Armed Patrons kill gunman in church

Originally posted by Surtur
Bingo. It's so weird that they are almost as triggered over a mass shooting being stopped as they are over actual mass shootings.

Yes, but do you support my gun law regulation policies?

13. Implement better federal gun controls, across the board, the establishes minimum standards for gun regulation:
-Hearty Background Checks
-Hearty Conceal Carry Licensing requirements.
-Child Access Prevention requirements (and steep fines for violations - too many children accidentally kill themselves with guns each year and this is not okay).
-Domestic Violence (and just plain violence which would be covered in a) - denials on gun purchases if it meets certain DV criteria. Such as convictions or pending criminal cases. If acquitted of charges, then that should not stop people.
Extreme Risk Denials (part of “A”...somewhat. But mental health should be more the focus in this category).

I need some of the ideas fleshed out. What does a hearty conceal carry license requirement look like to you? For instance in my state you gotta pay a couple hundred bucks and do 16 hours of training(a 2 day class, 8 hours each day). Would that be enough? If not, what would?

And what kind of child prevention requirements would you mean?

EDIT: And what would you do when it comes to background checks that we don't do now?

There is recidivism data but what you're asking, I don't know if it exists. That seems to be a subset of a subset of people. Such a small data set that you could probably google search every single case for the last 10 years to find your data. Almost none are first time offenders. [

Originally posted by dadudemon
Yes, but do you support my gun law regulation policies?

https://lawcenter.giffords.org/categories-of-prohibited-people-in-massachusetts/

Also even tho we dont require guns themselves to be registered, any sale must be registered with the state.

https://lawcenter.giffords.org/background-checks-procedures-in-massachusetts/

Massachusetts General Law c. 140, §§128A and 128B, requires all individuals who sell, transfer, inherit, or lose a firearm to report the sale, transfer, inheritance, or loss of the firearms to the Department of Criminal Justice Information Services Firearms Records Bureau (FRB). This on-line system will allow you to report the sale, transfer, inheritance, or loss/theft data electronically to the FRB

And each ltc has to be approved by i believe ur local law enforcement agency before being issued.

Here in Mass we have some of the strictest gun laws in the country. We are also at the top of the list for fewest gun deaths per 100,000.

Then i looked into other states laws and murder numbers and found that New Hampshire has some of the most lax gun laws in the country and they too are are annualy at the top of the list for fewest gun deaths per 100,000.

The deeper i looked into it, I found that there was less correlation between states that had tough/lax gun laws and high gun deaths and overall violent crime as there was between states with the lower education levels and murder/violent crime rates.

I dont recall the exact #'s, but think i discussed this with u before and provided links and graphs and stuff to back up the info, but from what i can remember i basically broke down like this.

Tough gun laws + low education levels= high gun deaths/violent crime

Lax gun laws + low education levels= high gun deaths/violent crime

Tough or lax gun laws + high education levels = low gun deaths/ violent crime

What does this mean for what kind of gun laws we should have? Hell if i know

Maybe we just shouldnt let stupid people have guns. Is there a way we could do that?

Originally posted by 1705710x
Originally posted by Raptor22
Maybe we just shouldnt let stupid people have guns. Is there a way we could do that? [

Could do basic IQ test. Might not be a bad idea.

Though this would mean that Trump supporters would lose their guns, I see right through your Liberal/Leftist/Progressive tactics! :0

Originally posted by Robtard
[QUOTE=1705710x]Originally posted by Raptor22
[B]Maybe we just shouldnt let stupid people have guns. Is there a way we could do that? [

Could do basic IQ test. Might not be a bad idea.

Though this would mean that Trump supporters would lose their guns, I see right through your Liberal/Leftist/Progressive tactics! :0 [/B][/QUOTE]

It'd be balanced out by lefties losing guns so it's not a very smart progressive tactic(and thus fits in perfectly with progressive tactics)

Originally posted by Eternal Idol
These stories always try to hype up the good news to downplay the bad news.

"Good guy with a gun saves dozens!" sure sounds better for the pro-gun argument than "Piece of shit with gun shoots and kills two people before being shot by guards".

I will never understand how people watch this kind of shit unfold and think to themselves, "That's why we need more guns."

Bad guys will always be able to arm themselves.

The only answer to a gun is a gun.

I will never understand how many people can't seem to grasp that incredibly simple fact.

Surely if we banned all guns the bad guys would give theirs up. I mean if they wouldn't then anyone advocating for the banning of all guns just isn't very bright.

Originally posted by Surtur
Surely if we banned all guns the bad guys would give theirs up. I mean if they wouldn't then anyone advocating for the banning of all guns just isn't very bright.

That's why I suggest a federal program aimed at distributing more guns to everyday citizens. A 9mm in every waistband and a shotgun in every car. When everybody else is armed bad guys will reflexively disarm--they're contrarians by definition, after all.

Originally posted by Surtur
I need some of the ideas fleshed out. What does a hearty conceal carry license requirement look like to you?

I've done that in other posts:

Classroom instruction + written and practical exam. Accommodations can be made for the visual or hearing impaired. If you are not intelligent enough to pass this written exam or physically capable enough to pass the practical exam (actually shooting a gun with targets, showing proper safety procedure, etc.), then you should not be allowed to conceal and carry.

Originally posted by Surtur
For instance in my state you gotta pay a couple hundred bucks and do 16 hours of training(a 2 day class, 8 hours each day). Would that be enough? If not, what would?

No. Exams. Both written and practical. Needs more of that.

Originally posted by Surtur
And what kind of child prevention requirements would you mean?

Some states already have these requirements: it's just not federally required.

