Well, that’s no longer. The memo I’m signing today directs installation commanders to allow requests for personal protection to carry a privately owned firearm with the presumption that it is necessary for personal protection. If a request is denied, then we will explain in detail the basis for that denial. Again, the presumption is service members will be able to have their Second Amendment right on post.

Not all enemies are foreign, nor are they all outside our borders. Some are domestic. Confirming your God-given right to self-protection is what I’m signing into action today.

This will only end badly

>>1502832
It already did end badly when Ft. Hood had TWO separate active shootings and nobody could do a fucking thing about it because lol no gunz soldiers.

>>1502833
If they weren’t retards they’d secure the perimeter. No wonder they lost the war against Taliban

>>1502833
If it was a gun free zone how dafauq dey get dem guns in?

>>1502835
Turns out criminals don't give a fuck about that no guns allowed sign?

>>1502833
>Shooting happens at a military base
>"LIVE SHOOTER AT THE BASE, HE'S WEARING A MILITARY UNIFORM AND CARRYING A RIFLE"
>Every armed guy on the base starts shooting each other

>>1502839
So in your mind our military bases are safe now because they can be protected by people with guns, because before none of the people on base had guns?
I just want to make sure we're accurately capturing your retardation for posterity

>>1502840
>things that only happen in the imagination of anti-gun leftists
Imagine trying to argue that soldiers haven't been trained on PID.

>>1502841
>So in your mind
I love this Kathy Newman bullshit. "So you're saying this completely different thing that you didn't say."

>>1502842
Then clarify for us. I want you to clearly state how stupid you are.

>>1502842
>>things that only happen in the imagination of anti-gun leftists
>https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/jun/28/colorado-gunman-police-officer-killed
>https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/nov/24/protest-alabama-mall-police-shooting-suspect-emantic-ej-bradford-jr
Probably the second worst thing you can be at the site of a mass shooting is being someone who matches the basic description of the shooter while also carrying a gun. First being someone actively being shot by said shooter.

>>1502822
I remember Trump campaigning on this in 2015. Military base got shot up, soldiers died.

>>1502846
>picks up active shooter's AR-15
>cops mistake him for active shooter
>how could this happen?
One, I wasn't aware cops were soldiers. And two, nice to know they have less training and restraint. Also that second guy wasn't supposed to be concealed carrying in that Mall. Just saying.

>>1502848
Yeah and notice how he didn't enact it for his entire first term. I'm guessing Kegseth over here begged him to despite every fucking base commander pointing out it's a terrible idea that'll inevitably wind up getting an innocent soldier killed.

>>1502850
>Also that second guy wasn't supposed to be concealed carrying in that Mall.
Yeah and neither are people at military bases you retard. Any authority, soldier or not, responding to a mass shooting incident aren't going to check if the first guy they spot with a gun at the scene is the shooter or not before opening fire. There's a reason it's supposed to be run, hide, fight IN THAT ORDER.

>>1502843
>Then clarify for us. I want you to clearly state how stupid you are.

Well, this might happen, Iran sends a disguised fishing boat full of 50 Iranian suicide commandos armed to the teeth.

They have counterfeit American uniforms on, and get into the army base and start killing all the unarmed soldiers.

Now our soldiers stand a chance.

As far the civilians go at large sports gatherings, they should all be packing

>>1502852
>Yeah and neither are people at military bases you retard.
And they didn't you dumb faggot. That's why they're dead.
>Any authority, soldier or not, responding to a mass shooting incident aren't going to check if the first guy they spot with a gun at the scene is the shooter or not before opening fire.
If that were true, we'd have a lot more dead Concealed Carriers.

>There's a reason it's supposed to be run, hide, fight IN THAT ORDER.
LMAO shut the fuck up.

>>1502854
>If that were true, we'd have a lot more dead Concealed Carriers.
If they did shit to prevent mass shootings you wouldn't see "suspect took their own life/were killed by police" at 98% of them. This literally just puts soldiers at risk with near zero benefit.

>>1502854
>LMAO shut the fuck up.
Someone seems to think they're going to play hero at a mass shooting with their le epic concealed carry. Not encouraging this brand of retardation is exactly why military bases had these rules in the first place.

>>1502822
People are already betting on how long it'll take for another incident at some place like Fort Hood if this goes through because some freshly joined retard got into a spat with someone else in basic and they both had a pistol or some shit from home.

>>1502855
>If they did shit to prevent mass shootings you wouldn't see "suspect took their own life/were killed by police" at 98% of them.
Because 98% of the time they occur inside gun free zones. In fact we have at least five manifestos where the shooter says a version of this, like that kid in upstate New York who shot up a grocery store.

>This literally just puts soldiers at risk with near zero benefit.
I love how leftists are so anti-gun they don't even want our own MILITARY owning guns. It's fucking hilarious!

You know what also puts soldiers at risk? Having them wait to get shot because people like you don't trust them, of all people, to carry a gun. Incredible.

>>1502858
If that one woman at that party in West Virginia took your dogshit advice of "run, hide, fight IN THAT ORDER" there would have been dozens killed. Instead she did the complete opposite of what you think you know, took out her CCW, and shot a maniac wielding an AR-15 before he could hurt anyone.

>>1502832
A lot of people don't understand that military base barracks are effectively fucking frat houses most of the time. Now imagine a frat house where every member is carrying a gun at all times. It's a fucking recipe for disaster.

>>1502859
>He said, ignoring that Ft. Hood has had at least two mass shootings already

>>1502860
>muh anecdotal evidence with a single data point
Well that settles it!
Not even that Anon BTW

>>1502862
Yeah if only there was a place on base you could turn your firearm in for the night so you could go out drinking with your buddies... Like imagine if the military built something like an Armory at these bases?

>>1502866
I'm sorry, you disagree that the majority of active shootings take place inside gun free zones?

