Firearm Restricted Areas

[Krystov]

I would like to start a healthy discussion on this topic. There are many places where people (law abiding and legally authorized to carry a weapon) cannot carry a weapon, concealed or otherwise such as banks, schools, and government buildings. Now I will exclude government buildings from my reasoning here because many of them are already protected by armed guards and have security checkpoints, but schools and banks are fair game.

I am of the mind that if someone is going to go to bank or school with a firearm, they are doing so with malicious intent. If this is the case, then any laws restricting the possession of firearms is of no concern to these people. What makes this controversial is that the people who are there for their own daily routines are unable to effectively defend themselves, however giving them the ability to carry puts more guns in a place where they could be used to do harm to others (for the record this could be virtually anywhere).

I believe that if people were permitted to carry their own firearms in these places, they could more quickly deal with a bad situation than the minimal security on site could. Highschools and colleges are at the forefront of this idea since only a few officers are left to cover a rather large area. Now I'm not suggesting we put a gun in everyone's hands and let them go. These have to be law abiding citizens who legally purchase a firearm and observe all other laws regarding the concealment and carry of a firearm. If someone were to go to one of these places with the intent to kill as many people as possible, it could be several minutes before anyone could respond and resolve the situation. If there were even one person in the vicinity with a firearm, the situation could be dealt with almost instantly without resulting in potentially more death than necessary.

I would like to hear everyone's comments, both for and against. Please keep it civil though, there's no need to get aggressive, especially when firearms are involve!

 

[MaggieD]

I would like to start a healthy discussion on this topic. There are many places where people (law abiding and legally authorized to carry a weapon) cannot carry a weapon, concealed or otherwise such as banks, schools, and government buildings. Now I will exclude government buildings from my reasoning here because many of them are already protected by armed guards and have security checkpoints, but schools and banks are fair game.

I am of the mind that if someone is going to go to bank or school with a firearm, they are doing so with malicious intent. If this is the case, then any laws restricting the possession of firearms is of no concern to these people. What makes this controversial is that the people who are there for their own daily routines are unable to effectively defend themselves, however giving them the ability to carry puts more guns in a place where they could be used to do harm to others (for the record this could be virtually anywhere).

I believe that if people were permitted to carry their own firearms in these places, they could more quickly deal with a bad situation than the minimal security on site could. Highschools and colleges are at the forefront of this idea since only a few officers are left to cover a rather large area. Now I'm not suggesting we put a gun in everyone's hands and let them go. These have to be law abiding citizens who legally purchase a firearm and observe all other laws regarding the concealment and carry of a firearm. If someone were to go to one of these places with the intent to kill as many people as possible, it could be several minutes before anyone could respond and resolve the situation. If there were even one person in the vicinity with a firearm, the situation could be dealt with almost instantly without resulting in potentially more death than necessary.

I would like to hear everyone's comments, both for and against. Please keep it civil though, there's no need to get aggressive, especially when firearms are involve!

In before Turtle Dude tells me I don't know what I'm talking about.

If one looks at California (the state with the most restrictive guns laws in the nation) and compares that to Texas (which I just grabbed out of mid-air thinking theirs are the least restrictive -- their crime rates per 100,000 are virtually identical. That would seem to belie that walking around with guns makes the world safer...but I could be wrong. http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0308.pdf

 

[Arbo]

If any business or institution want's to be 'gun free', they should have to hire enough security to keep everyone safe and prevent mass shootings. As well, if they do not and such an event happens, they should be automatically held liable.

There is probably a good reason why 90+% of all such event's have happened in a 'gun free zone'.

 

[Guy Incognito]

In before Turtle Dude tells me I don't know what I'm talking about.

Usually that means you're right.

 

[Krystov]

If any business or institution want's to be 'gun free', they should have to hire enough security to keep everyone safe and prevent mass shootings. As well, if they do not and such an event happens, they should be automatically held liable.

There is probably a good reason why 90+% of all such event's have happened in a 'gun free zone'.

