In light of recent events, if you were informed that coworkers were conceal and carriers, but not which coworkers, would that make you feel uncomfortable, less safe, more safe or? It’s actually very difficult to get you conceal and carry permit here, so you can assume those who have it went through training and has public safety in mind. Although political, trying to avoid political debate. (Update: 13/25 are for the idea) Second update...It’s a very political debate
The problem with gun free zones is they remove the uncertainty that exists in society that someone might be packing. Thats a powerful deterrent as a criminal never knows who may have what on them. Eliminating gun free zones while increasing requirements to carry gets my vote (current regs aren’t stringent enough on proficiency in my opinion)
Are you speaking in general or California specifically? In California you actually have to prove to the Sheriff or Police Chief that you have a valid reason to carry, in addition you are judged on good moral character, and have completed a course on firearms training. Curious what you would add?
I’d add way more firearms training and design a very technically challenging qualification course that demands drawing the weapon from concealment, firing under time pressure, with extreme accuracy. Only those that meet a tough threshold would qualify.
Less safe. The chances of a shooter is a lot less than clumsy co-workers who will accidentally shoot someone.
You’re thinking about this wrong. Removing a restriction doesn’t equate to forcing guns in the hands of those unprepared. It just means that the same conditions you experience right now when you are at the mall now exist at work. You don’t know what highly proficient concealed carry users are around you at the mall, and you wouldn’t at work. The only difference is that you’d remove the certainty for criminals that no one in the gun free zone could stop them.
And of the hundreds (thousands?) of shootings in areas that allow concealed carry permits, how many have been solved by a civilian carrying a gun?
More safe if they actually carry in the office. No difference if they don’t carry at work.
Do you have actual stats on registered concealed carry users who have injured themselves or others vs the rate they use it for good? Or rate they turn bad? No, you don’t. You are making shit up.
Did you even read the article? Its based on a study that found a correlation between firearms and firearm deaths. Thats like saying people who live longer tend to have a higher number of birthdays. Its meaningless. The reason is that it doesn’t matter if deaths are from firearms or knives, death is death. This is a key point people don’t seem to get. In other words, if people want to kill and guns are available, they may use guns. If guns aren’t available they may use knives or bombs. The victims are still dead though, so its not a win if they use knives. Your article does not remotely prove that good guys with guns are a bad thing. Its taking a random stat and trying to claim it proves something. Heres an article for you to read to help illustrate this. London is now talking about what can be done to address the knife violence problem. It’s never the tool. Its the person. Full stop. http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-43610936
Management announces layoffs. A deranged middle aged father with a 2M mortgage shoots everyone and himself. If you want the above, allow everyone to have guns.
More safe.
Less safe. A "good guy" with a gun probably won't use it, won't use it fast enough, or won't use it effectively, if there was actually a "bad guy" with a gun. Seriously, other countries don't struggle with this. This is a uniquely American issue, which is so easily solvable (with a political spine), but you have to not be American to see it.
This isn’t true.
What’s the easy solution?
How about no more guns?
Unfortunately its just not that easy. Turns out people will find a way. http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-43610936
Isn't that because of more regulation in New York?
Although I don’t disagree with the chances of negative outcomes, the fact is that nothing stops anyone who currently owns a weapon from bringing it anywhere. But overall my point is not increase access firearms, (personally think there is a lot more room for regulations on who can buy one). Those who conceal and carry have to go through numerous checks and speak with the sherif them self before they are allowed to carry. Much more stringent than buying a firearm. I don’t want everyone to have them, I just want those who are trained and have proven sanity to be able to protect those who fear the above scenario
Tech Industry
Yesterday
3494
ByteDance is officially fucked
Tech Industry
Yesterday
2386
TESLA UP 14% AFTER HOURS 🎉🎉🎉🎉
Ask Blinders
Yesterday
1162
Tipping culture is really getting out of control! Waiter gave me ‘a look’ because I tipped her 10% for ‘BAD service!’
AMA
Yesterday
2127
I’m a professional coaster AMA
Tech Industry
Yesterday
271
Which country will be world superpower in 2030
Less safe.
Time to 'feel' less safe. Because if ur in amazon seattle.. people are for sure packing.
I don’t agree that a bunch of yuppies are packing...