If We Had the Ammunition, We Could’ve Cleared that Building

[North Carolina Tentmaker]

http://cnsnews.com/mrctv-blog/matt-...ld-ve-cleared-building-son-navy-yard-told-dad

From the Link:

every public shooting since at least 1950 in the U.S. in which more than three people have been killed has taken place where citizens are not allowed to carry guns.

When will we wake up and realize the solution to these shootings is simply to restore the 2nd amendment rights that never should have been taken away to start with.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

... every public shooting since at least 1950 in the U.S. in which more than three people have been killed has taken place where citizens are not allowed to carry guns.

CNS blew this one big time. That is an enormously incorrect statement. The Aurora theater shooting, for example, occurred 18 months after Colorado passed a concealed carry permit law. There was no ban on carrying a weapon in that theater.

The International House of Pancakes restaurant in Carson City, Nevada, where five people died in 2011, had no such ban in place, meaning the business deferred to the state’s firearms laws, which allow licensed individuals to carry a concealed weapon and anyone to carry openly.

22-year-old Jacob Tyler Roberts killed two people and himself with a stolen rifle in Clackamas Town Center, Oregon on December 11 last year. Oregon has had a concealed carry law on the books since 2007 and Clackamas did not opt out of the state law, as communities are allowed to do.

On September 27 last year, Five were shot to death by 36-year-old Andrew Engeldinger at Accent Signage Systems in Minneapolis, Minnesota, a state that has had concealed carry for nine years.

Six Sikh temple members were killed when 40-year-old Army veteran Wade Michael Page opened fire in Oak Creek, Wisconsin on August 5 last year. Wisconsin's concealed carry law is six years old.

Ian Stawicki opened fire May 29 last year, aiming into the Cafe Racer Espresso in Seattle, Washington, killing five and himself after a citywide manhunt. Washington's concealed carry law is four years old.

Jake England, 19, and Alvin Watts, 32, shot five black men in Tulsa, Oklahoma on April 6 last year, in racially motivated shooting spree. Three died. Oklahoma has had concealed carry for over 25 years.

February 27 of last year, Three students were killed by Thomas "TJ" Lane in a rampage at Chardon High School in Ohio. Ohio has had concealed carry for five years.

Eduardo Sencion, 32, entered an IHOP restaurant in Carson City, Nev. and shot 12 people. Five died September 6, 2011, again in Nevada.

I could go on and on and on, proving the stupidity of that comment on the website. But I think I've made my point. Nonetheless, I do believe, based on more than this evidence, that concealed carry laws result in fewer shootings and other violent crimes. The FBI's own statistics bear this out. But there aren't necessarily people with CCW permits at the scene of every shooting.

 

[preachinjesus]

CNS blew this one big time. That is an enormously incorrect statement.

I guess they were expecting that nobody would check them out. That's just lazy reporting.

 

[North Carolina Tentmaker]

Very impressive list TND, but I know for starters that the schools you list are designated "gun free zones." Theaters are not legal carry areas in most states. I am glad that is not the case in Colorado. "Gun Free Zones," like the Navy yard, the shopping mall in California, the school in Connecticut, Fort Hood, Virginia Tech, and others may not have played a part in every mass killing, but hey are certainly a contributing factor in many.

The bottom line is that if our Marines on site had been allowed ammunition they could have saved lives. The mass killers prey on areas where they know they will be unopposed until law enforcement has time to respond. Here in NC everyone from restaurants to Wal Mart seem to have "no carry" signs up.

If you take away my right to defend myself, why are you not then accountable for my safety?

Laws may not have kept people from responding in those cases you listed, but if more people did carry lives would have been saved. More legal guns mean less crime, less violence, and a safer society. We need to do everything we can to disarm the criminals, but at the same time we should put equal effort into arming the law abiding citizens. The crime rates among legal permit holders is less than that among professional law enforcement officers, but we have a government that fears our own citizens more than anything else.

 

[Gina B]

How about the GLARING issue with both this and the Colorado theater shooting - both had known mental health issues and were wandering out free in public because we're all so open minded and tolerant and they had their right to privacy and right to work right to not have their information made known and nobody wanted to do the perfectly normal thing and not let these people out in society without some major safety oversight going on?!