I would go so far as to say that this happens in such places because they know that they can inflict the most amount of damage and chaos with the least amount of opposition. Now on a psychological level, if the perpetrator knew that such places weren't such easy targets, less situations would occur in said places. However, if the perpetrator decides that it's as likely to be stopped in these places as other places, such situations could happen anywhere. To that end more people may be discouraged to go through with the mass murder, but that is not to say that such situations would disappear completely, only that they could potentially be reduced in frequency.

 

[Guy Incognito]

I'm confused why you would excuse government buildings. Government is of the people and by the people for the people. The people should be able to exercise their rights in public places.

 

[hazlnut]

I am of the mind that if someone is going to go to bank or school with a firearm, they are doing so with malicious intent. If this is the case, then any laws restricting the possession of firearms is of no concern to these people. What makes this controversial is that the people who are there for their own daily routines are unable to effectively defend themselves, however giving them the ability to carry puts more guns in a place where they could be used to do harm to others (for the record this could be virtually anywhere).

Because nothing says American gun rights like a good ol' Mexican standoff.

 

[Ikari]

I am of the mind that if someone is going to go to bank or school with a firearm, they are doing so with malicious intent.

People brought guns to my school all the time, high school and college. We never had shootings. So obviously you can bring a gun to school without malicious intent and I would wager dollars to donuts the same is true for banks, though private business/property may make their own rules.

 

[hazlnut]

I'm confused why you would excuse government buildings. Government is of the people and by the people for the people. The people should be able to exercise their rights in public places.

Public safety trumps your rights every day of the week and twice on Sundays.

 

[Guy Incognito]

Public safety trumps your rights every day of the week and twice on Sundays.

What an excellent justification for tyranny.

 

[Krystov]

Because nothing says American gun rights like a good ol' Mexican standoff.

I would rather have two people pointing guns at each other not shooting, or shooting only at each other than one person shooting at everyone else.

 

[Krystov]

People brought guns to my school all the time, high school and college. We never had shootings. So obviously you can bring a gun to school without malicious intent and I would wager dollars to donuts the same is true for banks, though private business/property may make their own rules.

As I said, many government buildings already have a substantial amount of armed protection and security checkpoints that attempt to keep items like guns and knives out. Furthermore, several institutions house sensitive information that needs protection. At any government facility that does not require armed protection I would say sure, allow the carry of firearms.

 

[Krystov]

Public safety trumps your rights every day of the week and twice on Sundays.

I would go so far as to say that having more citizens able to protect themselves and others is more publicly safe than having 2 or 3 armed cops or guards per bank or campus. Granted many people cannot see that connection.

 

[TurtleDude]

I would like to start a healthy discussion on this topic. There are many places where people (law abiding and legally authorized to carry a weapon) cannot carry a weapon, concealed or otherwise such as banks, schools, and government buildings. Now I will exclude government buildings from my reasoning here because many of them are already protected by armed guards and have security checkpoints, but schools and banks are fair game.

I am of the mind that if someone is going to go to bank or school with a firearm, they are doing so with malicious intent. If this is the case, then any laws restricting the possession of firearms is of no concern to these people. What makes this controversial is that the people who are there for their own daily routines are unable to effectively defend themselves, however giving them the ability to carry puts more guns in a place where they could be used to do harm to others (for the record this could be virtually anywhere).

I believe that if people were permitted to carry their own firearms in these places, they could more quickly deal with a bad situation than the minimal security on site could. Highschools and colleges are at the forefront of this idea since only a few officers are left to cover a rather large area. Now I'm not suggesting we put a gun in everyone's hands and let them go. These have to be law abiding citizens who legally purchase a firearm and observe all other laws regarding the concealment and carry of a firearm. If someone were to go to one of these places with the intent to kill as many people as possible, it could be several minutes before anyone could respond and resolve the situation. If there were even one person in the vicinity with a firearm, the situation could be dealt with almost instantly without resulting in potentially more death than necessary.

