A Common Sense Gun Control Proposal

[CROSBYK2]

After watching the horrific events that unfolded in Oregon yesterday and then subsequently watching the Obama speech, I find myself agreeing with Obama on one part of his speech. That one part is we need to pass a common sense gun control plan that will produce a positive effect on the dangers of mass shooting here in this country.

My proposal is simple, ban all gun free zones in the United States. The reasoning is simple, criminals and people that are the cause of these mass shootings don't follow the gun fee zone rules and laws anyways, only the law abiding citizens do. By eliminating gun free zones, the rules will now be the same for both sides of the equation making it likely that these crimes will be reduced or the severity of the mass shootings less as the law abiding citizens will have a way to stop it. In short, the people that are being shot will have the ability to defend themselves. What a concept!

If you find yourself disagreeing with my proposal, I would like to remind you that by doing so the criminals and people that carry out mass shootings will be applauding your decent and will join with you to prevent law abiding citizens from being able to protect themselves. Their ability to effectively carry out crime and mass shootings depends on the government at all levels to insure citizens are not able to effectively defend themselves.

[atomic41]

Common sense indeed.

[yukonjasper]

I'll go along with that.

[Hmac]

State law doesn't ban firearms on public education campuses in Oregon, carry permit holders are legally allowed to carry on school grounds K-college. However, most colleges and universities in the STATE system there use a legal loophole that prevents that requires that "people doing business with" that university (including students and faculty) can't carry in buildings on the premises.

That "no gun" policy of the state universities in Oregon don't apply to Umpqua Community College and that school doesn't avail itself of that particular loophole. They do state in their handbook and policy manual that "Possession, use or threatened use of firearms (including but not limited to BB guns, air guns, water pistols and paint guns), ammunition, explosives, dangerous chemicals or any other objects as weapons on campus property, except as expressly authorized by law or college regulations, is prohibited." Bottom line... anyone on Umpqua Community College property carrying a gun isn't breaking any law, but they are breaking the school's rules. . IOW...Umpqua Community College is posted with a "no guns" sign. And...like Minnesota, carrying in a "no-guns" zone isn't illegal unless you are discovered, asked to leave the premises, and you refuse. No gun policies don't have the force of law in Oregon. Of course, if you're a student you could be expelled if caught, and if you work there you could be fired.

[Uffdaphil]

"And...like Minnesota, carrying in a "no-guns" zone isn't illegal unless you are discovered, asked to leave the premises, and you refuse. No gun policies don't have the force of law in Oregon. Of course, if you're a student you could be expelled if caught, and if you work there you could be fired."

What am I missing? This seems like a moot point. Who, besides students or employees, is likely to be in the school shooter's target zone? The effect of the threat of expulsion or job loss is the same as if carrying were illegal - only unarmed persons present.

[Hmac]

"And...like Minnesota, carrying in a "no-guns" zone isn't illegal unless you are discovered, asked to leave the premises, and you refuse. No gun policies don't have the force of law in Oregon. Of course, if you're a student you could be expelled if caught, and if you work there you could be fired."

What am I missing? This seems like a moot point. Who, besides students or employees, is likely to be in the school shooter's target zone? The effect of the threat of expulsion or job loss is the same as if carrying were illegal - only unarmed persons present.

Does't look like you missed anything. It's not a point at all, just an observation. I typed that as some person on Fox was going on about how bad it is that state law prohibits firearms on public college campuses in Oregon. It doesn't.

[Rodentman]

Agreed. By having gun free zones that the bad guys of course ignore gives them an advantage in active shooter situations. We need to level the playing field. My concern is proper training. There are those who feel that the 2nd amendment doesn't mandate training. It may not, but I have no issue with training.

A permit holder tries to intervene in a "situation" and ends up shooting innocents. This would be a tragedy and not help the cause. I would support several hours of added training dealing with specific active shooter situations. It isn't a war, we don't (at least I don't) have the physical conditioning of soldiers, and that's part of the problem, lives of innocents can't and must not be written off as collateral damage.

[Hmac]

Agreed. By having gun free zones that the bad guys of course ignore gives them an advantage in active shooter situations. We need to level the playing field. My concern is proper training. There are those who feel that the 2nd amendment doesn't mandate training. It may not, but I have no issue with training.

A permit holder tries to intervene in a "situation" and ends up shooting innocents. This would be a tragedy and not help the cause. I would support several hours of added training dealing with specific active shooter situations. It isn't a war, we don't (at least I don't) have the physical conditioning of soldiers, and that's part of the problem, lives of innocents can't and must not be written off as collateral damage.

Everyone should be allowed to have to tools to defend themselves but I would guess that the average handgun permittee in the US has zero handgun or self-defense training beyond what is required for the permit.

