If you are not from US, read on for how gun crazy America is.
If you are from the US, and are gun crazy, you will enjoy this.
Kansas recently voted to "require cities and counties to make public buildings [like schools, hospitals, courthouses] accessible to people legally carrying concealed weapons."
Why, "Reasoning that more guns means greater safety." One Kansas politician argued: "The government shouldn’t be able to deny a licensed conceal-carry holder their right to provide for their own protection if the government is not willing to"
But don't worry, there is an upside for security vendors, "Guns can be banned as long as local governments pay for protections like metal detectors and security guards, ensuring the safety of those they have disarmed."
Not surprisingly, while many people in Kansas are happy, quite a few are very concerned about having to choose between legal guns in public buildings or having to find the funds to implement more security.
While this is an emotional, politically charged issue, it must be acknowledged that:
1) The best defense against a bad guy with a gun, is a GOOD guy with a gun.
2) The overwhelming majority of crimes committed with a gun, are committed with a gun that is not lawfully owned.
Whether or not you agree with private gun ownership, bad guys out there already have guns. Your choices to solve this issue run from the politically impossible (repeal of the 2nd Ammendment), the politically impalatable (illegal gun ownership does not fall evenly across US demographic groups, bringing with it politcal issues in enforcement/roundups), or the foolish (setting up zones where good guys are guaranteed to be disarmed).
I for one, feel more safe having the good guy around, who bothered to properly register a concealed-carry, that the sadistic unhinged who hasn't.
Need to know what qualifies as meeting the government's "standards" as well as "policies and procedures" for incorporation of metal detectors and security guards? Who will be providing oversight and authority on the use and incorporation of these standards, policies and procedures? What is the penalty for non-compliance?
I don't see how a state or local law enforcement entity can qualify and license someone to carry a gun - only to then deny to that person their constitutional rights in designated zones. That is to say, allowing for anyone to arbitrarily designate a facility as a "Gun Free Zone". One is either qualified and licensed or is unqualified and unlicensed to carry a firearm or other lethal weapon for that matter.
We all know that active shooters is an issue of precious few minutes and seconds. It requires a layered approach toward response which should include the clear message to anyone contemplating such a crime that they could be confronted by any number of armed responders within that facility. We also need to eliminate the ridiculous use of "Gun Free Zones". These are only INVITATIONS to slaughter, the most defenseless in most cases such as children, those that are unarmed.
Furthermore, I would expect if a loved one were to be harmed in a "Gun Free Zone", and it could be demonstrated that such a designation contributed to that harm, there would be legal liability for the owner of that facility.
The thought is that if you want a truly gun-free zone, you have to do more than just put up a sign that only the law abiding will obey, lest you create a free fire zone for a bad guy.
The government shouldn't deny me my right to self defense with a firearm unless it provides an effective substitute -- and not just a sign. Especially when I don't have a choice whether to enter such a zone.
Private entities are a different matter. Recently I met a colleague for lunch, but changed the venue at the last moment because my first choice told me with a sign that I couldn't enter with my concealed weapon. I respected their choice and we went someplace else instead. But we often don't have a choice when the building is a courthouse or other government building where we are required to do business.
"When seconds count, the police are only minutes away."
This is what I could find from the law itself about the standards:
"Adequate security measures’’ means the use of electronic equipment and personnel at public entrances to detect and restrict the carrying of any weapons into the state or municipal building, including, but not limited to, metal detectors, metal detector wands or any other equipment used for similar purposes to ensure that weapons are not permitted to be carried into such building by members of the public. Adequate security measures for storing and securing lawfully carried weapons, including, but not limited to, the use of gun lockers or other similar storage options may be provided at public entrances."
I am not sure who is reviewing conformance to this.
As to your point about, "One is either qualified and licensed or is unqualified and unlicensed to carry a firearm or other lethal weapon for that matter." Even in the Kansas law, there do seem to be some exceptions to where firearms can be carried, even if one is qualified and licensed.
The majority of casualties at Columbine were in the library.
No one is FORCING the library to spend $200,000US on an armed guard and a metal detector; they can instead allow legally armed patrons to enter. But what about illegally armed persons? The sign never stopped them in the first place.
I firmly believe personal responsibility is a huge element of security. I also suspect I am the most 'red state' of my IPVM colleagues. For me, I see nothing wrong with allowing firearms in public buildings for self defense.
To the 'gunfights in the library' scenario: why in the world would you ever venture somewhere where you might need a gun? Rather, you avoid those places, gun or no gun. You don't need seatbelts or fire extinguishers most of the time either, but that doesn't mean it is unwise to have them.
Unfortunately, the only way to neutralize deadly force is with deadly force... if personal protection is a serious priority, you must take that responsibility for what it entails.
