Ok. I'll bite. According to your post, it is not the police or good guys with a gun that stop bad guys with a gun (cliche and all). So, what is it that you think stops bad guys with a gun? the threat of timeout? offering them a safe space? Unarmed people being sweet to them. I really am curious what stops them in your mind.

You have to call the local social worker who will talk to them.

My wife and I are NRA Training Counselors (A TC trains and certifies NRA Instructors), Chief Range Safety Officers (train and certifies NRA Range Safety Officers) and NRA Instructors. We have taught thousands of people in Concealed Carry classes. The reality is very few people will attend any training class unless required to to get a concealed carry permit. We support the idea that there should be no limitation on the right of a citizen to carry a firearm. However, please know when you can legally use a firearm in self defense. In teaching CCH classes, we would give students a factual scenario (based on cases in which the shooter was charged with murder) and then asked (by show of hands) those who that the shooting legally justified and those who thought it was not. Even after a three hour presentation on the law of self defense, most continued to misunderstand when they could use deadly force. Everyone please teach yourself or take a course in the use of deadly force. You don't want to get it wrong and end up in prison.

Excellent post, and I certainly applaud and support the positive things that the NRA is doing, and has done, to make gun owners more cognizant of the risks of ownership as well as how to handle firearms in a safe, responsible manner. One effort worthy of mention is the NRA "Eddie Eagle" program; the only ongoing program that I know of that teaches young children what to do if they find a gun. As I understand it the training materials for this program are available online and are also available to any school that wants to teach it.

I take some exception to the supposition "The reality is very few people will attend any training class unless required to to get a concealed carry permit." There are undoubtedy such folks out there. However gun safety training is something that very many learn in an ongoing manner. From my own experience, I and my siblings grew up with guns. Dad was a collector as well as an amateur gunsmith. He knew guns and how they worked better than just about anyone, and my siblings and I learned early on not just to shoot, but how to handle guns (all types) in a safe, responsible manner. I rarely recall dad getting angry at any of us for any reason, but one incident that stands out vividly in my mind was the time deer hunting as a 17-year-old I neglected to clear the chamber of my rifle before climbing over a fence. I knew better, and deserved the lecture I got. Additionally many if not most of the schools back then (60s and 70s) offered gun safety training as an elective for any student who cared to access it, and just about all of us did, plus hunting and target shooting was something that was routinely engaged in, now as well as then. Of course, the point about many not knowing the law when it comes to self-defense is valid, but when I took my first permit-to-carry class (Minnesota, about 20 years ago) much if not most of what was taught I already knew. As did many if not most of my contempories. And to be honest, a short class can teach only so much.

I would also add that a constitutionally guaranteed right should not require any training in order to exercise it. "Right" is only one side of the coin. The other side reads "responsibility". No right exists apart from the duty to exercise it responsibly. Freedom of speech, (to use a well-worn example) does not allow any of us to yell "Fire!!) in a crowded theater, or to verbally threaten anyone. "But it was my RIGHT" would not impress many judges in such cases.

Responsible Americans take the exercise of ALL rights seriously. Yes, mistakes will be made. But the possibility of making a mistake as a reason for witholding a right flies directly against the spirit of the Constitution. I don't know who said it first, but (in paraphrase) "those who sacrifice a little freedom for a little security shall in the end have neither freedom nor security" says it best.

I believe that to carry a firearm you should have to take and pass an in-depth course on safety and legal responsibility as well as be able to properly handle Your firearm. Unfortunately that is not the case here in Florida even when you apply for a concealed weapon permit! Florida is a joke but better than nothing. I moved for TN where they take the CWP course very seriously.

I am glad that Florida passed the law!

I agree with the majority of the post, however the highlighted section about the first amendment not allowing one to yell fire in a crowded theater is actually a myth. It originated from a different case all together and that case was subsequently overturned by the Supreme Court. There is certainly a responsibility to exercising any right as indicated, and there may be downstream legal consequences (foreseen or not) for someone who is irresponsible in exercising their rights.