>>1502860
>If that one woman at that party in West Virginia took your dogshit advice of "run, hide, fight IN THAT ORDER" there would have been dozens killed. Instead she did the complete opposite of what you think you know, took out her CCW, and shot a maniac wielding an AR-15 before he could hurt anyone.
Yeah so you're another retard with delusions of being le epic action hero.

Literally every fucking person whose ever actually been in a military barracks in the last three decades knows this is a terrible idea. Contrary to what you and fucking Kegseth think, not every person at this base should have a concealed carry license and ESPECIALLY not in the type of environment that the barracks creates. You're giving what amounts to a frat house permission to carry guns. I bet it takes less than two months before some retard who would've washed out before ever making it through basic decides to shoot their drill instructor in a fit of rage.

>>1502863
Yeah and the last one was literally because a guy got denied a leave form and got so pissed he killed four people in a fit of rage because he got into an argument with them right after.

>>1502870
>Yeah so you're another retard with delusions of being le epic action hero.
Notice you can't refute anything I said.

>Literally every fucking person whose ever actually been in a military barracks in the last three decades knows this is a terrible idea.
Except me. Unlike you, I've actually done my time during GWOT.

>Contrary to what you and fucking Kegseth think, not every person at this base should have a concealed carry license and ESPECIALLY not in the type of environment that the barracks creates.
And yet we trust these same people to carry rifles everywhere else. They don't stop being "frat boys" in Afghanistan.

>I bet it takes less than two months before some retard who would've washed out before ever making it through basic decides to shoot their drill instructor in a fit of rage.
Hegseth isn't talking about giving guns to soldiers in basic, you fucking failure. He's talking about regular military that have already been through training and are working wherever the fuck the PCS to stateside.

>>1502871
It's almost as if active shooters don't give a fuck about that no guns allowed rule.

>>1502872
>Notice you can't refute anything I said.
Because "look at this one off thing and ignore what happens 98% of the time" isn't an argument. You're the type of retard who thinks they could've prevented 9/11 by fighting every terrorist on the plane.

>Except me. Unlike you, I've actually done my time during GWOT.
yeah right.

>And yet we trust these same people to carry rifles everywhere else. They don't stop being "frat boys" in Afghanistan.
Because the environment isn't the same when actively deployed as it is in barracks. And the irony is there's more than enough fragging incidents with the same logic.

>Hegseth isn't talking about giving guns to soldiers in basic, you fucking failure. He's talking about regular military that have already been through training and are working wherever the fuck the PCS to stateside.
Did you not read the statement?

>>1502873
Exactly, Charlie wouldn't have been Kirked if he was in a gun zone.

>>1502873
And it's almost like making it even easier to get a gun on these bases are just gonna lead to more and more incidents like this.

>>1502875
>Because "look at this one off thing and ignore what happens 98% of the time" isn't an argument.
First of, retard, I've got more than one example of a CCW stopping an active shooter. Second, you keep ignoring that "98% of the time" (it's actually 94%) these active shooting occur inside gun free zones where people aren't allowed to protect themselves - like Ft. Hood, Holloman AFB, Washington Naval Yard, etc.

Gee I wonder why.

>You're the type of retard who thinks they could've prevented 9/11 by fighting every terrorist on the plane.
And you're the type of retard who can't refute anything I say so you're doing this weird ad hom of me being 'le epic action hero' (fuck off back to plebbit btw).

>yeah right.
Unlike you, I actually know what barracks are like.

>Because the environment isn't the same when actively deployed as it is in barracks.
Yeah E-3s stop doing stupid shit when they're downrange, right? lol
>And the irony is there's more than enough fragging incidents with the same logic.
This isn't Vietnam you dumb nigger. Stop watching shitty action movies as your source of information.

>Did you not read the statement?
Did you? What do you think he meant by 'installation commanders'? Do you seriously think he meant everyone at basic training should carry their CCW?

Holy shit you are retarded.

>>1502877
Because they can't just drive off base, get a gun, then come back and shoot people already? Oh wait, we have several examples of them Doing - Exactly - That.

And this is why I fucking love /news/ so much. It's filled with subhuman leftist cunts.

>>1502880
>This isn't Vietnam you dumb nigger. Stop watching shitty action movies as your source of information.
>Guys fragging is a vietnam only thing
Thanks for exposing you're full of shit.

>Did you? What do you think he meant by 'installation commanders'? Do you seriously think he meant everyone at basic training should carry their CCW?
First of all of it's only the commanders your entire line of logic and praise is flawed. Secondly, read the fucking statement. It's literally just saying anyone stationed can be granted permission to carry their guns from home on base. Which would include grunts in basic.

>Because they can't just drive off base, get a gun, then come back and shoot people already? Oh wait, we have several examples of them Doing - Exactly - That.
Yeah and now you don't even need to drive off. Get pissed enough and you just start shooting; exactly what happened in Fort Hood in 2014, coming soon to a base near you the next time some idiot gets his leave request denied or owes someone money.

>>1502883
>Thanks for exposing you're full of shit.
How many fragging incidents have we had in all of OIF/OEF? Hmmm? Give me an exact number instead of some vague bullshit like "more than enough."

>First of all of it's only the commanders your entire line of logic and praise is flawed.
>The memo I’m signing today directs installation commanders to allow requests for personal protection to carry a privately owned firearm with the presumption that it is necessary for personal protection. If a request is denied, then we will explain in detail the basis for that denial. Again, the presumption is service members will be able to have their Second Amendment right on post.
I know, reading is very hard for you.

>Get pissed enough and you just start shooting; exactly what happened in Fort Hood in 2014,
Except that's wrong you fucking retard. I didn't know soldiers at Ft. Hood got issued FN Five-seven pistols in 2009. So clearly he got the gun from off base, came back on base, then started shooting because wow nobody else has a gun!

This is what happens when people like you are allowed to make decisions.