There is nothing inherently 'evil' about a gun, only when they are improperly handled or used do problems arise. The element of the population that seeks to politicize this question is a real concern to me:
You have those who amplify the risks of firearms ('the anti-gunners') who distract attention from the real root cause: evil people. Shame on them.
You also have those who defiantly defend 'the right to carry' as a political statement and march around with guns strapped to their hips openly, simply because someone feels they should not be able to. Shame on them.
The saying goes 'When all you have is a hammer, all your problems look like nails.' When you carry a gun, are you more apt to shoot someone? Am I more likely to be shot by someone in error if guns proliferate? This again firmly depends on the 'personal responsibility' mandate of security. Possessing deadly force in any public place calls for great responsibility.
I might be misreading this or making too much out of it, but I think the poling question might be a little flawed.
For instance, in the case where someone is opposed to guns in federal buildings under no circumstances, what do you answer? If you answer "Good idea", it could be interpreted that you agree with guns in public buildings where there is no enhanced security. If you answer "Bad idea", it could be interpreted that you believe guns should be allowed all the time in public buildings. It seems that there should be a third option, "No guns allowed at all".
If the question assumes that everyone answering is a proponent of guns in public buildings in general, than the answers will be clear since the poled group would accept the basis for the first part of the question.
This is purely a logics/semantics issue. I will leave the politcal banter to others.
I believe in private ownership of guns, including the conceal carry by law abiding citizens. But I also believe there should be some better screening process for people to own guns. I know plenty of people who aren't law breakers but don't have the mentality or temperament to be trusted with guns.
I came to a very difficult decision one day: I decided to call the sheriff's office and tell them I didn't think my dad was mentally fit to own his guns. He's a war veteran with alcohol and anger management issues….. PTSD that he refuses to admit he has. He's even been in jail recently for hitting someone with a pipe in an argument. Has a record of calls about violent behavior. He’s admitted to me homicidal thoughts. But they told me there was nothing they could do. They couldn’t even do an investigation. All they could do was put a warning in their system if an officer ever had to respond to his house that he owns firearms. So I would probably have to take some measures to try and have him declared mentally unfit for firearms through the court system. But if someone’s family member who has no record at all calls about another family member who’s had a history of calls, you’d think something could be done more easily…?
Anyone who hasn’t watched “Bowling for Columbine” should sometime. While admittedly my opinion of Micheal Moore nose dived deeply with how slanted and sensationalist his presentation was, in all the slant and bias, he interviews some people and who you see legally own guns, but you know they damn sure as hell shouldn’t have them.
I'm not convinced letting untrained/poorly trained, gun carrying citizens roam about in public places is a recipe for success. If anything, the opposite is probably true.
They should let the trained professionals take care of increased security where its warranted. And I'm also not convinced all of these places require that level of security. Courthouses, I'll agree with. Schools and hospitals, not so much.
Where's the boatload? Why don't you put together a list of 20 events where people where shot in a library? I think you'll be hard pressed even if you allow yourself to go back as far as Columbine which is now 15 years old.
Murder and homocide rates in the US have been falling since it peaked in 1975. Its actually less than the Clinton Era on the assult weapons ban. But, weapon purcahses have been on the rise since then too. Actually, homocide has been knocked off from the top 14 causes of death in the US.
The interesting thing about that comment is that when goverment uses its powers to bring harm to its people (WW1, WW2), what do the people have to defend themselves with if the goverment takes their arms away?
Not at all.... but we live in a society where the media creates illusions that are not real.
We live in a much safer soceity than what our parents lived according to statistics... but media gives it a different view and unless we educate ourselves, we wont know the truth.
Also, one thing to point out: The school and Movie theater massacres we have had have no place in this country and it needs to stop. But one thing all these places have in common is that they are all "Gun Free" and criminals know that.
We do live in a much safer society, but it seems pretty obvious that the lion's share of that goes to increases in security technology (like DNA, surveillance camera, GPS tracking, etc.) rather than guns. In 1975, it was much easier to get away with murder (literally).
Unfortunately, the type of people who go out on killing rampages probably don't care much wether someone else in the room has a gun or not.
Out of the 25 rampage killings in the past 20 years in the U.S., the majority (15) ended with the killer commiting suicide (11) or being shot by police (4). As for the other 10, most were either determined to have severe psychological issues or as being under the influence of drugs at the time of the rampage.
Any expert worth his salt will tell you it's nearly impossible to defend against someone who feels they have nothing to loose and little or no regard for their own well being.
It's also impossible to determine after the fact, but my guess is that if those 25 incidents hadn't played out the way they did, they still would have taken place in some form or other regardless of the amount of security involved in trying to prevent them.