I would like to hear everyone's comments, both for and against. Please keep it civil though, there's no need to get aggressive, especially when firearms are involve!

almost of the massacres that have happened in the last 50 years were in gun free zones Examples

the University of Texas sniper attacks in the mid 60s. The Luby's massacre in Texas. The San Ysidro massacre at a McDonalds in California, Patrick Purdy's slayings at a HS in stockton California, the theater in Aurora Colorado, the VA Tech shootings etc.

 

[Ikari]

As I said, many government buildings already have a substantial amount of armed protection and security checkpoints that attempt to keep items like guns and knives out. Furthermore, several institutions house sensitive information that needs protection. At any government facility that does not require armed protection I would say sure, allow the carry of firearms.

Pfft, we didn't have **** for "armed protection and security checkpoints" at my high school, undergrad, and graduate university.

 

[TurtleDude]

Because nothing says American gun rights like a good ol' Mexican standoff.

why do liberals love disarmed victims and safe working conditions for criminals? is it because unarmed people are more likely to cede rights to the government in the ephemeral promise of more SAFETY?

 

[Krystov]

Pfft, we didn't have **** for "armed protection and security checkpoints" at my high school, undergrad, and graduate university.

Of course not. They're not government institutions guarding sensitive information.

 

[Krystov]

almost of the massacres that have happened in the last 50 years were in gun free zones Examples

the University of Texas sniper attacks in the mid 60s. The Luby's massacre in Texas. The San Ysidro massacre at a McDonalds in California, Patrick Purdy's slayings at a HS in stockton California, the theater in Aurora Colorado, the VA Tech shootings etc.

Exactly my point. Had there been an armed civilian around, situations could potentially be resolved quicker and result in less death.

 

[TurtleDude]

Exactly my point. Had there been an armed civilian around, situations could potentially be resolved quicker and result in less death.

after whitman had shot a bunch of people and the word got out-armed citizens responded to the tower with stuff the cops didn't have, high powered scoped rifles and pinned whitman down allowing a cop and an ARMED civilian to take him out at short range

 

[Deuce]

If any business or institution want's to be 'gun free', they should have to hire enough security to keep everyone safe and prevent mass shootings. As well, if they do not and such an event happens, they should be automatically held liable.

There is probably a good reason why 90+% of all such event's have happened in a 'gun free zone'.

Suddenly it's ok to require people to purchase something.

 

[Guy Incognito]

Suddenly it's ok to require people to purchase something.

Stay focused, Deuce.

 

[Deuce]

Stay focused, Deuce.

I am focused. Security mandate. I'm on board.

 

[TurtleDude]

Suddenly it's ok to require people to purchase something.

i fail to see how that is connected to what he said. If you want to disarm people you have a duty to provide for their safety

 

[Deuce]

i fail to see how that is connected to what he said. If you want to disarm people you have a duty to provide for their safety

Security mandate. It's his suggestion. I agree entirely. Businesses are required by law to provide reasonable safety to their customers on all sorts of things. Like, they can't have electrical wires hanging out of the wall and whatnot. OSHA standards, etc. So why not security?

 

[hazlnut]

I would go so far as to say that having more citizens able to protect themselves and others is more publicly safe than having 2 or 3 armed cops or guards per bank or campus. Granted many people cannot see that connection.

A bank is a large rectangular room with a long counter on one side. Customers are spread out doing their business with bankers, opening new accounts, standing in line.

Enter the armed robbers.

Customers and several bank employees all draw at once. Fearing for their lives and pissing their pants, the poorly trained gun owners frantically open fire... hitting nothing except each other.

The more experienced robbers take cover and locate the one or two competent armed customers right off. They concentrate their firepower on them.

The one or two competent gun owners might have done better had they not been hit multiple times by stray bullets from the other customers.

As the smoke clears and customers lay bleeding to death on the bank floor, the smart teller who ducked for cover is then ordered to fill the robbers' bags with loot.

The robbers get away.

Cops show up and shake their heads in dismay. Stupid people.

Thus endeth the lesson.