Defense of public places

[nipponaihito]

@jonstokes , Thank you for taking the time to put this proposal together. I'm a rabidly pro-gun individual but also a pragmatist who knows that simply keeping the status quo will not be able to stand in the face of angry mobs screaming "do something!" after every mass shooting. I will be starting another issue to address the constitutionality of this proposal, but I wanted to start a discussion about public places and provisions for the proper defense therein in the context of mass shootings. These events are the most horrific and, unfortunately on the political side, galvanizing for the gun control crowd. I think if your proposal has a means to address the problem of mass shootings it will gain a lot more traction. It's established fact that background checks, indeed any sort of preventative measure, will not prevent any and all bad actors from obtaining firearms. The Orlando shooter passed a background check, as well as many others. While your shooter control proposal may have more means and checks to prevent bad actors from obtaining them, you and I both know that it won't prevent all of them. Those bad actors can go on to be part of the horrific mass shooting violence that plagues our nation (even if by the FBI's stats gun violence as a whole is trending downward). These bad actors (most often by my measly informed reckoning) choose locales where there is little possibility of armed resistance, such as schools, nightclubs, and ironically, army bases. to carry out their horrific acts of violence. I propose that your proposal be broadened to not only de-regulate the "what" of guns, but the "where" as well. Shortly put: no more gun free zones. Furthermore, public accommodations should be required to have a licensed shooter on staff (perhaps a more stringent one, that includes extra training on first aid, threat deescalation, etc) to protect the public. Beyond simply the presence of firearms, buildings need to have clear paths and plans of escape/structures/means/something for unarmed patrons to flee or take cover. We have fire codes, we should have "mass catastrophe codes" or something similar. What do you think? I think at least having something like this in there will move it from further.

[jonstokes]

I think the idea of putting on a "no more gun free zones" thing in there is probably pretty good. Worst-case scenario it's a bargaining chip, and best-case it actually moves the safety discussion in a more sane direction.

[mkazin]

"Measly informed" is an apt description of this proposal, which is anything but pragmatic.

First, because those targets are frequently chosen either due to familiarity and target choice- e.g. kids shooting in their own schools, anti-gay shooter in a gay nightclub, anti-American shooter in a military base. Anyone with a basic understanding of terrorism will tell you this- attacks are always either personal or symbolic. Second, and more importantly, what's the difference to the attacker if resistance is on-site or not? In a majority of cases the attacker stays on scene long enough for responders to come and kill them. It's like you think they're some kind of evil mastermind who is min-maxing a diabolical plot. The army base example isn't irony- it's a clear counterexample.

@jonstokes I've already pointed out how poorly you've done in this approach when it comes to finding support among advocates of gun control - one of your stated goals. Folding in this sort extremist position as a "bargaining chip" is a demonstration of acting in bad faith.