>>1502884
Ugh, I derped and argued about the 2009 shooting instead of the 2014 shooting. Still the argument holds because the shooter used a gun he purchased off base.

american military bases are just that insecure
are there any other non-third world countries whose soldiers are in that much danger domestically in peacetime?

Trump really ruined America, huh?

>>1502884
>How many fragging incidents have we had in all of OIF/OEF?
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fragging#War_in_Afghanistan
And these are just the proven ones. There's scores of awfully suspicious deaths that never got brought to court, for example Pat Tillman.

>I know, reading is very hard for you.
"allow requests for personal protection to carry a privately owned firearm with the presumption that it is necessary for personal protection". Meaning literally anyone on base can file for it.

>So clearly he got the gun from off base, came back on base, then started shooting because wow nobody else has a gun!
2014 guy had the gun for a month prior. It's actually not uncommon for soldiers at these bases to have their own guns smuggled in. This would just make it even easier to do so.

>>1502885
Don't apologize to liggeral terrorists. They don't even care about your argument.

>>1502887
>a british shooting and two muslims
Holy shit you are fucking pathetic. Do you have any examples of US soldiers in Afghanistan fragging each other? Or is your argument so terrible you have to include foreign armies in your stats - 2/3rds of which were done by fucking AFGHANS?

>There's scores of awfully suspicious deaths that never got brought to court, for example Pat Tillman.
lol and now you're conflating blue-on-blue with intentional fraggings, that's how desperate you are to pad your stats. lol incredible.

>Meaning literally anyone on base can file for it.
Keep reading. Get to the part where he said
>If a request is denied, then we will explain in detail the basis for that denial.

>2014 guy had the gun for a month prior.
And? Your point?
> It's actually not uncommon for soldiers at these bases to have their own guns smuggled in.
1) where the fuck are you getting that from? (lmao your own 'experience'?)
and
2) This furthers my argument that gun free zones don't do shit and we need to get rid of them.

>>1502890
so when this policy inevitably backfires, you're going to blame biden and trannies, right

>>1502890
>Do you have any examples of US soldiers in Afghanistan fragging each other?
1. Oh so now apparently it only counts if its US soldiers. 2. Scroll down to the Iraq section and you'll see multiple cases of US soldiers doing it too. And not counting suspect cases where it's just a "friendly fire incident" is bullshit.

>lol and now you're conflating blue-on-blue with intentional fraggings,
Tillman's death was incredibly suspicious. This guy is about to go talk about his opposition to the war and then suddenly gets shot in the back of the head from 10 feet away?

>>If a request is denied, then we will explain in detail the basis for that denial.
>if

>>1502891
Of course. Whacha gonna do about it?

>>1502887
Also read this part:
>
Before today, it was virtually impossible — most people probably don’t know this — it is virtually impossible for War Department personnel to get permission to carry and store their own personal weapons aligned with the state laws where we operate our installations. I mean, effectively, our bases across the country were gun-free zones. Unless you’re training or unless you are a military policeman, you couldn’t carry. You couldn’t bring your own firearm for your personal protection onto post.

>Well, that’s no longer.

DURRRRR MUH BASIC TRAINING CARRYING GUNS

>>1502898
Literally what about this indicates a basic grunt can't just file for a personal weapon on base?

>>1502891
>Haven't been able to carry since 1992
>Rising amount of shootings
Keep me posted on the failure.

>>1502895
>1. Oh so now apparently it only counts if its US soldiers.
Uh yeah, dumbass. We're talking about the United States Military. I guess I didn't make that crystal clear enough for anyone with a subhuman IQ.

>2. Scroll down to the Iraq section and you'll see multiple cases of US soldiers doing it too.
And these few examples are "more than enough" to the point we can't trust our own soldiers with firearms? This is why I brought up Vietnam earlier, because you're a never-served faggot talking about shit you know nothing about, making it seem like there's an epidemic of fragging in today's military - because of FOUR fucking examples of actual US troops fragging each other and the rest are Iraqi police (lmao pad your stats harder) or just suspected?

Just stop. This is pathetic.

>Tillman's death was incredibly suspicious. This guy is about to go talk about his opposition to the war and then suddenly gets shot in the back of the head from 10 feet away?
lol I don't give a fuck that you're so desperate to make an argument you have to toss in suspected fragging. Unless you have some actual sources, you can fuck off. You can count on your hand the number of legit fragging incidences in both Iraq and Afghanistan. This is such a joke.

>>if
>this guy is in basic training, isn't a soldier yet, and doesn't even have his own firearm. Done. Signed Commander Suck My Dick.
See how easy that was? Or how Hegseth is clearly talking about soldiers assigned to a base and not fresh recruits in zero week?

Can you suck any harder at this?

>>1502900
The fact that Hegseth is clearly talking about installation commanders at various states, or the part where nothing about this indicates a commander can't refuse that request.

Like this is an interesting angle you have, where despite Hegseth clearly referring to E-3s, 4s and 5s on garrison, you're trying to claim that he meant everyone - including basic trainees - should carry their own personal firearm.

Bold strategy I guess.

>>1502908
>where despite Hegseth clearly referring to E-3s, 4s and 5s on garrison
Where? Where does he say this?

>>1502900
lmao fucking hell I should've just done this from the start.
https://www.war.gov/News/News-Stories/Article/Article/4450527/hegseth-authorizes-off-duty-service-members-to-carry-private-firearms-on-instal/

>Secretary of War Pete Hegseth signed a memorandum directing military installation commanders to allow War Department personnel — namely, uniformed service members — to request to carry privately owned firearms while in their nonofficial duty capacity on DOW property within the United States.

>WHILE IN THEIR NONOFFICIAL DUTY CAPACITY
And there you go.

>>1502911
Yeah so the moment they're not in training they're allowed to carry.

>>1502910
See the post below yours. Now can we move on to you dirty leftists bitching about how guns are bad and nobody - including our own military - should have them? Or are you going to keep up with the basic training attempt at arguing?