Here is one link of many that talk about the myth. Note that I used a link to a law office which posted a video on this very topic.

According to your post, you misinterpreted my post. Perhaps on purpose.

I don't care what stops bad guys with guns. I care what keeps bad guys from getting guns in the first place. We don't need to stop a bad guy with a gun, if we don't have bad guys with guns.

Humans will never EVER allow that to happen. Ever. We value our weapons too much. Good guys and bad guys both. We are a violent species, we kill our own, sometimes for fun, sometimes for profit, sometimes out of anger, rage, grief - and only very rarely for self-defense.

But if we can make it HARDER for bad guys to have guns, and give bad guys more consequences when they're caught with guns, then just maybe it might convince ONE bad guy to - not use their gun. It'd be a step in the right direction.

How do you suppose that we keep bad guys from getting guns? Make it against the law for a bad guy to own a gun? Hmmm, seems like that has already been tried and failed. Seems like the "consequences" that you are seeking might result from a "good carrying a gun." Obviously, bad guys do not care about laws or they would not be bad guys. And as long as we have those "little old ladies" that care for the poor unfortunate bad guys that come from broken or poor families, no amount of slaps on the wrists are going to work either.
I keep hearing folks saying "but gun accidents are bad." Yep, they sure are but how many folks get cut by knife accidents, car accidents, over doses of medications, falling down steps, falling on ice, etc?
Perhaps if more "bad guys" were put down by the courts, police and good guys carrying guns, society would be a safer place?

I've already offered my opinion in multiple threads, that you even responded to, about what I thought might be some actual solutions. Feel free to check on those.

Perhaps increasing the consequences of using a deadly weapon to intentionally commit a crime. The death penalty comes to mind as a mandatory minimum. Allow citizens and the police to use deadly force in more scenarios, especially when there is clear and obvious circumstances, and the criminal identity is unquestioned. Like a car driver fleeing and leading to a chase. Any criminal with a gun used in a crime. Finding a felon with a gun. Theft of a gun. Also applies to all deadly weapons like bombs, arson, cars, etc. Eliminate all innocent by insanity; it becomes guilty by insanity. Lower the age for being considered an adult. Ask the liberals at what age a child can decide what s3x they want to pick, and that is the age they are charged as an adult. (think 2nd grade, 8 years old)
Adjust trials for cases where evidence is unquestionable. Such as someone shooting at police, and criminal gets shot. Directly taken into custody. Go straight to trial, not the hospital, and sentenced to death. Carry out that punishment immediately.
Notice the theme here is to go after criminals, not law abiding citizens, or the police who protect us.

I certainly agree with the spirit of the post being answered here, if not all of the points.

In essence, yes. We do need to consequate ALL crimes more strictly than we do now. Courts have turned into revolving doors where violent repeat felons are all too often the recipients of plea bargains to the point that the price they pay is minor compared to the penalties that their original charge would have earned them. A particular sore point with me, at least back in Minnesota, is that in cases where a felon uses a gun in a crime, usually the first charge dropped in any plea bargain seemed all to often to be illegal possession of a firearm. Maybe it is that way in Florida too; I don't know.

But it has been my opinion for some time that being charged with the illegal possession of a firearm should by law NEVER be plea-bargained away, and if found guilty on that particular charge than the convicted felon receives a mandatory sentence of ten years incarceration ON TOP of any other penalty the judge sees fit to impose for any of the other crimes the criminal has been convicted of in this particular instance, and that those additional ten years must be served consecutively after all other penalties have been paid, NOT concurrently. No exceptions.

Another point (and this one will be about as welcome as an attack of flatulence in church, at least for some folks) is that in cases where the good guy uses his/her gun to stop a crime in progress and the bad guy or guys are wounded or killed in the process, the good guy should never be held liable for any damages inflicted on the bad guy in any civil suit brought by family or friends of the bad guy as a consequence. This was another thing that we saw all too often in Minnesota: hundreds of thousands, sometimes millions of dollars being awarded to family members where habitual criminals were put to rest by a good guy with a gun, often for "causes" for bringing the suit that were beyond ludicrous. It was a gravy train, not justice.