[Seismic Sam]

All the schools in Israel did that decades ago, and since 1974 there has just been ONE instance of a school shooting there. despite the presence of thousands of Palestinians nearby who would just love to murder a school full of Jews.

[atomic41]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=242&v=hR3t7j2tUec

Once again, Colion nails it. Psychos that commit these acts want their name burned into your brain forever...stop giving them that.

By the way, is anyone watching his show this season? (season4) The first two episodes have been awesome, he has really upped his game.

[UnaStamus]

We live in a society where they want to trade lions for lambs. Instead of having those that can defend themselves, the progressives believe that the weak will not be victimized if those that attack are also weak. Unfortunately for them, we all know better. We know that a weak person becomes dependent upon a protector.

Common sense gun laws is like anything else common sense- the common sense that most people should have in this country is no longer common.

[45Badger]

Mall ninja dreams of most of us aside, the statistically possible/probable possibility of an armed citizen effectively intervening (or being in a position to effectively intervene) Is screamingly slim. This math starts with the rare occurrences of mass shootings.

Guns on campuses are effectively only a "feel good" for us. No guns on campus is a "feel good" for the anti gunners. If we want to keep crazy people from getting access to guns, there are graduated steps we can take. The easy (to me) steps tend to be offensive to people who care about mental health privacy. The easy steps for Mr Obama and crew tend to be offensive to most of us. At some point, enough of us will be more offended by dead kids than medical records privacy or private transfer restrictions to do something about it. Or we won't.

Until then, shoot straight and keep your head down.

[Uffdaphil]

"all ninja dreams of most of us aside, the statistically possible/probable possibility of an armed citizen effectively intervening (or being in a position to effectively intervene) Is screamingly slim. This math starts with the rare occurrences of mass shootings. "

Could not disagree more. Given the percentage of carry permit holders, the odds of an armed person being in a classroom or close by would be very good. We have several recent examples of unarmed citizens intervening, some successfull and some not which could have been had the person been armed. Banning private transfers is a huge infringement that would do little to stop killers and much to aid a tyrannical government. Evil jihadists, gangbangers and whackos will always be able to procure guns from criminals. 

Being prepared for a statistically unlikely possibility is exactly why anyone carries. That mall ninjas  also carry does not make the planning ahead of the rest of us a " ninja dream".

[Hmac]

"all ninja dreams of most of us aside, the statistically possible/probable possibility of an armed citizen effectively intervening (or being in a position to effectively intervene) Is screamingly slim. This math starts with the rare occurrences of mass shootings. "

Could not disagree more. Given the percentage of carry permit holders, the odds of an armed person being in a classroom or close by would be very good. We have several recent examples of unarmed citizens intervening, some successfull and some not which could have been had the person been armed. Banning private transfers is a huge infringement that would do little to stop killers and much to aid a tyrannical government. Evil jihadists, gangbangers and whackos will always be able to procure guns from criminals. 

Being prepared for a statistically unlikely possibility is exactly why anyone carries. That mall ninjas  also carry does not make the planning ahead of the rest of us a " ninja dream".

Do you wear a kevlar helmet and neck brace with 5-point restraint harness in your vehicle? Being involved in a car accident where those preparations might save your life is statistically far more likely than ever having to defend your life with a firearm.

Now, I'm not opposed in any way to people carrying firearms for self-protection. In fact, I do it myself occasionally in circumstances where it's not too inconvenient or I might be at higher risk and I am a staunch defender of the Second Amendment. But if we're talking about mitigation of daily risk, I suppose we should be applying all of the easy things to our lifestyle that make us safe. Seems odd to me, for example, that people will ride a motorcycle without a helmet on the one hand and staunchly promote their need to be able to preserve their life with a handgun on the other hand.

Just an observation.

[45Badger]

We agree on everything but the statistical relevance. I have guns for all sorts of reasons, including personal/family security and just plain fun.

The statistical odds that I (or any of us) will ever need them for the former are exceptionally low. The odds that I will need them because I am confronted by mass shooter are another gazillion factor lower. The odds that I will be suddenly stupid and run towards the the gunfire of a mass shooter and use my handgun to engage/kill/disable/scare him without causing collateral damage, getting shot by him, or getting shot by police are even lower. I think it's all summed up by my use of the word "effectively" in my first post.

Lest you think I am anti mall ninja, I'm relatively proficient in the use of handguns, rifles and shotguns. When I focus and pay attention, I'm pretty good. I'm a lapsed NRA instructor in basic pistol and personal protection. Have competed a couple states BS trainings for carry requirements and completed a couple self defense and force on force workshops. I have just as much Walter Mitty old white guy testosterone as the next gun nut. And then the facts get in the way.

If I'm ever stupid or unlucky enough to be in the position of needing armed self defense, I will be very happy to escape with my skin intact.