Why does everyone seem to think going through the process of getting a concealed carry permit automatically turns the permit holder into a competent and qualified gunfighter and killer.
Going through all the required steps to receive a concealed carry permit does not make you qualified to out shoot a crazy mad-man or woman.
Even if the permit holder spends long hours on the practice range and becomes a crack shot are they psychologically prepared to kill in an extremely stressful situation, like a gunfight?
Folks involved with military and law enforcement have gone through extensive training to become professional killers. As a society I hope we donât confuse being qualified to have a concealed carry permit with being trained as a professional. Anyone involved with military and law enforcement knows thereâs a difference between the right to carry and being trained to kill.
PS In my earlier years I spent a lot of time on the gun range shooting a colt M1911A1 and did okay with it. I liked firing that sucker! But because I was never trained to be a gunfighter & killer if confronted by a mass murderer Iâd probably panic hesitate and get shot before I could defend myself.
Why do people assume that by making it harder for people to own guns⌠Gun violence would dropâŚ
The facts support the argument that concealed gun laws work⌠Wanna take a guess at gun crime rates of licensed concealed weapon holders versus the general population�??
The facts show stricter gun laws donât work⌠Wanna take a guess at gun crime rates in the top 3 strictest gun control cities versus the top 3 most lenientâŚ???
And you are overestimating the training regular patrol officer receiveâŚ
The plain and simple fact is when shooting sprees happen, the knee jerk reaction is for people to start demanding something be done⌠Anything⌠People want to remedy something⌠People donât want to accept that somethings canât be prevented⌠Politicians canât run on that campaign, empty promises are much more appealing⌠The sad fact is, somethingâs canât be prevented. Emotions make people irrational, irrational people cling to irrational hopes⌠Hopes that everyone can live in a utopia if just one thing was banned⌠Thatâs emotional, idealistic, irrational, and childish.
Ok⌠Guns are banned⌠poof all gone⌠Oh wait, whatâs this on the newsâŚ? Someone just blew up a government building using fertilizer and diesel fuel???.. More then 200 dead!!!
Oh no⌠Now four commercial airliners were just hijacked, with mere box cutting knives⌠Over 2000 dead!!!
Yeh⌠Somethings canât be prevented⌠The human population will always have the mentally sick, whether it be from genetics or environment, they will always be here⌠And they will always find a way to kill.
Take guns away and youâll find how creative they will get⌠You will here the liberals say, âeveryone is safe now!!!â ⌠And somewhere a muttering maniac will utter, âchallenge accepted.â
Iâm not sure anybody said it made them a crack shot.
What I said, was the people that do, are the more law abiding citizens, who are less likely to cause trouble.
Whether or not youâre psychologically prepared youâll never know until confronted with the situation, but at least youâll have the means to do so.
Just knowing the fact that some people could be carrying a firearm could act as a deterrent in itself.
The reponse time with calling 911 and waiting for the police to arrive is much longer than pulling the gun out. And again, of course youâll never know how youâll react in the heat of the moment, but at least its there incase a situation presents itself.
Better to have it and not need it, than need it and not have it.
Hehe, thereâs so much redtape and bs with being a police officer. They get in trouble for tazing people. When they donât taze and use physical force instead to take someone down who isnât cooperating, they get in trouble for that to. Not entirely relevant to the topic, you just mentioned law enforcement. All that extensive training and theyâre martyred for when they need to use it. Itâs much easier to take care of business as a civilian, the media tends to ignore the civilians who use a gun to protect themselves and others like the shooting in oregon.
Right, not everybody is a pro, including the cops and military. There are plenty of professionals that freeze up when the situation gets tense. And then there are people like this guyâŚ
Now Iâm not saying that every person who carries is like that, but it sure as heck gives you a fighting chance. And if you are heroic enough to fight back, even if you donât kill the killer, you still draw the killerâs fire for a period of time, which allows other people to escape.
The arguments against ccw are unfounded and the argument against allowing teachers and faculty to carry concealed handguns doesnât fly either. It gives you options.
[U]Here is what we DO know about mass shootings[/U]
-Gun Bans and stricter regulations donât work.
