowed to own a gun (I take the second amendment to mean personal ownership), but I have no problem with banning him from open carrying in many locations.

I'd be OK with allowing gun owners to carry in most locations if they could prove they were well-trained and mentally stable.

 

[highland145]

O.K.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Tucson_shooting

AZ is a gun free zone....oh, well.

 

[highland145]

I don't think anyone could argue that gun free zones are effective against criminals.

Let me start over...

Actually, let me respond in the AM.

 

[feralkid]

AZ is a gun free zone....oh, well.

Say what?

 

[irishScott]

Let me start over...

Actually, let me respond in the AM.

I didn't say people wouldn't, I said they couldn't.

Anyone who assumes a criminal will obey a "no guns allowed" sign needs to be sent back to elementary school on the short bus.

 

[x-alki]

I carry for the same reasons rudeguy does except I don't give a rats ass if a business is a gun free zone. I will still carry in those places. Gun free zones signage doesn't carry any weight of the law in Indiana so all they can do is ask you to leave.

 

[Gunslinger08]

General ignorance by the public that's been woefully misinformed by the media. The media is either knowingly biased or just painfully uneducated. I think most people in "shall issue" states would be shocked by how many people around them carry a concealed gun on a daily basis, without incident.

Thankfully, my area is still pretty wide open - the only places you really can't carry are schools, churches (while in service), and courthouses. I haven't seen a single private business (including the malls) with a "no guns" sign.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

Question for you OP. You state people "choose" to shoot up gun free zones. Do you have any examples that someone chose a location specifically for that reason?

Mass shootings almost always happen in a place the shooter themselves has an attachment, or the person they are targeting initially is in that place.

 

[Nebor]

If you've met the standards for concealed carry, and it isn't in a state (Texas?) where the standard is "you're breathing", then I see your case as different from Joe Shotgun who only passed a purchase background check to prove he hasn't killed anyone lately.

Joe Shotgun should be allowed to own a gun (I take the second amendment to mean personal ownership), but I have no problem with banning him from open carrying in many locations.

I'd be OK with allowing gun owners to carry in most locations if they could prove they were well-trained and mentally stable.

Texas has one of the most thorough CHL training programs in the country, and is the second most expensive license next to NY. The license meets federal standards exempting CHL holders from background checks when purchasing new firearms. CHL holders in Texas are also statistically more law abiding (less frequently arrested or convicted) than peace officers.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Because there are people who can not believe anyone who carries a firearm could possibly be "Good"

Well, there are people who legally carry guns who aren't "good" so I ask you, why should I trust a complete stranger who is armed with a gun?

This gun owner is very skeptical that arming everyone who wants to carry a gun is a good thing. I question their motives, I question the statistics and I question that the states will do a good job with testing and licensing. I sure as hell don't want one of you crazy fuckers at my kid's school policing the place.

 

[DaveSimmons]

Texas has one of the most thorough CHL training programs in the country, and is the second most expensive license next to NY. The license meets federal standards exempting CHL holders from background checks when purchasing new firearms. CHL holders in Texas are also statistically more law abiding (less frequently arrested or convicted) than peace officers.

Thanks, it's apparently (some) open-carry yahoos and/or the media that gives Texas the reputation of being the Yosemite Sam capitol of the US