>>1502912
>Yeah so the moment they're not in training they're allowed to carry.
And when are trainees in basic not in training?
>this is why people who never served need to shut the fuck up about military shit

>>1502888
You people don't have arguments, you parrot the same failed/debunked NRA selling points. Sometimes you're too stupid to even realize that.

>>1502913
The most hilarious thing is how gunfags assume everybody and their grandma would be packing heat if guns were legal everywhere.

>>1502862
Naw, they will just wait for a shootout between soldiers, 'identify' one of them as being associated with of a foreign state they don't like that day and use it as an excuse to attack it and steal it's stuff.

>>1502952
>The most hilarious thing is how gunfags assume everybody and their grandma would be packing heat if guns were legal everywhere.
It's actually more hilarious how you anti-gun fags keep assuming things you think we assume. A lot of that going on ITT.
>durr so in your mind our military bases are safe now because they can be protected by people with guns?
>hurr so you're another retard with delusions of being le epic action hero.
>derp derp derp everybody and their grandma would be packing heat

>>1502862
This, there’s a reason why the rules exist in the first place and it’s arrogant to assume that current authorities know better when they don’t even understand why that rule was originally brought in

Fucking idiots think there’ll be fewer school shootings if all the kids are allowed concealed carry

>>1502969
And here's another retard who strawmans allowing people to open or concealed carry according to state laws with "Durr let's just give everybody guns! derp no school shootings if all the kids have them!"

>>1502970
It’s a logical equivalent you’re just not intelligent enough to comprehend

not surprisingly since you also don’t know what a strawman argument is

>>1502969
Probably would to be honest. Just imagine shooting at someone who might shoot back.
I think most troon school shooters pick schools to shoot up because they know the kids don't have guns.
But, in the end, the possibility of accidental shooting exists (may or may not be a real issue) so no one would support arming gradeschoolers.
Highschools though? Maybe we could use WV or NM as a testing ground since both states are near worthless otherwise.

>>1502969
Charlie Kirk was shot to death in a gun free zone
I thought that wasn't supposed to happen

>>1503024
>I think most troon school shooters pick schools to shoot up because they know the kids don't have guns.
Not just troons or schools, but the overwhelming majority of active shooters, taken from their own manifestos.

Here's an example:
https://www.scribd.com/document/466775715/The-Inconvenient-Truth-Patrick-Crusius-El-Paso-08-03-19
>Remember: it is not cowardly to pick low hanging fruit. AKA Don’t attack heavily guarded areas to fulfill your super soldier COD fantasy. Attack low security targets. Even though you might out gun a security guard or police man, they likely beat you in armor, training and numbers.

>>1503028
I like how the take from this isn't "maybe it's too easy to get guns" and instead "we need to have every location surrounded by armed guards"

>>1503029
There are 400 million guns in America. 120 guns for every 100 Americans.
How are you going to reduce the supply of guns to the point it is not easy to get a gun in the United States?

>>1503024
>>1503025
>>1503028
>Unironically saying we should start arming school kids

>>1503029
Because places that ban guns are such success stories. Like Chicago.... or D.C. ... or NYC... Or Los Angeles...hmmmm wait a minute.

>>1503031
Strawmanning again. Did I say we should arm school kids?

>>1503033
>Probably would to be honest. Just imagine shooting at someone who might shoot back.
I think most troon school shooters pick schools to shoot up because they know the kids don't have guns.
>Probably would to be honest

>>1503030
>Guys it'll be too hard to address the problem so maybe we just shouldn't do it at all

>>1503032
Why don't countries with gun laws have the highest shooting rates?

>>1503036
>>Probably would to be honest
Which isn't from me, you fucking idiot.

>>1503037
>Why don't countries with gun laws have the highest shooting rates?
Because they're too busy watching Pakistani gangs rape their 12 year old daughters.

>>1503037
We have to act in the real world. Not an ideal world. Not the world as it would exist if we made a different decision 250 years ago.

How are you going to reduce the supply of guns to the point it is not easy to get a gun in the United States? Right now there are more guns than their are Americans. Right now, only law abiding citizens have to follow gun control laws. The criminal gangs in Chicago and New York don't care those cities have the strictest gun laws in the country.

>>1503039
>Because they're too busy watching Pakistani gangs rape their 12 year old daughters.
Not an argument. Why don't they have such high shooting rates anon?

>>1503041
The US wasn't always the arms capital of the world. Saying "the problem is too big we can do nothing about it" is equally as ridiculous as claiming we can get rid of all guns overnight. There can be laws passed to ensure that guns and/or ammo can be harder for psychos to obtain.

>>1503045
So what are you suggesting?

>>1503047
How about start with federal gun control laws instead of state by state so it isn't as easy crossing state lines to dodge them?

>>1503043
Because they're too busy getting stabbed by immigrants.

>>1503048
>How about start with federal gun control laws instead of state by state so it isn't as easy crossing state lines to dodge them?
And here we go! Another fucking retard who doesn't know how our gun laws work.

>>1503049
Still not an answer and also nonsense because their stabbing rates aren't near the US' gun rate.

>>1503051
Meanwhile, earlier in this thread:
>>1503032
> Like Chicago.... or D.C. ... or NYC... Or Los Angeles...hmmmm wait a minute.
Do different states have different firearm laws, yes or no?

There’s some data out there about Australian murder rates after they brought in strict gun control laws in the 90s. Prior to the new laws each state had their own rules, Tasmania was the most lax where if you were 16 you could purchase literally anything that was being sold - basically you could buy a bazooka if you could find one - all you needed was proof of age and there was no registration required.
So in the 20 years since then what the data shows was that the murder rate had not declined, but the murder rate by firearm had become near zero.

This means that banning guns didn’t stop people from doing bad things. And it also means if you extrapolate it to America that the guns aren’t the problem, the Americans are the problem.

