For a hot minute I thought the gun-totin' 'conceal carry' folks were on to something.
I heard the proposition that if we could all strap on a Ruger that some of these cowardly punks would think twice about shooting up a grocery store or showing up at a school with a gun or threatening the community in which we live. Even heard people clamoring that teachers should be armed. That'll fix it.
That was how many school shootings ago?
Today, over a dozen dead elementary school students in Texas--- where it feels like everyone carries. No 'conceal carry' citizens nearby to do their cowboy thing.
Over a dozen dead children. Again.
* * *
Garry, this could be one of the worst thought-out stances to invite the gun community to argue your view but I'll be your huckleberry.
Let's start with the latest event- the Texas school shooting where (currently) 14 students and one teacher were killed. Why weren't the "gun-totin', 'conceal carry' folks" you might ask? They were probably at work. If some of those same people happen to be teachers, you might remember most school districts do not allow firearms on the property unless it's a law enforcement officer. Instead of trying to throw shade on legal gun owners, ask "where and what was the security?"
As for New York, a state with some of the strictest gun laws in the country, that should answer your question. These shooters go after soft targets, where the likely hood of resistance is low and the maximum damage can be inflicted. Obtaining a New York pistol license is extremely restrictive so not near as many folks conceal carry as compared to the south.
I personally believe all gun laws are unconstitutional but that's a whole different rabbit hole that folks have varying viewpoints so I digress. Texas and New York have very different gun laws however they both allowed for these scenarios to unfold. I'm sure there were plenty of armed civilians nearby after both situations unfolded. But sometimes bad people do bad things. My prayers go out to everyone affected and to those who feel the guilt of not having been there to make a difference.
* * *
We are out here and we are toting, but we obey the law. That’s why the shooters go to places where we can’t “tote”. Almost every mass shooting happens in a “gun free zone” (or free target zone for the criminal shooters). It is against the law to carry a gun on school property, but of course that doesn’t stop the bad guys.
Here’s a clue for you, they don’t care about the law. Stop trying to use your stale argument about the ones carrying legally.
If you would bother to do even a little research you would learn that legal gun carriers stop between 750,000 and 1.5 million crimes every year and are generally the most law abiding citizens out there. Don’t take my word for it though, the FBI and the CDC both have the stats to back it up, if you really care.
* * *
I would like to know from anyone that does not believe in gun control why it is necessary for a private citizen to own a weapon that fires multiple rounds in seconds, with loaded magazines that are also replaced in seconds?
I cannot accept "sporting use" as a reasonable answer, having heard that argument in the past.
But if you do think "sporting use" is a reason, compare the ownership of a weapon firing multiple rounds in seconds for killing to another weapon, an automobile. You will argue that is not an apples to apples comparison. Yes, it is not because we believe an automobile to be a necessity.
Nevertheless, how many automobiles are used as weapons by women running over philandering men or in road rage? Yet an automobile is regulated by licensing the operator, requiring the automobile to be insured for liability, requiring the operator and occupants to use seatbelts, requiring headlights and taillights at night, requiring brake lights, requiring a tag and taxed, and requiring the automobile be manufactured to safety specifications, among other examples.
A weapon that fires multiple rounds in seconds, with loaded magazines that are also replaced in seconds, all for killing, is not a necessity. But if not banned for private citizens, why do people vehemently object to regulation as we do with automobiles? Won't regulation reduce the likelihood of intentional use contrary to the intent of the manufacturer?
* * *
Gary, some, not all, are likely rushing to stockpile bigger even more deadlier guns.
As an update, and possibly more to come, 19 children were killed and two adults. One was a 4th grade elementary school teacher. There are no reports out yet as to whether the second adult killed is the shooter himself, he was killed by police, or another adult victim. I have family members in Texas, though none in that area, who've been able to keep up to date on the tragedy through more local news coverage.
Michael and Ken, word is the shooter legally purchased the two AR-15 rifles used in Uvalde Texas school the massacre. One, some kind of specialty type, was allegedly purchased online then picked up by the shooter from a local dealer with special license to sell such weapons. The other is said to have been purchased out right from a local dealer. A "good guy" with the guns turned "bad guy" with the guns? Not sure yet. But the guns were legal.
Ken, those numbers you present to show how many crimes have been prevented by "good guys with guns" are most likely exaggerated and padded. Especially so since the the reportings are voluntary and there's no definitive way to determine if they're true or someone's "alternative true" looking to make their case.
Even the "good guys with guns" have been known to turn "bad guys with guns" without indication or notice. No priors isn't a guarantee.
* * *
I want to know how an 18-year-old who lived with his grandmother bought Daniel Defense rifles and optics worth over $5,000. I think the gun grabbers are secretly rubbing their hands together in glee.
* * *
Rather than speculate "Ken's numbers" and as you described, "most likely exaggerated and padded"...you should do as he suggested. Research those numbers for yourself, rather than letting your emotions make conjectures that mean nothing. The CDC and FBI can be a good resource for shooting data. Just ask Ken.
As for purchasing a firearm from a federally licensed dealer, if you can pass the government background check, you get the firearm. This bad actor bought two firearms and passed two government background checks.
You mentioned one of the firearms as being "special". There is nothing "special" about either of those firearms in the context of your description. They both have high capacity magazines, both are chambered for 5.56mm, both are semi-automatic and both go bang. The Daniel Defense model is higher quality, has a red dot sight and better furniture, which I think is the "special" you are alluding to. Your emotional description, unnecessarily makes it seem more scarier and deadlier than it already is. Bottom line, both firearms are equally deadly. There is no ''special".
Evil will try to do what evil wants to do, regardless of the roadblocks. One must be on guard.