-Criminals and insane people donât follow the rules
-The worst mass shooting didnât occur with an âAssault rifleâ or 30rd magazines
-Every Mass shooting has occurred on a gun free zone
[U]Here is what we know about [B]allowing[/B] teachers to be armed[/U]
-Utah already does it
-There have been ZERO school shootings in Utah since they allowed it
-Utah has the highest rate of depression in the country
-None of the teachers have gone postal
-There havenât been any accidental misfires
IMO the pros for allowing it outweigh the cons.
Yes, there is always the TINY chance that a gun will misfire. There is the chance that when somebody is engaging the shooter, they might accidentally miss and hit somebody else. There is the possibility that the faculty member wonât even use the gun because they are too afraid.
But what do we have now? Unopposed, killers who have a monopoly on power. They go into an environment where everybody is disarmed by law, and they are king of the hill. Until the cops arrive, nobody can touch them. They donât have to worry about people shooting back, they donât have to worry about being rushed. They have the guns, they have the power. And it doesnât matter what size magazine they have, or what type of firearm they have. Making it so they have to take 2 seconds to reload after 10 shots (Assuming they actually follow the law) will not hinder their ability to kill people in droves.
This system is not working, it needs to change. We can either violate the constitution and do something that makes people feel good, but in reality doesnât work⌠Or we can try something different that has been very successful in Utah.
There is no choice in my opinion. This is not Australia. We are not an island nation. We have a culture of violence. It would be logistically impossible to ban the 300 million+ firearms in the United States and the process of doing would turn into a civil war. And also, making it so the government has a monopoly on the good firearms is VERY dangerous.
And the fear that a teacher will go postal is unfounded. If a teacher wanted to go postal with a firearm, they would bring a firearm regardless of the rules. They donât even need a firearm. The worst school massacre, which killed 45 people and injured 58, occurred with a bomb.
I wouldnât want a child to go to a school with a full time police officer either.
The problem here is not a lack of guns. The real problem is why people want to kill others in large numbers in the USA, and why they have access to weapons to do so?
In Australia there was light restrictions on gun ownership until the Port Arthur massacre and likewise in the UK until the school shooting in Dunblane. After both these incidents gun ownership was heavily restricted, and neither country has seen a repeat of such incidents.
The USA does not want to tighten gun laws, in fact many think the opposite, and the killing continue.
Which set of laws make more sense?
There are no parents clamouring for armed teachers or police at schools in Australia or the UK, because they are not needed.
You guys donât have gangbangers or psyched out people?
If not guns, what took their place? bombs? knives?
The planes for 9/11 were taken over using knives. No gun needed to do all that destruction. Too bad there wasnât an air marshal on those flights with a gun. It would never have happened.
The [U]personal[/U] gun ownership rate in Australia in 1996 was 7%. The [U]personal[/U] gun ownership rate in America today is 34%, and many of the people who make up that 34% own multiple guns.
In 1996 the population of Australia was 17,892,423 . That is 1,252,469 people who owned guns in Australia during the gun ban.
The population of America is roughly 311,500,000. That is [B]105,910,000[/B] people who own guns. There are over 300 million firearms in America. How do you propose the US govt should go about violating the constitution and illegally confiscating over 300 million firearms from over 100 million people?
The UK is an Island. Australia is its own continent. America, however, is not. It is far easier for a country such as Australia to totally restrict guns, in the US, it is not. And that is ignoring the fact that restrictions on gun controls are Unconstitutional in the United States.
And even still, there is an illegal arms trade in Australia. In 2010, 36 people were killed in one day in Melbourne during the Gangland Killings. The FACT is, criminals still get guns. Huge black market for illegal weapons | News.com.au
Why do I own firearms and military styles ones too?
History. History tells us that crazy people come often take power and to think it wont happen here is idiotic at best. Will it happen soon? I doubt it. We are living in the one of the best of times the world has ever seen but how long will that last? Not only does history tell us no, it doesnât last⌠but it tells us HECK NO.
Will I need my weapons to put down tyranny? I hope not and itâs extremely doubtful. Will my future kids need guns? Who knows, its certainly possible from now until then or after.
Why wouldnât you want to keep yourself and future generations protected from what history tells us is inevitable? Just because I might not see it in my lifetime is a horrible reason to screw over future generations.