>>1503048
I thought we did have federal gun control laws.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_Owners_Protection_Act
The Hughes Amendment of 1986 (part of the Firearms Owners' Protection Act) prohibits civilians from owning or transferring machine guns manufactured after May 19, 1986.
Automatic Weapons have been illegal for civilians in a federal capacity since 1986
https://www.npr.org/2024/06/14/g-s1-2929/supreme-court-bump-stocks
Trump passed a Bump Stock ban as president which banned Bump Stocks at a federal level

>>1503053
>Do different states have different firearm laws, yes or no?
Yes they do. Here's where you fucked up:

You CANNOT go to another state and just purchase a firearm from a gun store. It has to be shipped to an FFL within your home state, you can't just drive home without it.
>b-but anon how do Chicago niggers get their guns?
From the same straw-purchasers you filthy democrats refuse to put in jail. For example, one bitch purchased firearms and then sold them to four different felons. Her punishment? Probation.

Want to put a stop to the gun violence in Chicago? Then join the Republican team and start throwing these cocksuckers in jail for a mandatory minimum of five years... but then dems would actually have to get tough on crime and start jailing their voters. Not gonna happen.

>>1503055
Do we or do we not have differing firearms laws and regulations depending on state? I'm not saying federal gun control laws don't exist.

>>1503054
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_Bondi_Beach_shooting
So why didn't Australian gun laws prevent this mass shooting?
It seemed like the Australian government just reacted to the mass shooting by imposing even more gun control laws.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2026_Tumbler_Ridge_shooting
Like the most recent mass shooting in Canada wasn't stopped by existing fire arm laws.
https://toronto.citynews.ca/2026/01/17/details-of-compensation-plan-for-canadian-owners-of-banned-firearms-set-to-be-announced/

>>1503057
Well that's true of everything. We have federal driving rules, but individual rules in individual states. Like in New York it is illegal to turn right on red. In California it is legal for motorcycles to lane split
So let's start with federal gun control law as you said. What rule would you start with at a federal level?

>>1503058
You’re missing the point entirely.
In response to your post, the Australians are satisfied that they’ve only had one mass shooting since bringing in those gun laws, and also that the most recent mass shooting in your article involved predominantly legal rifles rather than automatic weapons. If the shooters had better weapons they would’ve been able to shoot more people, obviously

>>1503063
NTA, how do you plan to do mass-confiscations like Australia did and not spark a civil war?

>>1503063
Under the old rules they could’ve gone to Tasmania on the vehicular ferry and bought a whole bunch of stuff, would’ve been like GTA

>>1503056
>SHALL NOT BE INF-
>actually lets just ignore the second amendment entirely here

>>1503064
Honestly I’m not American and it’s not my problem, there’s an ocean between us. I just thought it might help to get a different perspective on things because I actually do like Americans

>>1503066
It's okay anon. Most anti-gun retards don't know you can't just go buy a gun in another state. You'd think if they were so passionate about the issue they'd do some research first.

>>1503067
>The gun rules in America are a major problem!
>Honestly I’m not American and it’s not my problem
So why do the laws need to be changed?
If Australians are satisfied with Australian gun laws, and Canadians are satisfied with Canadian gun laws, why do you know there is a problem with American gun laws that need to be changed, when you are not an American and haven't lived there or visited there?

>>1503069
Are you alright? I didn’t say the gun laws are the problem

>>1503056
>From the same straw-purchasers you filthy democrats refuse to put in jail.
>Then join the Republican team and start throwing these cocksuckers in jail for a mandatory minimum of five years...
Red states literally don't punish straw purchasers. Texas for example is literally one of the biggest states for straw purchasers because they barely prosecute them there. A guy got caught selling fucking anti-material rifles got 9 months in Texas. His buddies that actually did the initial straw purchasing of them all got probation. There was a gun store owner (Nicah Anderson) who literally sold 60+ guns illegally, some seemingly to the cartel, with 6 of them being used in crimes down in Mexico. He got 2 years. The guy who illegal sold the ar-15 used to murder 8 people in the Midland-Odessa shooting? 2 years, even though they ALSO found he sold guns to 2 criminals and an illegal at around the same time.

"mandatory minimum of five years" my fucking ass. It seems like it's MAXIMUM of five years.

>>1503058
>Guys see there's mass shootings in other places!
>Please ignore how they get 1 every few years while the US literally has a school shooting season

You're sitting there drenched in water laughing about how the other guy's roof has a leak every once and a while.

>>1503071
Okay I thought you were the anon who said we needed Federal Gun Laws, I must have confused you with someone else.

>>1503072
Hey you know what? I'll agree with you, we need to do a much better job of throwing these fuckers in jail. Give 'em 20. You have my blessing. And if any of those in Texas voted democrat, give them the death penalty.

All that being said, did any of these guys get probation for selling to four different gang-bangers with criminal records?

>>1503075
>You're sitting there drenched in water laughing about how the other guy's roof has a leak every once and a while.
Worse, they're willingly drenching themselves in water to complain about a leak in the other guys roof because they think it'll trigger their sane roommate.

>>1503077
Reply to the post you’re replying to, dumbass

>>1503080
you're projecting again, esl shill

>>1503078
Talarico is gonna wipe the floor with you stupid fascist faggots. Enjoy being repped by your giant walking pussy Cruz.

>>1503101
Whatever you say anon. Hope your daughter gets raped during a home invasion by one of the illegal immigrants you support.

>>1503111
is anyone surprised that the magatard is thinking about raping children

>>1503112
Unlike you Eurotrash faggots, we don't let Muslim rape gangs whore our children out on the streets.

>>1503114
Sir, this thread topic is guns on US military bases

>>1503115
Well when you're ready to talk about that instead of Talarico and Cruz, let me know.

