paaiyan wrote:Most gunmen will not just randomly decide to shoot someone. They have a reason.
Nobody does something without a reason, but a warped mind can choose any reason it wants.
And I don't understand what you mean by this.
Ragnarok wrote:If some people are allowed to do it, then others will be able to slip through more easily.
If some people are allowed concealed carry, that is a weakness that can be exploited by people with poor intent.
To use a mildly humourous example: I am a school principal - Now, I decide to ban people from having cell phones on the site - for various reasons - they ring in lessons, they can be used to cheat on tests...
Now, there are occasional checks to make sure this is enforced. People are spot-checked for phones, and if they're found to have one, it's confiscated until the end of the week.
However, some people say: "Hey, we're allowed to have phones offsite".
So, I say, "Oh, all right then - those of you over 18 who have phones may bring them on-site, but you're not allowed to switch them on except in an emergency."
What I now have is a difficulty. It becomes harder to enforce the rule for other people - if I find someone with a phone, it will take time to check if they're allowed it on-site, etc, etc.
You'll find people who leave it on, and all sorts.
This weakness in the system makes it easier for people who aren't supposed to have phones to have them.
If you see my (rather odd) point - the moment some people are allowed them, it delays what happens if others are not supposed to have them.
To cut that bizarre explanation short, firearms are not mystical things that immediately kill people that get shot with them. With a well aimed shot, yes (possibly) , but in that situation, do you think you'll have the time and calm to make that well aimed shot before the attacker sees you?
It's more than possible for someone who has been shot - particularly if they're under the effects of adrenaline - to keep moving for some time. More than enough time to shoot more people. Oh, you might stop them doing it another day, but they themselves will do that eventually.
Also, do you think if you go for your gun, there is no chance you'll be spotted doing so and shot at first?
It's your decision, but I think it will create weaknesses that can be exploited, not help reduce fatalities, possibly create "friendly fire" and most likely increase the chance you yourself will get shot.
I think SPG's point is right. If you have tests that make it so sure that a concealed carrier won't shoot someone with it, why aren't those tests be applied to everyone who tries to buy a gun?
If they're that great, surely they would have stopped the shootings at VA Tech - where I know the guns were purchased legally.
Don't misunderstand me, I think that guns for recreational use are fine, but in a defensive situation, they're not quite as incredible as TV and film would have you believe.
Jack's point is fine - I would be quite happy to go through a series of tests if I wanted a firearm, knowing that those tests meant that the chance of a poor candidate for gun ownership getting his hands on firearms was heavily reduced.
A few points about the car/gun comparison:
1) The primary purpose of a gun is to kill - not what the car is designed for.
2) A speeding car is more noticeable and easier to avoid than a hidden gun.
3) There aren't a lot of car related massacres.