Something I posted over there

[727Sky]

I have given a little thought to mass shooting.. See if this makes sense... There are around 700,000 LEOs for 330 million people in the states..Out of the 700,000 how many are working in a 24 hour period. Those who are working can not be every where at all times...

Most of the shootings occur in gun free zones.. Those need to be done away with. There are over 8 million concealed carry permit holders. I believe there should be a level one and level two concealed carry permit issued to those who want to do training for level two. Level two permit holder would be trained to engage a perp who is trying to shoot up a place of business or a crowd and the permit would carry a level two sticker. No need really for a level two for many X military however it would be a confidence builder for anyone with a permit, IMO.

The main thing for concealed carry permit holders is motivation regardless of what level (if adopted) they have. I have thought for many years my weapon was for me and mine simple because I did not want the hassle of having to fire my side arm unless absolutely necessary. However being on my knees and praying for mercy or god's intervention was always a futile effort from accounts that I have read so I never considered myself an on my knees kinda guy.

A detective friend of mine told me many years ago that every round fired has a whole pack of lawyers attached to it; and they are not on your side... So I would avoid if at all possible, any engagements. Nevertheless I always tried be have a decent sense of situational awareness and be prepared to shoot if I had to.. I was never paranoid but was alert ... I still have friends and family who never knew I was armed when we were out together.

Most of the concealed carry permit holders I knew took their carrying a fire arm seriously. We shot pistols and rifles in competition and listened to those who were our betters so we could better hone our skills.

Even after my rambling response if I had been in a movie theater, a mall, or in a crowd I would have engaged an active shooter and I do believe that it would have been one shoot one kill depending on the circumstances, otherwise, the shot would not have been taken.

With the shootings going on now there will be another effort to confiscate or outlaw guns again. They better change the Constitution or they may have a real fight on their hands.

IMO those who grew up on psychotropic drugs or are currently users have no business having a firearm..

Like I said do away with gun free zones and motivate the 8 million plus concealed carry permit holders to be more aware and not afraid of engagement with some poor misunderstood little darling who needs to be stopped . It is being reported that the Concealed carry permit holders had their firearms stored in their cars because the Walmart in El Paso was a gun free zone.. Stupid gun fearing idiots who have no answers only new laws and bans..

I always thought murder was against the law too...

[BIAD]

All one can do is read the above. Commenting will not enhance the commonsense shown.

[Ninurta]

Humans, as a species, are incredibly panicky. We are so panicky that I often wonder how we have survived at all. Worse, when one human panics, that panic spreads through the entire herd.

We see that every time one of these events take place. Some mentally defective jackass shoots into a crowd, that crowd (sensibly, perhaps) panics, and the panic spreads throughout the general population that was never in danger from the gunfire to begin with. Next thing you know, before the bodies even cool, calls for draconian measures regarding firearms ring from sea to shining sea. No matter that the measures called for would not have prevented the shooting in the least - folks just want someone to DO something, even (or especially) if what they do is wrong, with a null effect on the tragedy at hand.

In this case, the predominant calls are for "more stringent and comprehensive background checks". My ass. No background check under current consideration would have prevented any of these shootings. That doesn't matter to the herd, however. They want SOMETHING, ANYTHING, done immediately, under the influence of emotion rather than logic, and then they can all go home and sleep peacefully... until the NEXT shooting, which their measures will fail to prevent.

Then the cycle begins again.

Liberals in particular are hell-bent to institute draconian, nazi-esque firearms bans RIGHT NOW. They are taking advantage of the panic mode of the populace, riding the wave of emotion, and want to sneak totalitarianism in under the radar before cooler heads can prevail and logic and rational thought can take hold. None of them, exactly zero, are displaying any logic in their calls for totalitarianism. As one of them openly and famously said some years ago, "never let a good crisis go to waste".

Your proposal, while impeccably thought out, will not gain any consideration in the current climate of panic and illogical knee-jerk reactions. It has two fatal flaws: It is well thought out and logical, and it will not disarm the population. The goal here is to disarm the population in a moment of panic while the defense of logical thought is down.

They also want "red Flag laws", where anyone can disarm anyone else with just a mere accusation. Again, the lack of logical thought prevails. I for one know exactly how fast and how wrong those sorts of laws can go if someone just gets angry at you, or if they want you out of circulation or disarmed for just long enough for them to rob you. I was jailed for two days (just long enough to be robbed blind while I was out of the way and they could pick through my stuff and make off with it) by a mere unfounded accusation spewed out by a vindictive woman. I was eventually acquitted of all charges stemming from that lying accusation, but by then the damage had been done. While I was out of commission, they had free reign to rob me blind, which they did.