I'm sure you can think of the answers:

1. Safe, secure, storage of guns, in general.
2. Quick-draw guns, that are loaded (like under your bed or drawer), should be stored in quick access safes or use quick access locks. If you can't be arsed to upkeep your quick access weapons (such as replacing the batteries) and you have children in your home, looks like you're not responsible enough to have guns in your home with children. This would be mostly a passive law. We won't be doing random home inspections like Japan does.
3. Teaching children safe gun use and procedure when they are in kindergarten. They get taught about fires, bad weather, etc. Why not guns? Research shows that teaching them young saves lives. We should teach them more about health and safety stuff, for sure.

Originally posted by Surtur
EDIT: And what would you do when it comes to background checks that we don't do now?

Many states already have hearty background checks. This is simply requiring all states to perform this. Inconsistency is a problem. This is also known as a universal background check. The background check criteria are already outlined in the text I quoted. 👆

With a system that makes background checks super easy, there should be no 2 month waiting periods. I think 3 days is good. I need research to support shorter or longer waiting periods.

Originally posted by Raptor22
ur gun polices are alot like the ones we have in Mass.

https://lawcenter.giffords.org/categories-of-prohibited-people-in-massachusetts/

Also even tho we dont require guns themselves to be registered, any sale must be registered with the state.

https://lawcenter.giffords.org/background-checks-procedures-in-massachusetts/

Massachusetts General Law c. 140, §§128A and 128B, requires all individuals who sell, transfer, inherit, or lose a firearm to report the sale, transfer, inheritance, or loss of the firearms to the Department of Criminal Justice Information Services Firearms Records Bureau (FRB). This on-line system will allow you to report the sale, transfer, inheritance, or loss/theft data electronically to the FRB

And each ltc has to be approved by i believe ur local law enforcement agency before being issued.

Here in Mass we have some of the strictest gun laws in the country. We are also at the top of the list for fewest gun deaths per 100,000.

Then i looked into other states laws and murder numbers and found that New Hampshire has some of the most lax gun laws in the country and they too are are annualy at the top of the list for fewest gun deaths per 100,000.

The deeper i looked into it, I found that there was less correlation between states that had tough/lax gun laws and high gun deaths and overall violent crime as there was between states with the lower education levels and murder/violent crime rates.

I dont recall the exact #'s, but think i discussed this with u before and provided links and graphs and stuff to back up the info, but from what i can remember i basically broke down like this.

Tough gun laws + low education levels= high gun deaths/violent crime

Lax gun laws + low education levels= high gun deaths/violent crime

Tough or lax gun laws + high education levels = low gun deaths/ violent crime

What does this mean for what kind of gun laws we should have? Hell if i know

Maybe we just shouldnt let stupid people have guns. Is there a way we could do that?

Right. My ideas are not original. They are just ideas that should be applied federally, across all states.

Also, yes, these regulations seek to target (ha! pun! weeee!) crimes of passion. Preventing emotionally reactionary homicides is a good thing. Preventing accidental deaths is a good thing. Preventing gun-related child injury and death is a good thing. These regulations would target those. Not necessarily violence, in general.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Bad guys wouldn't give them up and you know it, it's simple reverse psychology.

That's why I suggest a federal program aimed at distributing more guns to everyday citizens. A 9mm in every waistband and a shotgun in every car. When everybody else is armed bad guys will reflexively disarm--they're contrarians by definition, after all.

You joke but...

According to research, violent crime would actually go down but gun-related accidental injury, death, and suicide would go up.

Originally posted by molikotigo
There is recidivism data but what you're asking, I don't know if it exists. That seems to be a subset of a subset of people. Such a small data set that you could probably google search every single case for the last 10 years to find your data. Almost none are first time offenders. [

lol

I sound so smart if those words come from another person.

I have bots that love me. WEEEE!

Originally posted by dadudemon
You joke but...

According to research, violent crime would actually go down but gun-related accidental injury, death, and suicide would go up.

Hmm, given violent crime with guns outnumbers suicides, etc. by a lot I'd say...worth it?

Originally posted by Surtur
Hmm, given violent crime with guns outnumbers suicides, etc. by a lot I'd say...worth it?

Let people kill themselves as long as they don't harm others when they do it. 👆

See I find it god damn pathetic the way the media reacts to any good guy with a gun story. They try to destroy the narrative and poison the well. Look at this shit:

Texas shooting isn't as simple as it seems

Imaging being triggered people are happy a shooting was prevented from being more tragic than it could have been. It honestly feels like they'd be happier if the shooter mowed down 20-30 people.

"Are we relegated to finding solace in the fact that only three people died inside of a church in the latest tragedy, and must we seek comfort in the idea that six people felt a need to be armed as they worshiped? Is this really how we live in America? Of course, it's foolish to think Texans weren't already carrying guns into their churches; the gun is what won the West, and often still brings food to the table. But are we heading to a time where one worshiper has to whisper to the next, "Cover me, I'm going up to take communion?"

Wow lol

[QUOTE=17058097]Originally posted by MOLIKATY
Such a small data set that you could probably google search every single case for the last 10 years to find your data. Almost none are first time offenders. [/QUOTEThere is recid xender discord omegle ivism data but what you're asking, I don't know if it exists. That seems to be a subset of a subset of people. Such a small data set that you could probably google search every single case for the last 10 years to find your data. Almost none are first time offenders. [
]

They really do seem to wish these heroes weren't there. Or at the very least they are bothered by their presence.

The number one response to that tweet(at least when I click it) is a f*cking mic drop that perfectly sums up why this story is leaving certain folk so damn butthurt.