TexasCHLforum.com

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/14/opin ... .html?_r=2

NYT seeming to say that to stop these mass shootings everyone would have to carry a gun, and is that the world you want to live in?

"Yet consider the society Americans would have to live in — the choices they would all have to make — to enable that kind of defense. Every member of Congress, and every other American of whatever age, would have to go to baseball practice, or to school, or to work, or to the post office, or to the health clinic — or to any of the other places mass shootings now take place — with a gun on their hip. "

Typical NYT Liberal slanted piece.

And then, when an attack came and they returned fire, they would probably kill or wound not the assailant but another innocent bystander, as studies have repeatedly shown.

I wonder what studies they are referring to? They conveniently don't list them.

In fact, not everyone would have to carry a gun to achieve the level of safety described in the article; only enough that the bad guys know what will happen should they choose to attack others.

Good point, mloamiller. Two different mechanisms to limit mass shooting carnage are possible with a small percentage of persons being armed in the immediate area. The first is simple deterrence -- if bad actors have a reasonable suspicion that an armed resistance will occur, they are likely to choose another circumstances to perform their acts of violence. Secondly, of course, the most likely thing to stop a bad actor with a gun is someone else (acting with good intent) with a gun. Gun-Free zones create optimum conditions for bad actors intent on violence. Since no one is likely to put up an armed resistance, deterrence is not possible in these places, and quick, effective neutralization of the bad actor is terribly unlikely.

The other side of whatever studies they referred to is another study/observation that I ran across indicating that in all mass shootings in the last twenty years or so where there was an armed response immediately available as the event began 10 or less people ended up being shot, whereas in every case when an armed response was not immediately available (police had to stage and then take action to control the scene) more than ten people ended up being shot.

mloamiller wrote:

And then, when an attack came and they returned fire, they would probably kill or wound not the assailant but another innocent bystander, as studies have repeatedly shown.

I wonder what studies they are referring to? They conveniently don't list them.

In fact, not everyone would have to carry a gun to achieve the level of safety described in the article; only enough that the bad guys know what will happen should they choose to attack others.

Absolutely correct. The article is clearly a false premise. That, and the society I don't want to live in is where self defense is limited to armed agents of the State who serve not me and my family, but their political masters.

American of whatever age, would have to go to baseball practice, or to school, or to work, or to the post office, or to the health clinic — or to any of the other places mass shootings now take place — with a gun on their hip

Sounds good to me, sign me up for that reality. Uh, have to get ride of 18 USC Section 930 before I can go to the Post Office.....

I have no problem with living in a society where everyone CAN carry; but I also realize that even if they CAN, not everyone WILL. But ENOUGH will. And I'd like to think that once society as a whole becomes cognizant of the message that 'bad behaviour will result in an IMMEDIATE response', armed society will become, if not necessarily a polite society, at least a relatively sedate one. And if firearms carry became more ubiquitous, I'd like to think that peer pressure would promote getting a reasonable level of training, adherence to safe handling practices, and weed out the folks who would, according to the NYT, be more likely to hit bystanders than legitimate targets.

But I'm not holding my breath on this one...........

To answer the the heading of this, YES!

philip964 wrote:Every member of Congress, and every other American of whatever age, would have to go to baseball practice, or to school, or to work, or to the post office, or to the health clinic — or to any of the other places mass shootings now take place — with a gun on their hip. "

Sounds like a plan I could support, although not "every age" including those under 18.

I'd certainly rather have a multitude of armed citizens carrying on about their day than every street corner having armed agents of the state.

Otherwise I could care less what NYT, WaPo liberal editors think about whether or not I should be able to exercise my God given and Constitutionally protected rights to self defense.

Would be as safe as the "Wild" West ,,, actually safer because not "everyone" carried back then (see left side of chart for Wild West))

I think there's a better question. Would you want to live in an America where sometimes mayhem erupts out of nowhere, unrestricted by laws to the contrary, where you are prohibited from carrying a weapon?

Nope.

Not everyone needs to carry a gun for guns in society to limit crime. Some, preferably most people need to be lawfully armed, hardening our peaceful society against the violence we don't want.

I try to do my part.

To answer the question posed in this thread title, no. I would not want to live in a society where everyone, including small children and incarcerated criminals carried guns. But I would love to live in a society where everyone who is over 18 and is not a felon or a mental patient had the right to carry a gun. The increase in safety would be significant if even 25% of this population actually did carry a gun.

Given the SCOTUS precedent on Obamacare, where they ruled that it is constitutional to impose a tax on those who choose to not buy something, I would love to see legislation requiring the group I specified above (adult non-felons without mental issues) to either buy a gun and engage in 20 hours per year of proficiency training, or pay a tax of $100,000, per year.

philip964 wrote:https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/14/opin ... .html?_r=2

NYT seeming to say that to stop these mass shootings everyone would have to carry a gun, and is that the world you want to live in?

"Yet consider the society Americans would have to live in — the choices they would all have to make — to enable that kind of defense. Every member of Congress, and every other American of whatever age, would have to go to baseball practice, or to school, or to work, or to the post office, or to the health clinic — or to any of the other places mass shootings now take place — with a gun on their hip. "

Not everyone, think of it like immunizations. The more who are immunized, the safer it becomes for those who are not. No need to fear sweet little snowflakes, just get down and stay out of our way & we can keep ya'll safe too.

Everyone... NO, but I still believe in the power of capital punishment too. Felons, headcases etc. do not need access. Not sure about
the logistics of it but training should somehow be a continuing thing (I hate to use the word requirement there but..).

I agree with treadlightly and Soccerdad 1995 (among some others).

TexasTornado wrote:

philip964 wrote:https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/14/opin ... .html?_r=2

NYT seeming to say that to stop these mass shootings everyone would have to carry a gun, and is that the world you want to live in?

"Yet consider the society Americans would have to live in — the choices they would all have to make — to enable that kind of defense. Every member of Congress, and every other American of whatever age, would have to go to baseball practice, or to school, or to work, or to the post office, or to the health clinic — or to any of the other places mass shootings now take place — with a gun on their hip. "

Not everyone, think of it like immunizations. The more who are immunized, the safer it becomes for those who are not. No need to fear sweet little snowflakes, just get down and stay out of our way & we can keep ya'll safe too.

Very nicely put.

Yes, with a few caveats: No to violent ex-cons, the absolutely bonkers, spousal abusers and very young children, though too be sure I was a gun enthusiast and good shot at 11, with a whole lot of safety training by my Dad. I taught my Granddaughters to safely shoot when they were 6 or so. If they carried at that time, I wouldn't have worried about them doing anything unsafe or thoughtless...but then they're girls, or were at the time, now at 21 and 17 they're young women. They've moved away in the last year and a half. Can you tell I miss them?

In my part of the world, rural Texas, most everyone does carry a gun and I feel safer for it...