You rationalize gun free zones with this common hypothetical. We've tried the gun free zone-big fail. How many reminders, massacres in gun free zones is it going to take before you accept that it isn't working? How about we try something else like personal protection zones?

I am all for armed citizens if they have passed rigorous controls for buying a gun. And many types of weapons should be banned from being manufactured for anyone but the military and police.

There is no feasible way while continuing to be a representative democracy of getting these weapons now off the streets and out of the hands of criminals.

The Pink Pistols have the right idea of training heavily for firearm use and carrying. Pink Pistols – Pick On Someone Your Own Caliber

More security as well as metal detectors are needed as well as bomb sniffing dogs.

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

Benjamin Franklin

Well, I'm relieved to know that it can't happen the way I described. Thanks for reassuring me. And I thought casualties from friendly fire were real.

You see, I'm not a gun control advocate. I'm a people control advocate. You know. Guns don't kill people, people kill people. And, while you may be trained enough, and have sufficient restraint, I'm not sure about the next guy, or the next guy. I mean, this murderer was hired as an ARMED security guard. And the result is the worst mass shooting in our history. So, how much value should I place in the training and vetting of people who are allowed to carry weapons on their persons?

You picture a scenario where the bad guy comes in and starts trouble in a crowded venue and someone with CCW permit pulls and takes him out. End of problem. I can see it happening differently. I can see collateral damage. I can see missing the target under that stress. I don't think my scenario is far fetched.

I don't know what the ultimate answer is, but I'm not sure unrestricted carry is it.

Why he did it is irrelevant to the real issue. Gun people will try to derail the real discussion with other stuff. The biggest issue is the ease with which a person can buy a weapon in the U.S. whose only purpose is to kill as many people in a short period of time as possible. Our laws prevent people on the terror watch list from flying but they are allowed to purchase guns and many of them are. Are you kidding me? We have had 8 mass casualty shootings since last June, 7 with assault rifles. This guy was a known quantity He was actively investigated and he still got a license to own guns. It's called an assault rifle for a reason. It was designed for only one purpose and we all know that. At one time in our history it was banned and no other weapon joined it on the banned list so history says because we ban one weapon the gov't will start to ban others as the NRA often says. Finally, I am not opposed to a person owning guns, I am an owner but these weapons make it too easy to inflict maximum damage and unless we can come up with a plan to keep them out of the hands of these nuts they should be banned.

Waynet - therein lies the problem.

You will NEVER stop the bad guys, nut cases, etc. from acquiring any type of gun on the black market!

Bans only affect those that are law abiding and will not try to circumvent the law.

Unfortunate? Yes - but that is the way it is!

It is looking like this was an act of terrorism, Ramadan jihad or the like. Omar could have been surreptitiously provided with weaponry via one or more terrorist organizations although he was not in this case. Alternatively he could have blown himself up in the crowded club or set bombs there or elsewhere, such as what occurred in the Boston bombings.

BTW, how our government let him hold a firearms permit is beyond me.

The Facts
 

1. The AR-15 was developed as a hunting rifle by the Armalite Corporation. The military version, the M-16 was a later spinoff. So, you see it's original purpose was not to kill people.

2. The "No Fly List" is a flawed document. It is replete with errors. Members of Congress are on the list, and experiencing great difficulty in getting off. There are infants on the list. It is not a reliable document for determining who may own guns.

There is a more cogent reason for not using the No Fly List for prohibiting gun purchases. It denies a Constitutional Right without DUE PROCESS. Being placed on the list is an arbitrary bureaucratic decision.

3. You cite eight mass casualty shootings. This, in a nation with over 1.5 MILLION so-called "assault rifles." The problem in not the gun, it is the people who did the shootings. You mention that the shooter was investigated. Apparently he was not considered dangerous when he was interviewed. Even FBI agents can be deceived.

4. You are wrong if you think only the AR-15 was banned. The original federal ban included Norinco, Mitchell, and Poly Technologies Avtomat Kalashnikovs (AKs) (all models), Action Arms Israeli Military Industries UZI and Galil, Beretta AR-70 (SC-70), Colt AR-15, Fabrique National FN/FAL, FN-LAR, FNC
SWD (MAC type) M-10, M-11, M11/9, M12, Steyr AUG,
INTRATEC TEC-9, TEC-DC9, TEC-22, and Revolving cylinder shotguns such as (or similar to) the Street Sweeper and Striker 12.

Subsequent proposals extended the list to dozens of other firearms, but they failed.

5. Do you really think a ban will keep these guns unavailable? If you believe that then you must think that smugglers are unable to bring tons of drugs and millions of illegal aliens into our country. Alas...... not so.

.

I am in full support of the second amendment... so how to we make sure nuts like this don't get guns without giving up our freedom to bear arms?

I have to say, for once, this topic is having some rational discussions from both sides pro and con.

That's nice to see. If it ever becomes possible to have national discussions, maybe some progress could be made.

Just for the record, I am a firm believer and supporter of our constitution.

Nice discussion. Thanks

To Carl
1. I have done as much research as I can and have found no mention of the AR-15 used as a hunting weapon. In 1959 it was produced as a small arms rifle for the US military later to morph into the M16. Besides if you need 30 rounds to kill an animal maybe try something else.
2. You are absolutely correct. The No fly list is a joke.
3,No one really knows how many 15's are around. No one has to tell. Manufacturers or dealers. And 8 mass killings since last June is not enough to convince you that perhaps achange is needed.
4. You are correct. More than the 15 were banned at the same time. Any semi-automatic weapon and large capacity magazines also were banned EX. AK-47s
5. Again you are correct. Nothing is 100% perfect but it is far too easy for anyone to obtain these weapons of mass destruction. There has to be a better way.

glad to hear it
 

very sensible post.

We had a good discussion. We have agreed not to agree. My last comment is a very simple one. No one in America should own or want a weapon that allows them to take 50 innocent lives in the blink of an eye. Hunt with something else. As I wrote earlier if you need 30 rounds to to kill an animal find another sport. And yes the major of weapons were on the original ban. And yes the AR15 is a weapon of mass destruction. Ask the families of Sandy Hook CT and see what answer you get. You want to give everybody guns,fine, I do not. As for Iraq and Syria I do not want to see more American lives wasted. And so far they have been wasted by previous Presidents.

Shootings and Security?
 

Does the Villages have adequate security in your opinion? Anyone that rents can use the gate passes to gain entry into the communities?

Actually you don't have to rent. A gate pass is not needed to open Village gates.
Our streets are no more or less safe, the anywhere else.