These localized "gun-free" zones are the worst option in my opinion. What's the point of banning guns in DC or Chicago, when you can drive a few miles and easily purchase a gun there? For gun control to be effective it needs to be nationwide with no exceptions and strictly enforced with severe penalties. I truly believe this would drastically reduce the murder rate but it might increase burglaries and other less serious crimes. I don't know if allowing everyone to carry a concealed gun everywhere would reduce murder-suicides like these. You have to realize that these perpetrators want to die and take a few people with them. Armed citizens would not be a big deterrent to these people. I understand the intention and advantages of the second amendment, but it certainly comes with a big cost in its current form. I still say strict nationwide gun ban or at least getting rid of all gun-free zones. The localized gun-free zones and the easy availability of guns is a very dangerous mix.

__________________
2004 VW Jetta TDI (manual)

Past MB's: '96 E300D, '83 240D, '82 300D, '87 300D, '87 420SEL

if the guy wants to pop off a few people before him self he could be stopped sooner if someone with a concealed weapon took him out before the attacker takes out 10-20 innocents.

Its still a flying joke some terrorist took over a bunch of planes with.. box cutters... I carry one of those at work and no one gives me their money...

They don't have to be a deterrent. Just kill them whenever they surface.

- Peter.

__________________
2021 Chevrolet Spark
Formerly...
2000 GMC Sonoma
1981 240D 4spd stick. 347000 miles. Deceased Feb 14 2021
2002 Kia Rio. Worst crap on four wheels
1981 240D 4spd stick. 389000 miles.
1984 123 200
1979 116 280S
1972 Cadillac Sedan DeVille
1971 108 280S

Sadly even arming everyone is probably a bad idea. Look at the wild west, look at someone the wrong way and they would start shooting.

Considering the average person is a moron I would be scared giving them guns.

I don't think their is a solution to this, other then trying to ID these people before they snap.

__________________
2016 Corvette Stingray 2LT
1969 280SE
2023 Ram 1500
2007 Tiara 3200

I like the idea of everyone (who is qualified to carry) having the choice to open carry or conceal carry, however, given the choice to open carry or conceal, I would personally choose to conceal. I think that open carry in some situations gives away tactical advantage and/or could cause one to be targeted first.

If you have a room full of people, and only one person is open carrying, as the bad guy, who would you shoot first? I think the guy who is open carrying will be the first target. If everyone conceals, the BG does not know who is armed and who is not. It keeps them guessing. Keeping the BG guessing is advantageous for everyone because the BG might look at someone and say to them selves that a particular person looks like an easy target, but who knows for sure if they are packing. This sort of helps those who decide not to carry.

As for it being unconstitutional, I would agree in the fact that a right (not a privilege) is being taxed or costing money to exercise. In TX it cost $150 every four years to exercise my right. It does not cost money to exercise our First amendment, why should it cost us to exercise the second.

No feel good measure is gonna stop criminals from getting guns.

It's been proven time after time that an armed society is a polite society as cliche as it sounds.

Every major city, metropolitan area, and country that has widespread gun bans for legal purchase and posession suddenly has skyrocketing violent crime rates with firearms because the criminals then have easy pickins on the innocent.

Sorry, it does not work and numerous studies, including FBI internal investigations have proved that gun bans DO NOT reduce firearms related crimes.

These wild west stories you keep hearing are no different than what happens on our streets daily as a result of criminal activity.
Instead of stage coaches we have armored trucks, we still have bank robberies, and we stil have shootouts in the streets.

Great britain now criminalizes homeowners that use firearms and any other weapon for that matter for injuring criminals that break into their homes wether or not their lives were threatened in the process or not.

Contrary to popular belief, ccw holders have to go through background checks before they get their ccw permit, then that information is destroyed so the government can't review the list and go door to door should they get a little too big for their britches, thanks to the NRA fighting for our rights of privacy.
These legal ccw holders actually act more inconspicuous in public while carrying to avoid conflic and confrontation and do not like braggin about their guns and drawing attention to themselves. hence, (concealed) carry.

Granted, you may get a hot headed idiot from time to time, but that's what jails are for, and laws are on the books for.

There are many instances where all the criminal needs to do is see someone pointing a gun at them and they are outta there, and not many people who carry are just itching to blow someone away.

I carry, but to save lives, not to take lives if at all possible.

that is a big misconception brought out by Hollywood.

its very convenient I am doing a paper on this subject as we speak( gun control)




so.. you support Real ID... brave of you

Gum control: Using both hands

__________________
" We have nothing to fear but the main stream media itself . . . ."- Adapted from Franklin D Roosevelt for the 21st century

OBK #55

1998 Lincoln Continental - Sold
Max 1984 300TD 285,000 miles - Sold
The Dee8gonator 1987 560SEC 196,000 miles - Sold
Orgasmatron - 2006 CLS500 90,000 miles
2002 C320 Wagon 122,000 miles
2016 AMG GTS 12,000 miles

Gun control does not work. For that matter prohibition does not work for anything. I am very pro 2A as you might have guessed, however, I do see a need for smart legislature that targets the criminal, not the law abiding citizen. What is unfortunate is that we really have more gun control laws than we really need. What we should do is provide enough funding and incentive to support the laws already in place. Make the states pay if they do not list an individual who is a mental defective to the FBI in a timely manner. Make criminals that commit violent crimes with a gun pay dearly for their activity.