Though this only speaks about households not people as the orginal poster asserted. Please understand I am not taking a position on whether more people own guns now or before, they may, they may not. I am simply saying your ownpremisesdo not support your conclusion that Undisclosed statement is empircally false.
If one considers the assumption that a person carying a gun is responsible and trained and emotianally stable to know how to use it, to be precise and not affect the innocent bystandard, then one may assume that every person who has a valid vehicle drivers license will follow the law, be polite on the road and never ever get into an accident.
I've seen a discussion on gun use in schools and the ability of even law enforcment to respond under critical circumstances, how does one know that a civilian has had the same training, physically and emotionally to use a weapon in a bad situation.
Percentage terms is what counts. The number of US household has increased by 80% since 1970 (63m to 114m) but the number of gun owners less than 30%. That's why the ownership rate has dropped so significantly.
The bottom line is that people are far less likely to own a gun or be armed than they were in the 1970s. So criminals are far less likely to encounter people with guns today than in the 1970s.
Despite this, the total number of crimes is the same in 2012 as it was in 1974, despite the fact that the population has grown by 100 million people (i.e., the crime rate has decreased about 30%, ironically about the same level as gun ownership has dropped).
It's funny that the discussion goes wether people should be allowed to carry a gun in a public building. You already agreed to it that people can carry a gun on the street, concealed. Does it really matter then where they reside then. You already opened pandora's box.
So criminals are far less likely to encounter people with guns today than in the 1970s.[A]
I could agree with that...
But don't you really mean to say "criminals with guns are far less likely to encounter people with guns today than in the 1970s."[B]
The thing is that everybody agrees we need to take guns away from criminals, and most would agree that the idea is not to simply take away guns from law-abiding citizens for its own sake. Rather the anti-gun position would be that we need to take away guns from everyone in order to deny access to those who would use them for evil.
But if the rate of "criminal households" who own a gun has not fallen like the general rate, (implied by [B]), then that might imply the stricter gun laws have had far more impact on the legal gun owner than the criminal. Otherwise [B] might not hold as gun holders would be reduced equally in both groups...
p.s. Regardless of how many library shootings I end up finding, its been f'ing depressing reading the mostly idiotic and always tragic accounts of the human condition gone awry...
In all seriousness, I would not make that assumption.
Many police forces, especially with reduced budgets, have very low standards for officer firearm training and qualifications. Stories of officers in smaller towns that go their entire career without discharging their weapon are not uncommon at all. NYC in particular made the news some time ago for their poor grade for officers and firearms training IIRC.
An individual who carries a firearm for their own protection will more frequently take a strong interest in gun safety and handling and accuracy, including a good amount of private range time. Not always of course, but very common.
With no other data, the answer to "Who is safer in school with a gun, cop or teacher?" is not a clear decision.
I'm curious on what makes you think there is no threat now or in the future. What about the NSA leaks, doesn't that tell you that the goverment thinks it has too much power? i agree we currently don't have a threat, but what about tomorrow?
I am not saying that we should revolt or anything like that.... But it always reminds my of this quote:
When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. When the government fears the people, there is liberty.
he also went ahead and said that every man is a soldier. I couldn't agree more. As a citizen of this amazing country, it's my duty to be prepared to defend it no matter the cost. I'm not being radical here, just being American!
I'm sure statistics for criminals using a gun in a crime are a lot higher.
Something else to consider... when you get a carry permit, you have to have your fingerprints taken and submit to a background check. If you commit a crime with a gun as a permitted carry holder, it would be much easier to catch you than if you hadn't gone through the checks.
And you honoustly think that having your own personal gun would help you protect against an army ? The US army for that matter ? Do you think that when the French revolutions took place in the civilians all had bows and swords ? The power of a revolution doesn't come solely from the weapons carried, but the fact that soldiers are forced to fight their own brothers and sisters.
Using gun laws to 'protect' yourself from your own gouverment is just nonesense. I personally just find that a cheap excuse to own a gun.
All I know is that when I got my concealed carry permit I had 8 of my friends in the class with me and out of those 8 I am the only one who carries everyday. I would imagine that those numbers are not very far off from the rest of the nation. Carrying a loaded weapon is a huge responsibility and one that I do not take lightly. The state requirements to get a permit in my state are a joke as far as I am concerned. You need 12 hours of classroom training and there is no shooting qualification, therefore you can go sit in a class, take what is basicaly an open book test and go get your permit. They are actually looking to reduce the class time to 4 hours now.
I went out and took professional training and I joined an outdoor range when I can shoot while moving (not just standing in a lane). I also shoot IDPA shoots occasionally which really put you to the test. I would say that I certainly shoot more than some of the police officers I know. I feel that if confronted with a sutuation, I will at least have a fighting chance.