This stuff happens and everyone asks why like they have no clue and had no warning signs and just couldn't have done anything to stop it. Are people really that dumb?
Putting more guns out there isn't going to help. Then you'll just have more people with guns, including the mentally ill.

 

[Revmitchell]

Putting more guns out there isn't going to help. Then you'll just have more people with guns, including the mentally ill.

Actually a recent study by Harvard shows this idea is just false.

 

[pinoybaptist]

How about the GLARING issue with both this and the Colorado theater shooting - both had known mental health issues and were wandering out free in public because we're all so open minded and tolerant and they had their right to privacy and right to work right to not have their information made known and nobody wanted to do the perfectly normal thing and not let these people out in society without some major safety oversight going on?!

This stuff happens and everyone asks why like they have no clue and had no warning signs and just couldn't have done anything to stop it. Are people really that dumb?
Putting more guns out there isn't going to help. Then you'll just have more people with guns, including the mentally ill.

Not everyone who carries is mentally ill or is possibly mentally ill and just because there are a number who are is not reason enough to disarm the more plentiful who aren't.

 

[pinoybaptist]

Very impressive list TND, but I know for starters that the schools you list are designated "gun free zones." Theaters are not legal carry areas in most states. I am glad that is not the case in Colorado. "Gun Free Zones," like the Navy yard, the shopping mall in California, the school in Connecticut, Fort Hood, Virginia Tech, and others may not have played a part in every mass killing, but hey are certainly a contributing factor in many.

The bottom line is that if our Marines on site had been allowed ammunition they could have saved lives. The mass killers prey on areas where they know they will be unopposed until law enforcement has time to respond. Here in NC everyone from restaurants to Wal Mart seem to have "no carry" signs up.

If you take away my right to defend myself, why are you not then accountable for my safety?

Laws may not have kept people from responding in those cases you listed, but if more people did carry lives would have been saved. More legal guns mean less crime, less violence, and a safer society. We need to do everything we can to disarm the criminals, but at the same time we should put equal effort into arming the law abiding citizens. The crime rates among legal permit holders is less than that among professional law enforcement officers, but we have a government that fears our own citizens more than anything else.

Thank you.
The ball goes back to the court of the liberals who like to create 'gun free' zones, as if criminals and the mentally ill will honor that.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

Very impressive list TND, but I know for starters that the schools you list are designated "gun free zones."

I didn't list any schools. And unless a state has a provision for a community to opt out of concealed carry, or specifically limits the types of businesses or areas in which concealed carry is allowed, there are no limitations on where a person can carry a weapon. I looked online for support for your claim that "most states" make concealed carry off limits in theaters, and couldn't find anything. Perhaps you can provide a link.

 

[Gina B]

Not everyone who carries is mentally ill or is possibly mentally ill and just because there are a number who are is not reason enough to disarm the more plentiful who aren't.

I'm all for guns and people being armed. More people should be armed, and not with these petty little hand guns that require you to shoot someone a couple times to stop them. That is, if they're able to handle having a weapon. The mentally ill are not, and the solution to the mentally ill in society isn't coating the nation with more guns without addressing what's going on with the mentally ill.

BTW, I should have worded that above better...I used the word dumb in reference to the "experts" who want to spent tons of money studying why this violence happens, not the people here!

What I'm against is guns able to be accessed so easily by the mentally ill and the mentally ill so easily able to keep their records private when the impact of doing so can tremendously impact the safety of society. There are ways to treat our mentally ill with decency and respect without going so far as to endanger everyone because we don't want to appear rude by limiting freedoms. It's way past time for a reality check. The DSMIV has gone to extremes to call everything mental illness now - time to reign that in, define mental illness in real legal terms, then disable the mentally ill from accessing weapons, get the NON mentally ill off disability, and use that disability to help the truly mentally ill survive and get the help they need to live in society. Notice what happened when they quit doing that and started dumping the mentally ill out on their own, out into alleys, onto families incapable of coping? You're reading the consequences regularly. If you're ever looked into it as a study, it's pretty impressive. (and not in a good way.)