>>1503116
when you're in jail for being a vile human being, you have nobody but yourself to blame

>>1503116
I wasn’t talking about those dudes. Stay on topic or make a new thread. At any rate politicians are tangentially related to the topic, raping children really isn’t unless it’s to do with the Epstein files coverup as

>>1503116
That wasn't them, that was me. Touched a fucking nerve, huh?
>>1503112 I'm a little surprised he was fantasizing about raping a little girl and not a little boy, but I guess pedos don't much care about gender.
>>1503115
Oh sorry. TBH yeah, military bases can be a lot like frat houses. There's this club, The Hash, that describes itself as a drinking club with a running problem. A bunch of people that get together and drink and run to help get thru PT.

Arming a bunch of drunk people is usually not a good idea.

>>1503118
Dude's probably going to off himself, let's be real. There's a reason the male suicide rate is so high, and it's misguided morons like them, exhibiting toxic behavior that socially isolates them.

Active shooters on military bases are so rate that it's statistically irrelevant. The real reason for this is that the areas around military bases are shit because a lot of degenerative businesses open around bases to prey on young male soldiers that are horny and awful with money. And yes, retards, before you ask, I was in the miliary and was at Bragg in NC. Car jackings, car break ins, and hold ups around the base were extremely common.

>>1503118
>when you're in jail for being a vile human being
Thankfully we don't live in Reddit country.

>>1503119
>Stay on topic or make a new thread.
Waiting on you, nigger. Got something new to say about this memo?

>>1503123
>Arming a bunch of drunk people is usually not a good idea.
Is there an epidemic of licensed concealed carriers just out constantly getting drunk and shooting crimes? Or is that more bullshit scenarios in your leftist head that never happen?
>mfw CHL holders are five to seven times less likely to commit a crime than the average US citizen, and less likely than the police in Florida

>>1503126
>And yes, retards, before you ask, I was in the miliary and was at Bragg in NC. Car jackings, car break ins, and hold ups around the base were extremely common.
And you're against people being armed to protect themselves from these crimes because...

>>1503123
You don't know anything about the military or military bases. You are making up scenarios in your mind and then presenting them as facts to ridicule others.

>>1503129
nta but the article is about soldiers on base not being armed. They can go around outside with their concealed carry if they have it or whatever. I don’t think it’s appropriate or necessary for soldiers to go to brothels fully armed in uniform but that’s by the by

>>1503130
>You are making up scenarios in your mind and then presenting them as facts to ridicule others.
Isn't that the job of the US Government?

>>1503132
>I don’t think it’s appropriate or necessary for soldiers to go to brothels fully armed in uniform
What the fuck are you talking about?

>>1503130
You don’t know what he doesn’t know, you’re not omniscient stfu.
Unarmed on base is longstanding and has its reasons

>>1503135
NTA, those reasons are?

>>1503134
Don’t worry about it you’re stupid and illiterate

>>1503137
I don’t know but there must be some reason otherwise there wouldn’t be a rule about it

>>1503138
No go ahead and elaborate. Where are these soldiers going to "brothels" - I didn't know we had those in the US - in fucking uniform? What state has this? Which base?

>>1503141
god you're esl

>>1503140
>I don’t know
Go back to sleep Anon.

>>1503130
I worked at Langley Air Force Base in VA, and my family has served the military for generations. I don't need to make up scenarios to make fun of maga morons, they give me enough material by existing.
>>1503135
Thanks fam. o7

>>1503144
>durr I worked at the subway on base so I know everything about the military
Still waiting on you to answer my fucking question, never-served faggot.

>>1503135
>>1503140
>You don’t know what he doesn’t know,
You are the dumbest monkey anti gun shill here.
>>1503141
There are no brothels like in Nevada. The sex places around the bases are mostly Korean and Thai "Spas". Do you think they just have a giant neon sign that says "Brothel". Are you also going to tell me that there are no places to buy drugs because there's no business listed on Google maps or that the five hundred pay day lenders within two miles of the base are all there to serve the community in a positive way?

>>1503144
>I worked at Langley Air Force Base in VA,
So you're the first pussy in your family tree that didn't actually serve and opted to be the janitor

>>1503147
>Do you think they just have a giant neon sign that says "Brothel".
So not only are there no "brothels", there's no military in full fucking uniform walking into these places, outside of the fantasy movie playing in your head.

>Are you also going to tell me that there are no places to buy drugs because there's no business listed on Google maps or that the five hundred pay day lenders within two miles of the base are all there to serve the community in a positive way?
>he doesn't realize that military gets drug tested randomly and routinely
kek

>>1503148
I had bone spurs. ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

>>1503149
>So not only are there no "brothels", there's no military in full fucking uniform walking into these places, outside of the fantasy movie playing in your head.
What the ever living fuck are you talking about? Are you going to argue semantics about what a brothel is? Is a thai massage parlor that you pay $200 to fuck the girl not a brothel just because it doesn't have a city business license? Literally no one is walking around in uniform or with an m240 to get their dick sucked. The point of this is that they can carry a pocket pistol for self defense.

>he doesn't realize that military gets drug tested randomly and routinely
I was drug tested twice in six years and I was informed about it both times. Yes, the people with higher clearances are probably tested more and maybe I'll give you that they do random tests, but no one I knew ever had one.

>can carry a pocket pistol for self defense
Because Trump turned America into a hellhole where even its local military bases are always under attack.

>>1503147
I’m not antigun at all. I agree with the standard procedure of weapons go to the armoury and there’s no reason for soldiers to be carrying pistols on base, there’s military police that are armed and there can be sentries that are armed but there’s absolutely no good reason for anyone to need a pistol on them whilst they’re at mess or the gymnasium or the bar on the base (if they have those). I really don’t know why that rule was brought in but I could find out, never really thought about it because it made sense and nobody tried to challenge it

>>1503156
He could just build fucking walls around all the bases he likes those

>>1503158
I'm also pro gun and armed, not all lefties are anti-gun. To be honest I genuinely don't care one way or the other about people conceal carrying on base, what offends me is this is a distraction, an answer to a problem that didn't exist, and a waste of our governments resources. I'm sure there are other people who could tell you why it's a bad idea better than I can. I'm pissed because of the opportunity cost, of the things that aren't happening because we have weak self-serving dipshits in charge of some of our most important institutions.