Anyone who denies me the right to preserve my own security now and forever for either a good intention or ignorance is my enemy and I will treat them as such. If you approve of a gun ban or voted for those who do, you are selfish and screwing over life for people who come after you. You are giving up innocent peopleâs freedoms over your emotions and paranoia.
Every time I hear the knee jerk pleaâs for Gun Bans I immediately think of this.
[B]âGermans who wish to use firearms should join the SS or the SA - ordinary citizens donât need guns, as their having guns doesnât serve the State.â
âLaws that forbid the carrying of arms disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.â â Thomas Jefferson
We have nutters, but not gangbangers. The nutters are, at most, armed with a knife
The planes for 9/11 were taken over using knives. No gun needed to do all that destruction. Too bad there wasnât an air marshal on those flights with a gun. It would never have happened.
There was no need for an air marshal, gun carrying or not, on those flights. As proven by the one that crashed into the field a group of people that where not armed, or specifically trained, overcame the hijackers.
There is no doubt, or question, that there are illegal guns in Australia (and the UK) and that borders are somewhat easier to police on an island that where you have neighbouring countries that have high gun ownership too.
The issues here is why is the mass killings rate so high in the USA?
The Canadians donât seem to kill at the same rate as their southern neighbours do, the gun owning criminal elements of the UK and Australian populations seem to have very little desire to shoot school kids. Countries like Andorra (tiny, I know) that have laws requiring all adult males to own rifles (or being allowed to borrow one off the police in case of emergency) donât seem to have people wanting to go on killing sprees. I understand that Israel and Switzerland have laws that are similar to the Andorran one.
This leads to the question that REALLY matters and seems to be massively over looked in the âI have a right to a gunâ argument (are you in a well regulated militia?)
Why is this happening so often in the USA?
Is it sensationalist, non-stop, multi-channel news programs that make the people famous?
Is it a lack of mental health services?
Is it a sign that there is a major psychological desire for fame without talent, or hard work?
Is it a educational failing?
Does it have to do with the pedestal that you put police/army/etc officers on? Here and the UK telling someone you are in the army is treated as a âmehâ job - something you do because you are stupid enough to go and have someone shoot at you. Police in the UK are treated with respect, but not reverence, here on the other had other are treated with disdain and are though of as wankers on the whole.
Is it your âright wingâ political bias?
Does it have anything to do with intensity of religious belief?
The rest of your post was fantastic, jollygreenfello, but this sentence kind of got buried in there. Everybody focuses on self-defense when discussing the 2nd Amendment, but I truly believe this is the PRIMARY reason behind it.
You did expand on this in a later post and I agree with you. We are living in some pretty good times right now, but men, even men elected by the people, will still be hungry for power.
If circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens.
Alexander Hamilton, 1788
Before a standing army can rule the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States.
Noah Webster, 1787
Sounds like your characterization of America came right out of that old Burt Reynolds movie, Deliverance. Well, let me describe for you the America that Iâm used to dealing with here in the suburbs of Los AngelesâŚ
Weâve got it all here for your enjoyment, man! Hispanic gangs, Black gangs, Vietnamese gangs, Korean gangs, Yakuza, Italian mob, Russian mobâŚplenty of organized crime and plenty more unorganized crime. Criminals just love it here, apparently. My next door neighbor is retired LAPD. He has stories about life on the beat you just wouldnât believe. Gang violence has turned East LA and South Central LA and parts of Orange County into militarized zones, especially at night. Many folks living in those places join gangs because they actually feel safer that way. And of course they get their guns on the black market. Itâs sooo easy to get anything you want being near the border with Mexico. So any new gun control laws will have zero effect.
Things are much better where I live, but there have been 4 robberies in our subdivision over the past few months. Not a lot the police can do since they are spread so thin these days (budget cuts they tell us). Anyway, I probably wonât purchase a gun, opting instead for some home alarm devices, pepper spray, and maybe a Toledo Salamanca! But I can certainly understand how others feel safer around here with firearms.
You know, California has some of the most progressively liberal laws anywhere. What good has it done? California cities continue to rank among the most violent in the Nation. I guess Oakland and Stockton are actually worse than LA (donât know how thatâs possible). So, you can preach âkum ba yahâ all you want. But when families feel physically threatened, theyâre going to do what it takes to protect themselves.
