Give others the chance to vote.
Share this poll, because the more votes the better.
Create your own.
Opinions! We all have them. Find out what people really think with polls and surveys from Crowdsignal.
closed
Share this poll, because the more votes the better.
Opinions! We all have them. Find out what people really think with polls and surveys from Crowdsignal.
of course, end gun free zones. But here in MI, we have an unusual law. You can't carry ccw in a school. However, if you have your ccw permit, you may carry openly in the school. It has created all kinds of chaos and gnashing of teeth from the libs, as you can imagine.
My suggestion is to simply allow persons with a ccw to carry concealed in local schools. But that would make too much sense, for the politicians and their left leaning friends.
By the way, here in MI, all of the decisions are made for the south eastern part of the state where the main population lives. Think Detroit, Ann Arbor, Flint, etc. Here in west MI, and central and northern parts, where we tend to be much more conservative and constitutionally minded, we are ignored except for when they are taking our tax money. They have no problem finding us then.
We did slap the politicians last summer though, when they tried to slip a tax increase through to fix roads, which would only use half of the money to fix the roads and send the other half of it to pork projects. The vote was defeated something like 80 to 20 percent. Talk about sending a message. I don't think you could get a vote like that on the likelihood of the sun coming up the next day. And it was a huge turnout in a non-presidential election. They got the message.
end gunfree zones encourage concealed carry/open carry encouragw people to get treatment for psychologiical issues destigmatize getting treatment
[Train all high school students in the proper use and handling of firearms]
All else is temporary. Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day.
But imagine a college administrator telling a stadium full of freshmen who know how to shoot they were going to be disarmed for the next four years.
Imagine the disaffected loner learning discipline thorough participation in shooting sports.
Imagine a generation raised on the idea they are responsible for their own firearm safety.
I take the long view.
We can only reverse our decline by teaching and disciplining our young with the moral standards and ethics we were founded on ( Judeo-Christian). No amount of laws or other government intrusions will stop mass shootings. As I see it this kind of action is mostly a symptom of our decline.
Focusing on the gun is only denial of the root cause of the problem and will change nothing.
I was having the conversation with several people, recently. All of the above, in one way or another, will probably decrease the number of victims of mass shootings, either via decreasing the number of shootings, or decreasing the number of victims in an attempt.
One of the things that I have a difficult time getting past people is that removing the legally enforced "gun free zones" doesn't mean that anyone will be forced to carry a gun, or even that there is a guaranteed increase in the number of people carrying in the area. It only means that there's not a legally enforced place where people who are inclined to follow the law will be disarmed.
I think, probably, that removing the legal enforcement of gun free zones will result in no fewer mass shootings, but probably the same number, clustered differently. I think that it's likely that the overall number of deaths will decrease (to an unknown extent) just due to the slight increase in likelihood that someone will be in a position to stop the murderer.
I don't like open carry for multiple reasons, but I certainly don't want it banned. The overall effect is neutral to negative, in this case. Yes, a murderer may choose to go elsewhere upon seeing an openly armed citizen, but I think the likelihood of that happening is on par with that of an unprepared open carrier being executed, having their gun taken, or hitting bystanders. (Again, I say "unprepared," and there's a big difference between "I think you're tactically stupid" and "I think the state should prevent you from being tactically stupid.")
Increased mental health screenings? Well, yeah...Probably. Probably not, if, as a friend advocated, we're going to start tracking down and "screening" the people that egg on a shooter in an anonymous online forum. (http://www.ijreview.com/2015/10/435181-oregon-college-shooter-may-posted-chilling-warning-chat-forum-night-shooting/ - Can't link the Google cache from where I'm logged on.)
If we're going to stop this whole silly "you're mentally ill and permanently disqualified from a bunch of things including owning a firearm, if you've been treated for alcoholism, substance addiction, etc. ad nauseum" thing, then very probably we COULD decrease the chances of things like this happening. But people don't usually think that someone they're close to is capable of such a violent act, and even if they slightly suspect, many are unwilling to press for treatment because of the lifetime of disqualifications that would result.
Training HS students is not a bad idea at all, even if just from an individual safety standpoint. I don't think that it's likely to statistically meaningfully decrease shootings or the number of victims. The shootings themselves are statistically not meaningful, and the percentage that this would affect would be less meaningful.
Arming more people (encourage...train guards...arm teachers...etc.) is a great idea, so long as the person being armed is the one making the choice. Anyone who's not personally invested in the process and the goal will be less effective, and potentially a liability.
The biggest thing, though, is the one that will never happen with the CNNs of the world. Other countries have known for YEARS that publicity, notoriety, and legacy are motivators. The names of mass murderers are eventually made public in other countries, but they don't lead the 24 hour news cycle. Unfortunately, I think we have too many people profiting from the glorification of sickos.
Most of the options above would help some, except for any giving government more "authority" or power to control things, such as mental health screenings.
Just who would be responsible for instituting and managing any of the poll proposals?
The only real, long term answer is for people to reclaim exclusive authority over their own lives, accept full responsibility for themselves and the consequences of all their choices and actions.
Really. I picked the first one, but all except 2 or 3 of the choices should be done.
Ending gun free zones is at top of my list. Years ago just after Nebraska finally passed, the local stores went crazy posting the no M92 signs on the doors. One of the local convenience store chains then went through a string of armed robberies, one them ending with the clerk being shot dead even though she had cooperated. This all was going on while the local State organization was trying to tell the chain that the no guns signs were unnecessary and dangerious. Shortly after the clerk was murdered, the chain reconsidered its policy and the signs came down. Now it might be just a coincidence but the run of robberies stopped. That and possibly the fact that we with CCL's followed through with our promise that we would restart our patronage. I do not know how it is in other states but here in Nebraska I really do think that there enough people with CCL's that you really just don't know who is armed and it it keeps the bad guys guessing.
I voted to end gun free zones. But to end all publicity is just as important.