My big problem in those states the have strict handgun bands is that what the government is really saying is that: We the government do not trust you the citizen with a handgun to protect your self and do the right thing and even though we are not going to allow you to protect your self…you the citizen…can not hold us the government responsible for your injuries as a victim.

For gun control to be effective it needs to be nationwide with no exceptions and strictly enforced with severe penalties.

Severe penalties? You mean like our "unconstitutional" lethal injections, or our unconstitutional electric chair, or our unconstitutional death penalty?
Yeah, try to get judges to sentence anyone to a "severe penalty" without the ACLU calling it cruel and unusual.

Great, nationwide. No exceptions? How about the police/parole officers? FBI/CIA/NSA (other gov't agencies)?

Surely, they will have guns. What happens when one of them go "postal" (see gov't workers go crazy despite their great screening psych tests)

Nationwide?

Are you telling me that if the U.S. has a federal law banning X, that said X will prevented from coming in to the country?

If so, I direct you to look directly south and see if you can find anybody or anything crossing our borders without "permission" in spite of a nationwide ban.

So maybe your solution is a world-wide ban on guns and other explosive or dangerous materials?

Have fun finding a gun big enough to enforce that ban.

No, I think the government should just keep disarming all of the law-abiding citizens, and have these great government workers come in and take a nice report about how many more law-abiding citizens have been massacred.

Remember, the university had a "plan in place" to deal with just such a scenario.

Glad if was implemented with such great success.

As far as "well it might only decrease how many people are killed" theory if we allow people to have ccw's, there were a hundred students in the auditorioum, I am sure that someone would have shot him before he killed as many as he did. I would guess it would be less than five seconds for someone to have capped him NOT 30 MINUTES like it took the government workers to arrive and take a nice police report.

And NO I am not attacking the police, but they are not omnipresent no omnipotent.

__________________
'98 SL600 Black/Black
2002 E320 White
'76 450SEL Sold, too thirsty
'85 300TD Sold, shouldn't have
Maybe a 280SL someday

I think the “wild west” notion is a crock and largely a TV myth. Truth be told, during that period of history there were less murders per capita then since the time we enacted our first gun control laws. This is the same line the anti’s used when Florida allowed their citizens to conceal carry. The antis cried it will be the “wild west”, people shooting each other over parking spots at the mall and etc. The same was said when Texas enacted carry laws. The anti’s were wrong, it did not become the wild west. We do not have CHL holders shooting people over parking spots and stuff.

I can tell you that it does serve a greater good. Look at the mega church shooting a few weeks back in Colorado. A mental defective walked into the church (containing several thousand parishioners) armed to do major damage. A person in the congregation who had a concealed handgun license, took action and only four people were killed. And of those four people, they were not inside the church (in the parking lot I think). Once the shooter got inside, he was confronted and shot by the alert law abiding citizen. Can you image the carnage this mental defective could have caused? The fact that people were allowed to carry in the church did not discourage the shooter (I give you that), but the quick reaction of the citizen definitely mitigated the damage caused by the shooter. Imagine what would have happened if there were not armed-law abiding citizens, willing to do the right thing, and the parishioners had to wait until law enforcement showed up.

I agree. I used to carry a concealed 9mm when I lived back in South Africa. There was no distinction between concealed and unconcealed. If you managed to get a license in the first place you could carry the weapon however you liked. I'm merely pointing out that the distinction between concealed and unconcealed is a pointless one. It's up to the individual to decide how they wish to carry and permits should have nothing to do with it.

Of course the mere existence of permits to begin with is unconstitutional and thus a crime on the part of the government.

- Peter.

__________________
2021 Chevrolet Spark
Formerly...
2000 GMC Sonoma
1981 240D 4spd stick. 347000 miles. Deceased Feb 14 2021
2002 Kia Rio. Worst crap on four wheels
1981 240D 4spd stick. 389000 miles.
1984 123 200
1979 116 280S
1972 Cadillac Sedan DeVille
1971 108 280S

I agree....

One nice thing about Texas that I failed to mention is that One can legally carry a loaded concealed handgun in their vehicle without a license (given the person in not a crimial and not a member of a gang). The only time a license is rquired is if you wish to carry on your person when outside your home or vehicle.

One nice thing about California's gun laws is....oh...nevermind.

__________________
'98 SL600 Black/Black
2002 E320 White
'76 450SEL Sold, too thirsty
'85 300TD Sold, shouldn't have
Maybe a 280SL someday