But to answer your question why is the kill rate so high in America, the simplest explanation is diversity naturally breeds violence. Curse of the melting pot, I guess.
So you canât say gun are less accessible in australia.
It must be another issue.
It sounds like they estimate most firearms arenât registered.
Sorry, I completely disagree with you about 9/11.
They dumped the plane because they were bum rushed. They had time to react. If an air marshal had been aboard, he could have dispatched them much quicker and much easier than the guys that charged them.
Having an air marshal would have saved many lives.
I still donât want to be the guy that gets stabbed to death either.
If Australia is really so great, then Iâm adding that to my list of places to live.
â[B]This leads to the question that REALLY matters and seems to be massively over looked in the âI have a right to a gunâ argument (are you in a well regulated militia?)[/B]â
You are inferring that you have to be in a âWell regulated Militiaâ to own a gun, which is not true. The 2nd amendment is in the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights is a list of rights for the individuals.
The fact is, even if we didnât have a 2nd amendment, we would still have the right to defend ourselves against tyranny or people who wish to do us harm, as well as hunting.
The way the US Constitution tells the government what it CAN do. If the Federal government isnât enumerated a power under the constitution, then it is unconstitutional for the Federal government to pass such a law.
Nowhere in the Constitution is the government given the authority to ban or regulate firearms, regardless of what the sensationalist media, or politicians say.
In response to this, you would bring up âA well regulated militiaâ.
To which I ask, what is a âWell Regulatedâ clock? One that has all its proper parts and works as required, or one that has laws governing the use of a device made for the measurement of time? Itâs obviously the former.
What does it mean when some fiber products say they will help you stay regular or well regulated?
Well-regulated = Functioning properly
The phrase, âA well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,â is a preamble. In this, it simply states one reason for enumerating the right, which follows as the operational clause: âthe right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.â
Infringed - To break, as contracts; to violate, either positively by contravention, or negatively by non-fulfillment or neglect of performance. A prince or a private person infringes an agreement or covenant by neglecting to perform its conditions, as well as by doing what is stipulated not to be done.
And this leads me to the 9th amendment in the Constitution. - The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
â[B]Is it sensationalist, non-stop, multi-channel news programs that make the people famous?[/B]â - Yes
"[B]Is it a lack of mental health services[/B]" - Maybe
"[B]Is it a sign that there is a major psychological desire for fame without talent, or hard work[/B]" - Good point, perhaps.
"[B]Is it a educational failing[/B]" - US schools are terrible. Perhaps.
"[B]Does it have to do with a pedestal that you put police/army/etc officers on?[/B]" - I donât think so.
"[B]Is it your âright wingâ political bias[/B]" - No. While our founding laws are based for liberty, our media, celebrities, schools and politicians have an overwhelming bias towards more government and statism. (Which always corrupts)
â[B]Does it have anything to do with intensity of religious belief?[/B]â - No
â[B]Is it a combination of all the above[/B]â - Maybe
â[B]Can anything be done about it?[/B]â - Yes.
The fact is, roughly 58% of gun deaths are suicide, 2% are accidents and 40% are homicides.
You canât do anything about the 58% that are suicides. If you take away the guns, they will simply hang themselves or kill themselves in other ways, as witnessed in Australia.
The 2% that are accidents are avoidable by further encouraging proper gun safety and encouraging friends and family that have children, to keep the guns locked up and away from them.
Of the 40% that are homicides, 80% of those homicides are gang related.
What do we know about gangs? They profit heavily and are sustained by dealing in activities that are illegal. During the prohibition from 1919-1933, Crime rates and gang related activities soared. Gangs thrive in these types of conditions. Gangs support laws banning things because then they make even more money on the black markets.
Today, most gangs revolve around the War on Drugs. The war has done nothing to affect drug usage, it has cost roughly 1.5 trillion dollars and it has created even more gangs and criminals. The Mexican Drug Cartels make BILLIONS of dollars annually, from this.
In my opinion, abolishing the unconstitutional Federal prohibition on drugs is a must. They have no authority to do do it, but they do it anyway. These laws need to be rolled back to the states and local communities. If those communities want to ban drugs, so be it, but the Federal govt has no constitutional authority to regulate these substances, and the drug cartels and gangs are profiting heavily from them.
