Don’t think the security guards here carry guns. I don’t worry about going to the mall here.
I was under the impression security guards in the States carry them (come to think of it I have never even noticed a security guard) and that is where I was talking about as it has crossed my mind what to do as I sat eating my lunch in a FL mall with a 'stand-your-ground’ law. So I stand corrected if US guards don’t carry guns but the possibility of getting caught in crossfire is still a hazard if a concerned citizen starts firing back. Hope I never need to find out.
Laws to make people wait till a criminal check is done help but do not stop the illegal flow of guns across the border.
It is a difficult problem for all concerned but the fewer guns out there the fewer that can be used in anger or turned against you in a home invasion. My opinion.
To restrict or to allow to carry concealed are two very different perspectives from two very different cultures.
Who cares if it was privately owned. There’s a difference between violating a business owner’s personal rules, and violating the law.
One of them has legal repercussions, the other does not.
Correct. We cannot definitively say “lives were saved”, but what we can most definitely say is that the shooter had the desire, means, and ability to kill more people. Both his means and ability were removed when he met the doctor’s response, while he was in the act of murdering people.
If 5 guns exist on the planet and all 5 of them are owned by people who have anger management issues, the probability is almost 1 that it will be used in anger.
Whatever your “fewer” guns number is, there’s always the possibility that 100% of them are owned by angry people, or people who commit home invasions. So the simple idea that “fewer guns means fewer crimes” isn’t necessarily true.
This is the kind of ludicrous argument that is so devoid of logic that it makes my head hurt. The simple reality is that when there are a lot of guns around, and moreover when you have a culture that encourages the proliferation of guns, and believes that the “freedom” to obtain and carry them with a minimum of regulation is more important than public safety, then you end up with a lot of guns going off and a lot of people dying. This is precisely the American gun experience, and precisely the converse is the experience of every other first-world nation in the world.
What Lonnie said is “the fewer guns out there the fewer that can be used in anger, or turned against you in a home invasion”. This is exactly and self-evidently correct and certainly backed up by international comparative statistics. It’s well expressed by Rebecca Peters, a former Johns Hopkins University fellow specializing in gun violence:
“If you have a country saturated with guns – available to people when they are intoxicated, angry or depressed – it’s not unusual guns will be used more often. This has to be treated as a public health emergency.”
And yet that is the premise of this thread: that by freely allowing guns for all, an unknown amount of bad people are annually stopped from doing whatever they would have done.
Well, ignoring the business owner’s express instructions could mean one can’t take a gun anywhere in the future…
*Failing to abide by a business’ signs or policies can result in consequences like:
Trespassing charges: If the business owner requests that a patron leave because they are carrying a gun, the patron can be held liable for trespassing if they refuse to leave the area. Trespassing charges can be more serious if the person is carrying a deadly weapon such as a gun.
Loss of Carrying Privileges: In some states, violating a business’ policies can result in the offender having their gun carrying permit revoked.
Opt-Out Rules
As for the trespassing charges increased severity, that is pretty much why British thieves generally refused to carry guns during their exploits — unless they were bank robbers — even when gun-ownership was fairly legal and widespread: penalties for possessing a firearm in the commission of a crime drastically increased the sentence, even if it was never used.
