and no proof that this is why anyplace is a target,,,,,

and I dont believe gun regulation wants to take 'everyones' guns

but rather make sure not EVERYONE is nonchalantly armed with anything manufacturers dream up,,,

Off Base, at the recruiters office.
Do you think that military bases are soft targets?
Didn't one of the Marines shoot at Azizz?

On the pockets of defenselessness, these are places we take our kids, or where we would feel safe knowing they would be when we aren't with them. I don't even have kids but I know I don't want any kids involved in shootings.

I don't know where Argo got his stats but but the second lowest number on the list is defensive use.

Have you looked at Obama's new Guncontrol-Proposals?
Or have you looked a Crazy Bernie Sanders' Proposals?
Still think they are not about abolishing Firearms for Civilians?

Waiting periods are only a step. Registration is only a step. The prohibition of private firearms is the goal.
Janet Reno "Good morning America"

nothing has changed on that Attitude!

Really doesn't matter what you believe,listen to Obama,the rest of the Gungrabber-Crowd,or perhaps read Crazy Bernie Sanders' Proposals!

The 2nd amendment will not be repealed. The Bill of Rights was written in order of importance. 1 a blow like that could easily topple our economy and bring anarchy at the same time. Incase you haven't noticed, citizens far outnumber the Police. Janet Reno would tip over if someone handed her a .38 special. They only want your guns.

Sorry, but the irrationality of this discussion is bugging me.

I support self defense. I do NOT support lying about the facts of the various crimes which have occurred.

There is no evidence to support the claim that these insane murderers believed signs saying "gun free zone." That's minor, but false is false.

There is historic precedent for reducing gun carry in order to reduce gun crime, throughout the Old West. Every town which was infamous for gun crimes, was "tamed" by gun control laws. Not by having everyone packing.

As for the claim that gun crimes dropped in reaction to the change in gun carry laws in Texas, that's political puffery. Not enough time has passed to have any meaningful statistics to go by. Besides, gun crimes have gone down pretty much everywhere recently, so there's no way to tell what the cause of such is.

You missed the correlation. LIBERALS screamed that passing the concealed carry law would have citizens shooting it out all over Texas! It didn't happen. The exact opposite happened. Gun crime, the type where the criminal is the only one with the gun, went down.

Look at Chicago, Baltimore, and DC. The highest gun violence is in the areas where the strictest gun laws exist.

You're misunderstanding the correlation. Texas has lots of people, and tons of open space between the cities and towns. Illinois, Maryland, Virginia, D.C., and Ohio might come close in comparison in acreage but the population density, average wages, job availability, education opportunities have much more to do with gun crimes that liberal politics. Per capita Texas has just as much if not more gun crimes. Statistics don't read as plain English. Theres also the error in self reporting. Texans want guns give em guns you think for a minute they pause on the trigger because they're worried about liberals taking everyone else's guns? The police do the same thing many east coast schools do and fudge the numbers so they can keep their jobs. Arizona's immigration reporting is another example of this. They report fewer immigrants to make it look like their 0tolerance profiling stops are working then when it turns out not in their favor they change the story saying the stats don't reflect reality. Either immigration slowed down there or they don't uphold their own policy. Both cannot be true.
If all of Texas were like Houston and El Paso the numbers would be worse. While we're comparing, Chicago and Baltimore are cities. D.C. Is a district, effectively a city. Texas is one of the biggest 3 States in all of the US.
Crimes don't occur because laws are stricter, laws get stricter because more crimes occur in a smaller area. If 60 teens get killed by gun crime in Belton or Georgetown in 6 months the people there would be calling for change too.

yep,those strict Gunlaws work so great!
Now tell me again how Criminals obey Gunlaws!

still believe that Hollywood-Wild-West-Huey?

Talk about hoowie! The west was tamed by civilzation, not laws!

There were savage indians, claim jumpers, bank robbers, gun slingers, the cowboys and any other number of groups who didn't recognise law or care about a town marshal. They became outnumbered by more people with more guns coming west! The cavalry, the Pinkertons, the war, people moved west and things became more "civilized".

Now over 70% of the statistic is from "illegal guns", under current laws, mostly carried by people who aren't qualified to own them. So to think laws restricting guns and ammo is going to change ANYTHING..... is totally ludicrous!

How soon we forget history!

Disarm a nation and you have 1930's Germany where "the law" creates genocide! Over population is becoming a real problem!

Just look at the police statistics, the actions of our NSA, our rights to travel, speak, assemble, redress our grievances to our representatives of late, and imagine how little it would take to happen again!

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Supreme Court handed down a landmark decision, expressly holding the amendment to protect an individual right to possess and carry firearms. In McDonald v. Chicago (2010), the Court clarified its earlier decisions that limited the amendment's impact to a restriction on the federal government, expressly holding that the Fourteenth Amendment applies the Second Amendment to state and local governments to the same extent that the Second Amendment applies to the federal government

If you want to take people's guns away you will have to amend the constitution.