One more thing, I think there are alot of people out there that dont realize how many people do actually carry at a given time. You would never know by looking at me that I had one (sometimes two) guns on me and likely a knife. Look around the next time you are out at the mall, local eatery, or Wal-mart, if you know what to look for you may be surprised to see that there are quite a few prople carrying even though I still think only 1 out of 8 do it daily!
What I find saddest about the above is the abuse of Thomas Jefferson's quote. The right wing seems to think very literally here, that the government should literally fear for its life, and anyone who doesn't understand that the second amendment is the most American and important thing ever is un-American.
The government isn't afraid, nor will it ever be afraid of your freaking guns, dudes. They have a military that will stomp the crap out of you and everyone else around you. That you think hoarding ARs will protect you from your government is laughable. You cite the NSA. Are you going to stop the government from spying on its citizens by shooting them?
Everyone in government should fear us. They should fear for their jobs though. They should fear the nonsense status quo be flipped. But they don't, because half the country is out there worried more about their guns than actually effecting real change. Washington laughs at you because you're so distracted by taking the second amendment literally (except you're hardly a well-regulated militia) don't understand their are actual issues afoot. The rest of the world laughs at the entire nation because they can't believe we can't even pass a law to implement better background checks, get stupidly high-capacity magazines off the street, and whatever other reasonable actions we should take.
And final word: if you're all this afraid, please burn your concealed carry permits and melt down your guns, because the last person I want walking around with a loaded weapon is someone in fear.
I am a firm believer that the founders included 2A as a means to squelch an out of control government. I am not a radical, right wing lunatic, I just feel that at that point in history there was no question that almost everyone had firearms for hunting and other purposes, so I can't see them taking the time to state the obvious. Furthermore, they had just crushed an out of control dictator that attempted to remove their weapons, so they wanted to be sure that another one could take them away.
The government isn't afraid, nor will it ever be afraid of your freaking guns, dudes. They have a military that will stomp the crap out of you and everyone else around you. That you think hoarding ARs will protect you from your government is laughable.
Obviously you have been under a rock for awhile. Have you every heard of a country called Lybia? How about Syria...ring a bell? Both of which had large, mainly civilian, uprisings that have, at the very least, been very challenging for the official military to handle. What I think you may be forgetting is that it takes people to run tanks and planes and ships, and you are trusting that those folks will be able to actually perform those dutues against fellow countrymen if God forbid it ever came to that. As witnessed elsewhere, many would simply leave and go to the otherside...weapons in tow.
Are you saying we should remove them? I mean I am not opposed to anyone who wants to get rid of 2A, as long as you actually get rid of 2A constitutionally. If the government successfully passed an amendment to do away with 2A I would gladly give up my guns. But if you want to go and pass a bunch of laws that take away my constitutional rights and skirt the document that this country was built upon then I have an issue with that.
This is going to be my last comment in this thread, because I'm not going to be convinced, and neither is the other side. I am also not going to give history lessons here, but:
There are so many differences between the colonies in 1774 and America now that claiming anything to be analagous is silly.
Yeah, I have heard of Lybia and Syria. If you're holding them up as an example of why We The People need guns, you probably should reconsider. And if you think that change is best effected behind the barrel of a gun, we are never going to agree.
Even if "many" in the armed forces left, do you really think enough wouldn't be left to operate enough heavy weapons to kill every last person in the US?
The root of everything is:Gun laws don't prevent criminals from getting guns. This is true. But carrying guns is a personal solution to a giant problem. The big picture will remain the same.
No law ever prevented a crime, thats why we are all here on a security website and that is why I feel the need to carry a gun. And I never said that change is BEST effected behind the barrel of a gun, but it is cetainly an option when all else has failed.
I definitely agree with undisclosed on this point: "The government isn't afraid, nor will it ever be afraid of your freaking guns, dudes. They have a military that will stomp the crap out of you and everyone else around you."
This is very true. A key part of the 2nd Amendment provision is organizing a militia, which aside from a smattering of survivalists and fringe radicals, is non existent. A bunch of men unwilling to pay a parking ticket because of 'big government' is not all of a sudden going to fall in line with a 'chief' because they hate the same enemy. I've watch enough documentaries about street and biker gangs to learn this. :)
Military training focuses on operational discipline, equipment familiarity, and absolute chain of command hierarchy. A random bunch of deer rifles against a modern rifleman squad ispretty one sided.
In Iraq, the insurgent population had ready access to 'Class III' firearms that are not common in the US - stuff like fully automatic machine guns, RPGs, mortars, and loads of artillery shells they made IEDs from. ...and they still got obliterated.