>>1503155
>What the ever living fuck are you talking about?
Are you the anon who said this:
>nta but the article is about soldiers on base not being armed. They can go around outside with their concealed carry if they have it or whatever. I don’t think it’s appropriate or necessary for soldiers to go to brothels fully armed in uniform but that’s by the by
Because I'm wondering what the fuck he's going on about. Soldiers aren't walking into 'brothels' in full uniform, so the odds of them doing that "fully armed" is even less likely to happen.

It really is true only 53% of Ameritards can read English at an 11yo level

>>1503156
>crime in shithole places where bases are didn't exist until Trump became president
TDS is one hell of a drug.

>>1503158
>but there’s absolutely no good reason for anyone to need a pistol on them whilst they’re at mess or the gymnasium
Two mass shootings at Ft. Hood. There's your reason.
>armoury
Why the fuck are Eurotrash arguing ITT about American gun laws they know nothing about?

>>1503171
>an answer to a problem that didn't exist,
>looks at the list of multiple mass shootings at military bases where soldiers weren't allowed to carry
Oh would you look at that? There's a problem that exists.

>>1503171
Pretty much agree with this, except I’m not that much of a lefty. We should get a coffee and talk politics

>>1503175
You're arguing like our military bases notoriously have no one with guns on them. The reality is anyone starting a mass shooting has a massive advantage even against people concealed carrying because at the end of the day real life doesn't work like a western where you can quickdraw someone even if they have a gun pointed at you. All this does is put more guns on base where they aren't needed and make it easier for shootings to start.

>>1503173
Coincidentally, that's about the same percentage that believes god magicked everything into existence instead of evolution by natural selection, the cornerstone of modern biology, the cornerstone of modern medicine.

Yeah, we're fucking dumb. Why wouldn't you believe that?

>>1503175
a military armoury has nothing to do with civilian gun laws, you angry little fellow.
Two mass shootings in 250 years is mathematically less than statistically significant

>>1503179
>dumb people are the religious ones
>smart people are irreligious
There’s the problem

>>1503178
>You're arguing like our military bases notoriously have no one with guns on them.
... Oh my God it is sooo fucking tiresome. 1) What the fuck do you think Hegseth was talking about? 2) Our military bases notoriously have no one with guns on them. Ask me how I know. The only fucking people who are armed are the MPs, and 95% of their job is guarding the perimeter - when they're not criminally undermanned and constantly deployed.

>The reality is anyone starting a mass shooting has a massive advantage even against people concealed carrying
This at least gives people a chance, instead of just having to sit there and waiting to die. Not to mention the reality is that these bases are less likely to get shot up now because we've already covered a million times ITT how active shooters pick gun free zones almost every single time.

>at the end of the day real life doesn't work like a western where you can quickdraw someone even if they have a gun pointed at you.
lmao another 'le epic action hero' lecture from a bunch of faggots who have no idea how the military works and are using the movie playing in their head as a source for what goes on day to day.

>All this does is put more guns on base where they aren't needed
They are needed.
>and make it easier for shootings to start.
Because an active shooter can't just go off base, grab his gun, come back and then start shooting everyone - oh wait, we have nothing but examples of that happening on military bases already!

>>1503180
>a military armoury has nothing to do with civilian gun laws, you angry little fellow.
Dumb European faggot doesn't realize he's being mocked for being European and not knowing a fucking thing about the US military or US gun laws.

>>1503187
>This at least gives people a chance, instead of just having to sit there and waiting to die
Because there aren't armories on those bases already?

>Because an active shooter can't just go off base, grab his gun, come back and then start shooting everyone
You're literally removing three steps of that equation and trying to argue like you're not making it easier.

>>1503177
I used to consider myself more of a centrist because I didn't want to be associated with the cringey, screeching, neon-haired ultra left, and I hate identity politics. TBH those people still annoy me, but they're not nearly as bad as the extreme personalities on the far right IMO, and I believe other people should have the right to live differently than I do, in broad terms.

Sitting here as some speculate we're on the verge of nuclear war, I think the issues at stake are a lot bigger than that now. I think first we need to get back to sanity, and that means standing shoulder to shoulder with people I have major differences with. Coffee sounds lovely, as long as we can agree on that.

>>1503178
You're talking to a narcissistic sociopath. You are never going to convince this person that if they were at the scene of an active shooter they wouldn't be able to use V.A.T.S. to stop it before it started.

>>1503191
>Because there aren't armories on those bases already?
Ho boy... Do you even have a fucking clue how large military bases are? Yeah hang on Mr. Active shooter, time out, before you kill me let me get into my car and drive four miles so I can check out my rifle.

Fucking genius. By your logic we should just ban carrying and make people run to their homes if they need to protect themselves.

>You're literally removing three steps of that equation and trying to argue like you're not making it easier.
Except this time the other people are armed and can defend themselves. They don't have to wait until 14 people die and the QRF finally shows up. Instead of a dozen casualties, you're down to one or two.

And once again, for the 50th time today, active shooters almost exclusively target gun free zones. They're not as inclined to shoot up a place where people can shoot back - I'm pretty sure I posted just one of the many manifestos that demonstrate this.

>>1503193
>You are never going to convince this person that if they were at the scene of an active shooter they wouldn't be able to use V.A.T.S. to stop it before it started.
lmao more 'le epic action hero' talk.

>>1503198
Thanks.

>>1503195
>They don't have to wait until 14 people die and the QRF finally shows up.
Reminder part of why the Fort Hood shooting had so many casualties is that he started at the base's Soldier Readiness Processing Center, which was used entirely for medical checkups and check-ins. AKA shit that you aren't allowed to bring guns to even if concealed carry was allowed.