These gangs have violent turf wars where they often shoot each other with firearms that are already illegally obtained. If we bankrupt the gangs by repealing these federal drug laws, our homicide rate will be comparable to other countries.
As far as mass shootings, Assault Weapons Bans have no impact. As mentioned earlier, the worst school shooting in the United states was with 2 handguns and magazines that were legal under the Assault Weapons Ban, not an âAssault rifleâ.
This recent school shooting would could still have happened under the ban because the firearms were pre-1994. CT still has an AWB, and yet it still happened.
Without a full on police state, comparable to 1984, there is No way the government could possibly confiscate all these firearms.
Americaâs situation is unique and banning things isnât the answer.
Hey Jolly,
All the things you say are dead on, but this in particular, as shocking as it is to most Republicans (and many Democrats) is the best way to reduce gang related violence. Legalize and regulate drugs much like we do with alcohol. Of course this wouldnât mean people can just run around on drugs everywhere. For example, those who take drugs and then drive would be severely penalized. And you show up for work on drugs, companies can still fire your worthless butt.
And there is an even bigger issue at stake here â States Rights. The USA is drowning in ever expanding top-down Federal regulation and manipulation of the states. If we are to regain our âsecond windâ politically as a nation, the states will have to lead this charge. It was encouraging to see Colorado and Washington exercise their right to nullify existing Federal prohibitions by legalizing marijuana for recreational use.
It was also encouraging to hear that Obama will not pursue legal action against those states. And this is how the liberals have set their own trap. By not challenging the states on this issue, they are setting a precedent for states to challenge the Feds on other issues. In the future, look for states to come back with nullification on all or parts of Obamacare.
With regards to the well regulated militia the brief reading I have done seemed that that may be part of the allowance for owning a gun, not just a possible reason for doing so.
I agree totally that the legalisation of drugs would massively reduce the criminality involved with them.
The desire to join the gangs must have more than a desire for money element though, as they lowest levels are the most dangerous, and get less money than working for WalMart or the like
Switzerland has gun ownership numbers that rival the US in both percentage owned by the population, and the number of households that own more than one. But they have FAR less gun related crime. Conversely, Mexicoâs gun laws are MUCH tougher than those here in the US. We all see how thatâs working out⌠Of course when you have a neighbor whose government is willing to do a buyback program, then re-release those guns just to see where they would wind up, thatâs not a huge mystery.
One other thing: I canât find any stats, but there is a decent percentage of suicide numbers that fall into the murder/suicide category. For some undefined reason, nobody seems to keep statistics that differentiate those suicides from the more typical solo act.
The right to bear arms does not hinge on being part of a militia or the military. It is an individual right.
It is very clear what the intent was.
Even many of the founding fathers owned their own firearms. Throughout history Americans have always had the right to own their own firearms. The debate over gun control was settled when we ratified the constitution and the bill of rights.
As I mentioned earlier, even if we didnât have a 2nd amendment, we would still have the right to bear arms. The reason the founders listed it, along with the other amendments in the bill of rights, is because they knew that throughout history, governments would infringe on peopleâs rights.
Itâs funny, because the bill of rights was made to [U]underscore[/U] some of the rights that are of extra importance to ensure that the government doesnât even give thought to infringing on these rights and now people are trying to use the wording of these rights, to limit our rights. The founders would be rolling in their graves.
Up until 1934 or 1986, depending on how you look at it, civilians have ALWAYS been allowed to possess firearms that are the same, if not better than the firearms that the government employs.
The NFA (National Firearms Act) came about in 1934 after public outcry against gang activities such as the St. Valentineâs Day Massacre, where Al Capone and other gangsters lined up an opposing gang and mowed them down with machine guns in Chicago, because of prohibition. It made it illegal to posses things like Sawed off Shotguns, Short Barreled rifles or Machine guns without paying a $200 tax stamp ($3,500 today). Because of the high cost of a tax stamp, it basically made these types of firearms illegal for citizens, but people with $$$ could still buy them. The funny thing is, the law didnât work at all, and the gangsters still got unregistered machine guns. Crime didnât go down until prohibition went away, and yet the NFA stuck around.