We've been coddling criminals long enough at the expense of the good folks long enough. Time to stop.

When I asked how ......it was a rhetorical question, not really expecting a realistic answer. I've read your (expert) opinions and found them lacking in realism....in my opinion. Apparently, realistic solutions are disqualified immediately by those that are anti-gun. The point that has been made over and over again is that the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun on a killing rampage is a good guy with a gun. Another person commented (tongue in cheek) that someone call a social worker to talk to the bad guy. Of course, that solution was suggested seriously by some idiotic leaders in our country.
By the way, just because a CCW is no longer required for a gun owner to carry does not mean that they are not familiar with firearms or that they do not understand the defensive use laws. Precluding the requirement of gun safety classes before carrying a firearms does not mean that a gun owner is stupid, ignorant of laws or careless. I would guesstimate that most gun owners are or have been hunters or former military, with experience in handling firearms. Personally, I received gun safety instruction/class in junior high/middle school and have owned firearms since I was in my early teens.
By the way, the reason you cannot prevent a bad guy from possessing a firearm is because you cannot deem a person a bad guy UNTIL he/she/it commits a bad (unlawful) action. Unless you incarcerate bad guys, you will never be able to prevent them from obtaining a firearm if they wish to possess one. Mutual assured destruction, in the case of the threat of anyone possibly carrying a concealed weapon may have the effect of lowering violent threats. It may not, but it is a more reasonable idea for a solution than attempting to rid firearms in the hands of the "bad guy."

For those not inclined to educate themselves on gun laws, here is a listing of federally mandated punishment for using a firearm in a crime.

Federal Penalties for Using a Firearm in a Violent Crime | Law Offices Of Robert David Malove

There are state laws that mirror the federal laws concerning the use of a gun in a crime. There are all kinds of consequences for using a gun during a crime. It is a federal crime for a convicted felon to possess, own or use a firearm. Problem is that prosecutors will often accept a plea deal dropping these charges in order to get a quick conviction to clear the court docket. A law not enforced is less useful than no law.
Many guns are obtained by prohibited individuals through a "straw purchaser". Too often prosecutors do not prosecute these people. There are all kinds of laws that were passed in the belief that it would deter criminals from possessing guns. Laws don't prevent crime, they just provide the means to prosecute a violator.
What it all boils down to is criminals don't obey laws, only honest people obey laws, and laws not enforced are no deterrent.

I hadn’t heard this suggestion before, but it has merit in my opinion. The length of the sentence and whether it should be concurrent or consecutive can be debated, as well as if any such sentence would be eligible for parole, but at a minimum jail time is imposed.

Florida law does provide shielding from civil liability by a perpetrator or their family in the event of a lawful self defense. I am not suggesting that a lawsuit would never be brought, for example, if an innocent bystander is hurt, you could potentially be held liable for those injuries.

Given the predilection for lawsuits, and the potential for prosecution even in what should be a legal self defense, it helps if you can show that you have had firearms training. If you have a weapon, especially if you conceal carry, or even if you only keep it in the home, you very much SHOULD have some sort of firearms insurance. Keep in mind that such insurance will only protect you if you have a legal self defense. There are various companies out there that offer different levels of coverage, but consider the legal expenses you might have even if the self defense is ultimately deemed legally justified.

100%. There needs to be “broken windows” enforcement of the law. When people begin to see that they WILL be arrested and go to jail on a consistent basis, behaviors will start to change. It won’t happen overnight, but it may deter the “entry level” criminals initially.

We also need to address mental health issues in a real way. There are people who do need to be institutionalized and we need to recognize and accept that has to happen. The social experiment of letting people with legitimate mental health issues decide for themselves whether to be on the streets or hospitalized has proven it does not work.