Suppose a crack head down the street decides he wants to rob my house, but knows he will get filled with holes in the attempt? The simple solution under Red Flag laws is to simply call the constabulary, mention I have a gun, and claim I made a threat. POOF! The constabulary sweeps in, removes my firearms pending a hearing, and there we go - the crackhead down the street has (or supposes he has) free reign to kick in my door, tie me up and rape my wife, then make off with whatever valuables I have to pawn for his next fix. Maybe kill us both on his way out to eliminate witnesses.

Note to the crackhead down the street: That likely won't go well for you, all things considered, but you won't know until you try, eh? The guns are only for show, and as a distraction, warning, and deterrent. the REAL danger would come from another quarter entirely, and you'll never see it coming. I learn from my mistakes, and adjust accordingly.

Eliminating "gun free zones" (AKA "target rich environments") as you suggest, would make far more sense, which is how I know it will not prevail in the current climate of illogic. These shooters are cowards, plain and simple, and only attack weak points where they think they will not get shot themselves. the manifesto of the El Paso shooter specifies that. Therefore, the more logical move would be to create an air of certainty that someone there will be armed, and will drop them like a pole-axed steer.

But that won't happen in Today's America.

.

[guohua]

@"727Sky"  and @"BIAD"  and of-course @"Ninurta" 

We just have nothing to add, you've all done a Fantastic Job. 

Wish I Could Give You All A Gold Star! 

[BIAD]

@"727Sky"  and @"BIAD"  and of-course @"Ninurta" 

We just have nothing to add, you've all done a Fantastic Job. 

Wish I Could Give You All A Gold Star! 

Being from a non-gun culture, it would be easy for me to mouth-off like Piers Morgan did to Alex Jones and
pretend we all live in a world where firearms aren't needed. But with such weapons, America threw off the
same control that Morgan was singing the praises of and became the greatest country in the world.

In my small opinion, I've noticed that if you leave a gun alone, it doesn't shoot anyone. So I guess the solution
to gun violence resides in the person wheeling it.

What I mean is:

'...A former girlfriend of Connor Betts, the man who went on a shooting rampage outside a bar in
Dayton, Ohio, said a number of warning signs led her to break up with the 24-year-old. 

Caitlyn “Adelia” Johnson, 24, and Betts briefly dated this spring, NBC reported.
She told The (Toledo) Blade the two met in their psychology class at Sinclair Community College.

They bonded over their struggles with mental illness; Johnson said she has depression and anxiety,
and Betts told her he was bipolar and had obsessive-compulsive disorder...'

SOURCE:

'...A man who committed a deadly school shooting in Arkansas 21 years ago, when he was just 11 years old,
died Saturday night in a car crash. Drew Grant — who was born Andrew Golden and changed his name after
the shooting — was 33 and had been out of prison for more than a decade...'

'...A student told The New York Times that Johnson had told people he was going to shoot girls who broke up with
him. "He had said he was mad at everybody and that he was going to kill them. Nobody believed him," the student
said...'

CBS:

It's a sh*tty cliche, but 'Guns don't kill people...people do.'

[727Sky]

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/neil-d...atest_news

Celebrity astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson got an earful Sunday on Twitter after an ill-advised tweet in the aftermath of Saturday’s two horrific mass shootings that left at least 29 people dead.
The killings don’t really matter in the big picture, deGrasse Tyson seemed to say, it’s just that darn human empathy that makes them seem so bad.
“In the past 48hrs, the USA horrifically lost 34 people to mass shootings,” he wrote, claiming, “on average, across any 48hrs, we also lose… 500 to Medical errors, 300 to the Flu, 250 to Suicide, 200 to Car Accidents, 40 to Homicide via Handgun. Often our emotions respond more to spectacle than to data.”

[BIAD]

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/neil-d...atest_news

Celebrity astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson got an earful Sunday on Twitter after an ill-advised tweet in the aftermath of Saturday’s two horrific mass shootings that left at least 29 people dead.
The killings don’t really matter in the big picture, deGrasse Tyson seemed to say, it’s just that darn human empathy that makes them seem so bad.
“In the past 48hrs, the USA horrifically lost 34 people to mass shootings,” he wrote, claiming, “on average, across any 48hrs, we also lose… 500 to Medical errors, 300 to the Flu, 250 to Suicide, 200 to Car Accidents, 40 to Homicide via Handgun. Often our emotions respond more to spectacle than to data.”

The thing is, Tyson isn't far-wrong. The media are the ones to blame in regards of promoting outrage of a particular inicdent.
Chicago's shootings and deaths went un-sensationalised over the weekend because the MSM get better ratings using the 'white
-on-black' perception.

However, the astrophysicist's comments have to pass the same Gate-Keepers to be aired and if they cast doubt on the media,
it's massaged into an insult instead of merely data.
But he isn't wrong.