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

What I'm against is guns able to be accessed so easily by the mentally ill and the mentally ill so easily able to keep their records private when the impact of doing so can tremendously impact the safety of society.

The necessity of privacy in mental health records supersedes all other concerns. As a mental health profession (LAC) I have seen firsthand the prejudice and discrimination shown those who have undergone addictions or mental health treatment. It prevents them from getting a job, receiving professional licenses unless they can "prove" they are "cured" and other such actions that are unfair to them based solely on their experiences and their willingness to seek help.

There are ways to treat our mentally ill with decency and respect without going so far as to endanger everyone because we don't want to appear rude by limiting freedoms.

Not true. Once such information is handed over to law enforcement, it becomes part of a person's NCIC data, and will show up every time they have a background check for employment, adoption, or a loan. I agree there needs to be a way to keep weapons out of the hands of violent people, but very few people who have had mental health issues are violent, and in no way should be precluded from getting a handgun for their own protection, or for sport use.

It's way past time for a reality check. The DSMIV has gone to extremes to call everything mental illness now - time to reign that in, define mental illness in real legal terms, then disable the mentally ill from accessing weapons, get the NON mentally ill off disability, and use that disability to help the truly mentally ill survive and get the help they need to live in society.

First, the DSM-IV has been superseded by the DSM-5 (they stopped using Roman numerals because -- surprise, surprise! -- even licensed professionals with graduate degrees did not know what a "Roman numeral" is!). Secondly, if you really don't understand the way mental health issues are classified, you won't understand that not everything listed in the DSM-5 is a "mental illness" but everything listed in the DSM-5 is a disorder, from minor to major, that may or may not require counseling and/or treatment. These disorders, conditions, etc., are included in the DSM-5 so the counselor/psychologist/psychiatrist will have access to the criteria for diagnosing the various conditions and then put together a complete and valid treatment plan. While the DSM-5 includes many minor afflictions in its definitions, it does not endorse any one of them being considered "mental illness." That is accomplished by inventive tort lawyers and has nothing to do with the way these conditions are defined by the APA in compiling the DSM-5.

Notice what happened when they quit doing that and started dumping the mentally ill out on their own, out into alleys, onto families incapable of coping?

You are suggesting two very different things here. On the one hand, you say, "stop classifying everything as mental illness," and on the other other, you're saying, "Stop treating the mentally ill." Whether you realize that or not. When the guidelines for declaring someone incapable of making a self-determination and being able to confine them to mental health wards involuntarily were changed, it resulted in the "patient dumping" you describe. Those guidelines were made more "politically correct" which in effect eliminated any possibility of involuntary commitment. We are now forced to ask the client him/herself (not a family member or friend concerned about their behavior) "Do you feel you are a danger to yourself or others," and even with a "Yes" answer and the beginning of commitment orders, somewhere along the line they are going to be asked the same question again, and this time, realizing they are about to be confined, will change their answer to "No" even though their suicidal/homicidal thoughts have not changed.

Please, Gina, if you don't understand the process, you really shouldn't comment it.

 

[exscentric]

"22-year-old Jacob Tyler Roberts killed two people and himself with a stolen rifle in Clackamas Town Center, Oregon on December 11 last year. Oregon has had a concealed carry law on the books since 2007 and Clackamas did not opt out of the state law, as communities are allowed to do."

It was reported that the reason this one stopped shooting was that a concealed carry person drew on him, aimed and could not safely shoot but the shooter saw him and ran to a corner where he killed himself.

 

[pinoybaptist]

IMO, it's not that states have variable types of firearms carry permits. it's (1) how many people know they can actually bring their firearms with them, concealed or open, (2) how many actually do (they may not want to risk a confrontation with the law (not the criminal elements) and the time consuming "I-ve-got-a-permit-for-that-oh,yeah, lem'see-it-yadayada" even if they'll likely come out on the winning side, and (3) some establishments' notion that if they declare their estabishments "gun-free", the mentally insane and the criminal will actually honor it (you might as well label the sugar bowl as salt so ants don't swarm all over it).