Food for thought, Switzerland and Sweden are two of the most heavily armed countries in the world, yet no mass shootings.

If you sacrifice freedom for safety, you will acheive neither. Paraphrase of Benjamin Franklin

The correlation is simple but I'll make it simpler. LIBERALS screamed that concealed carry would have citizens in gunfights all over Texas! It didn't happen. The opposite happened. Reality vs BS theory.

You know what? I'm more than happy to carry a concealed weapon, because if for no other reason, it's easier to carry my 9mm, than carrying a cop around on my back all day!

So based on the statistics noted in earlier posts, the number of shootings is less than 1/100th of 1% of the population (about 28,000 divided by 330,000,000). OF those shootings, about 25% are fatal.

So your odds then, as a general member of the population are 1/400th of 1% of being fatally wounded by domestic gunfire in the USA. So 99.06 of the population can breathe a sigh of relief.

For 'mass' shootings, statistically they represent .75% or less than 1% of all shootings. Not a seemingly significant number statistically. I would also caution how the term 'mass' is arrived at. For some statisticians it is used when more than one victim is shot. For others, it is the number of people at the scene who COULD HAVE BEEN shot.

So if I go to my crack dealers house to cap his a** for ripping me off, and only shoot him, but there's 10 crackheads in the house left untouched, that's still a 'mass shooting'. Also of note, when the cops show up and search the house and the crackheads, and they find guns, they are ALL considered to be drug crime guns. Regardless if it's a shotgun buried under a pile of clothes in the back of a closet, or a Mac 10 on the coffee table next to a bag of rocks. The stats would say they were all guns used in the commission of drug crimes.

Beware statistics....

There should not be a single increase in gun regulation in this country until we start enforcing current regulations. Increasing its complexity will not fix it's downfalls. Simple knee-jerk reactions vs critical thinking will get us into trouble in the long run. Eagerness to trade freedom for "safety" will also do the same.

There is no evidence that gun regulation or gun control is effective vs gun violence in its entirety (although it may SHIFT certain demographics). Think about it. Drugs are illegal. Almost anybody can get their hands on cocaine or heroin on a street corner. Laws are designed to effect those WILLING to be effected. On the flip side I must admit there is also no real evidence supporting less regulation equating to less gun violence either. Although I do question the wisdom of disarming those who are trained to defend themselves (such as soldiers in a recruiting station).

I say we focus on things that can help everyone, most likely curb violence, and few will be opposed to, thereby making it achievable.

Hint: Mental healthcare + Cultural influence

Probably should take a look at our foreign policy too (But that may offend some people)...

Been watching too much "Gun Smoke"

Exactamundo

i dont advocate taking anyone's right to gun ownership. i just think it's a bad idea to allow openly carry a sidearm in the public sector....when this practice becomes common in our society i think it will do more harm than good....i would love to hear some feedback from a police officer, from his perspective, about open carry.....imagine him heading out on his beat in NYC or Chicago, Detroit, Cleveland.. etc etc....and seeing everyone wearing sidearms out in the open..a nightmare for him, i suppose...

if it becomes a common practice for everyone to bear their arms in public who is going check and see if the bearer has a license to legally carry his legally owned weapon ?
criminals don't obey laws anyway...open carry would only make it easier for him to carry weapons in public he wouldn't seem out of place at all if everyone else had one on...

also the average Joe, can purchase a weapon for his protection and not bother with the restrictions and training and expense involved with our concealed carry laws already in place...he'll just blend in with the crowd also...

what are cops going to do...spend their whole day confronting people asking for their
license, registration and training certificate.?

imo..the majority our society has determined that unless the citizen, has a viable reason to carry a weapon (concealed) in public, the rest of us agree to keep our weapons at home and authorize a group of citizens who are well trained and competent in the use of firearms to serve and protect us in public places.....namely, the police....and they have enough problems the way things are now, adding more guns and more amatuer gun operators to the mix is a bad idea...

You are right, gun crime has decreased quite steadily since the 90's with a small increase, then decrease again in recent years (crime tends to correlate to economics).

But in the statement above you are assuming that gun control was responsible for decreasing crime in "gun free" towns. We do not know that. During that time your local sheriff knew pretty much everybody, and often ruled with an Iron fist. A repeat rapist or a murderer would likely be hung within days of a crime, after a brief local trial. His body was sometimes put on display as a message to potential offenders. Perhaps the same sheriff so quickly to order all citizens to surrender all arms may practice this extreme authority over criminals too. I am not advocating such behavior by any means. But it would potentially and drastically cut crime rates, perhaps much more so than simply taking everyone's guns.