Zymunn wrote:
Quote:
They cease to be law abiding once they snap and go on a murder spree.
So as soon as they snap, their legal right is taken away as well as any fire arms. Is that what you are hinting at. They magickly are no longer armed and so therefore less of a danger?
Huh? How the hell did you arrive at that response? Of course not. I'm saying that once they snap and decide to kill a bunch of people, their ability to do so is in no way impaired by laws which prohibit concealed carry or which prohibit firearms entirely in specific areas (like near schools). They will not abide by the laws that say "you can't carry a firearm in this area", but the
law abiding gun owners will. Get it?
Remember that my assumption is that the 2nd amendment is not going to be removed anytime soon (a reasonable assumption). Thus we have to assume that both people who will use firearms to commit crimes and those who wont will be able to obtain them (cause we can't tell them apart until after they start committing crimes, right?). A concealed carry permit and removal of gun free zones doesn't help the mass shooter kill a bunch of people. But it does make it possible for someone else to stop him.
Do people really have such strong mental blocks about gun control that they can't see this? Those laws do absolutely nothing to protect people. If someone wants to commit a crime with a gun, he's already accepted a potential legal penalty that is far greater than that committed by illegally carrying the weapon, or taking it into a gun free zone. Those laws present zero deterrent to his actions. However, they do create an effective deterrent to anyone else who isn't planning on committing a crime, so those people will not carry them or bring them into those areas.
Quote:
If so how are you proposing the govt know when someone popped the last of the bubble wrap in their mind?
I'm not. Nothing at all in my post suggests much less requires that the government do anything at all, or know anything more about the people involved than it currently does. I'm kinda puzzled why you think so. Whether a person is "law abiding" isn't some status the government maintains for them. It's a simple question of whether that person is abiding the law. So the guy who marches into a school with a firearm and starts shooting kids is *not* abiding by the law. The guy who does not have his firearm with him because the law says he can't carry it near a school *is* abiding with the law.
Was that really so hard to grasp? Those laws only serve to ensure that the folks who aren't trying to kill you don't have guns, while those who are do. Set your knee jerk reactions aside and actually think the issue through and you'll see that this is true.
Edited, Dec 18th 2012 5:23pm by gbaji