The Bogus SCOTUS Case that upheld the NFA was United States vs. Miller. This case came about in 1939, shortly after FDR stuffed the courts full of his political judges who were eager to put false stamp of approval on all of his Unconstitutional, New Deal laws. Miller owned a sawed off shotgun without paying the tax stamp, which was illegal under the NFA. He went to court contesting the Constitutionality of the NFA. The funny thing is, the Supreme court basically said that things like Sawed off Shotguns could be regulated by the government because they had no valid military use. The explanation was that, the military doesnât use things like sawed off shotguns, therefore you shouldnât need a sawed off shotgun. Itâs interesting because now people are saying âYou donât need things that are similar to what the military ownsââŚ
In 1986 the Hughes amendment was brought up for a vocal vote in congress. The Unconstitutional amendment that was tacked on to another bill, made it illegal for civilians to buy machine guns that were produced after 1986. There was an overwhelming amount of people who said No, but the chair, Charlee Wrangle (D) who was later found guilty of ethics violations, said that the Ayeâs won the vote.
Here is the video, itâs clearly BS. FOPA Hughes Amendment VOTE APRIL 10 1986 - YouTube You can then see that Congressman Wrangle denied a recorded vote after it was requested. He clearly violated the rules to push through a pet policy that he personally supported.
The thing about machine guns, in my opinion, is that they are less deadly than semi-automatic fire or steady accurate fire with a regular firearm.
Automatic fire is intended for suppression, not killing droves of people. In the military, a machine gunnerâs job is to suppress the enemy, not necessarily to kill them, although it is very possible. When you suppress an enemy, it is to make them take cover.
In 1997, when we still had Clintonâs Unconstitutional Assault Weapons Ban that even restricted semi-automatic rifles that look scary (âAssault weaponsâ), the North Hollywood Shootout happened. Two guys robbed a bank. They had 2 illegally modified machine guns, they fired nearly 2,000 rounds at the police, and yet the only people that died were the two robbers. 1997 North Hollywood Shootout pt.3 - YouTube
Why? Because instead of taking accurate shots, they just sprayed everything. If some psychotic nut bag were to go crazy, I would much rather them grab a machine gun than a regular rifle. If the psycho has a machine gun, they will quickly expend all their ammo and wonât shoot accurately at all.
The military even noticed this. The military used to employ fully automatic M16âs and m4 carbines. They noticed that, when under pressure, lots of soldiers who were not machine gunnerâs would switch their rifles to full auto and waste all their ammo. This actually became a big problem for the military, so they later made some changes to the rifles.
Instead of having the ability to shoot fully automatic and semi automatic, the Army and Marines switched it to 3 round burst and semi-auto, and they encourage soldiers and Marines to shoot on semi automatic as opposed to 3 round burst, unless they were trying to suppress the enemy.
Another issue is that, when you shoot fully automatic, over a short period of time guns start to jam up. In the video of the LA shooting you can hear the news anchor talking about how one of the guys tossed his rifle to the ground after it jammed.
There are still roughly 200,000 legal machine guns in America. How many have been used in a crime? Two of them⌠and a police officer was responsible for one of the homicides. The thing is, these machine guns cost upwards of $3,000 because of the lack of supply.
Prior to 1934, anybody could buy machine guns at hardware stores, and yet the only people who really used them to murder people, were gangsters. And they still were able to get them, they didnât give a crap about the law. Those homicides were mainly gang vs gang or gang vs police. And it is clear that the nullification of alcohol prohibition caused that type of crime to go away, until the drug war really picked up. There was no problem with Americans going to hardware stores, purchasing a Thompson SMG (Tommy Gun) and mowing down schools. It just didnât happen. The Thompson Sub machine gun was invented in 1919, citizens owned them long before the military jumped on the bandwagon in 1938. In 1927, however, while MGâs were still totally legal, a school worker blew up the school and set the record for the worst school massacre with things that are still attainable today. He killed 45 people, mostly elementary children. There was nothing the government could do about that. And those homicides were mainly gang vs gang or gang vs police. And it is clear that the nullification of alcohol prohibition caused that type of crime to go away, until the drug war really picked up.
But because I was never trained to be a gunfighter & killer if confronted by a mass murderer Iâd probably panic hesitate and get shot before I could defend myself.