And for fucks sake, stop pretending like mass shooting heroes are common. Of the thousands of mass shootings in America less than 5% were solved by a civilian with a gun and even less of those were solved by a civilian outside their own home. The vast majority of a time a civilian does stop a mass shooting, they do it without a gun.

>>1503201
I find it amazing how so many of you faggots are on here
>durr delusions of being le epic action hero
>hurr real life doesn't work like a western
>derp derp derp he thinks he can use V.A.T.S.
because you can't debunk any of my arguments, so you have to paint me as some guy with visions of being an action hero even though you can't show one post of me saying this.

Typical /news/.

>>1503198
You keep larping but the reality is concealed carriers stopping mass shootings are rare as fuck. It is literally more likely for the shooter to blow their own brains out than for a civilian to do it and you're acting like this is an active solution?

>>1503193
>I believe other people should have the right to live differently than I do, in broad terms.
This is how everyone knows you're larping, BTW.

>>1503203
>AKA shit that you aren't allowed to bring guns to even if concealed carry was allowed.
lol according to fucking who? You think we don't have MPs in the hospital? Let me guess, you're going to say some shit about the geneva convention, but probably can't find the relevant quote you think is in there - right next to durr its a war crime to shoot people with .50 cal in war.

>And for fucks sake, stop pretending like mass shooting heroes are common.
And there it is again. Mass shooting heros.

>Of the thousands of mass shootings in America less than 5% were solved by a civilian with a gun and even less of those were solved by a civilian outside their own home.
Because active shooter occur inside gun free zones 94% of the time. Because they know guns are banned there. You dumb - fucking - subhuman. Get this fact through your useless head for once so I can stop repeating myself.

>The vast majority of a time a civilian does stop a mass shooting, they do it without a gun.
Because those civilians can't carry guns in those places you dumb worthless homosexual. CCW is banned in places mass-murderers target. This is why you don't hear about a CHL holder stopping a shooter on a school campus.

Dumb fuck.

>>1503204
You're literally saying "This is good because epic concealed carriers will stop the shootings!" meanwhile that's an incredibly rare occurrence IRL. And on a few occasions the person who did/tried to do it promptly got shot by police.

>>1503205
>You keep larping but the reality is concealed carriers stopping mass shootings are rare as fuck.
Because they're banned where active shooters target. It is SOOOOO fucking tiresome. Jesus Christ, it's like arguing with retarded Chinese bots.

>>1503210
>You think we don't have MPs in the hospital?
Retard people don't bring guns with them to medical appointments.

>>1503211
>You're literally saying "This is good because epic concealed carriers will stop the shootings!" meanwhile that's an incredibly rare occurrence IRL.
oh my fucking god. I'm going to die talking to stupid people....

It is RARE ... because .... Concealed carriers.... are bannned .... from where .... these shootings.... happen.

Fuck me. How is this concept so fucking hard to understand? I know you people are niggers, but at least one of you has to know how to read.

>>1503213
>Retard people don't bring guns with them to medical appointments.
[citation needed]

>>1503210
>>1503212
>Guys if we just stop having gun free areas, we'll have even more le epic good guys with guns!
Yeah this "They target gun-free zones" shit might be true but unfortunately for you studies literally show that gun-free zones actually have a lower shooting rate.
>https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2667193X24001649
You're literally basing your entire conclusion on incorrect data and vibes from headlines.

>>1503218
>Yeah this "They target gun-free zones" shit might be true
It is.
>but unfortunately for you studies literally show that gun-free zones actually have a lower shooting rate.
LMAO Holy shit! I can't wait to read this bullshit study you linked. Let me guess: schools don't count as gun free zones?

>>1503214
>It is RARE ... because .... Concealed carriers.... are bannned .... from where .... these shootings.... happen.
And even in places where guns ARE allowed they're still rare you retard. The reality is nine times out of ten even someone with a concealed carry is just going to run away from the area if they hear shots, even if they have their carry out when they do so.

>>1503221
>LMAO Holy shit! I can't wait to read this bullshit study you linked. Let me guess: schools don't count as gun free zones?
No they actually compared the rate of how many shootings started at gun-free zones compared to how many gun-free zones there were, then compared it to how many shootings there were at places that allowed guns and how many places allowed guns. They even did the opposite of what you claimed by excluding schools from the average on the assumption they're all gun free even though their shooting numbers included school shootings.

>>1503222
Look you just shouldn't be able to defend yourself.
The Constitution doesn't matter at all.

>>1503218
>However, there is no empirical evidence regarding the impact of gun-free zones on protecting locations from violence.
Pay no attention to the dozens of manifestos where the shooter said they specifically targeted this gun free zone.

>We used a pair-matched case-control study where cases were all US establishments where active shootings occurred between 2014 and 2020
Why those years only?

>and controls were randomly selected US establishments where active shootings could have but did not occur
lol so because an active shooting, an already rare event, didn't occur at X location between these arbitrary years we cherry-picked, that means nothing will ever happen and this place is safe from active shooters. Incredible. Also what are these controls? I'd like to know.

>Of 150 active shooting cases, 72 (48.0%) were determined to have occurred in a gun-free zone.
So almost half of the cherry-picked sample had active shooters.

>Of 150 controls where no active shooting occurred, 92 (61.3%) were determined to be gun-free.
And again, because nothing bad happened yet between these random years we picked, that means these places are safe from active shooters. lol incredible.

Don't worry, I'll keep reading this bullshit. I'm curious about those controls they used.

>>1503222
>The reality is nine times out of ten even someone with a concealed carry is just going to run away from the area if they hear shots, even if they have their carry out when they do so.
[citation needed]

>>1503229
>I don't understand statistics at all
Thanks we know.

>>1503231
Not him but I'm pretty sure the source is it isn't 1885 and the wild west is dead.

>>1503218
>The cases—active shootings—were obtained from...
>the Mother Jones database of mass shootings,
Ugh!

>A case would still be included if it fit the definition, but no one was injured or killed. Repeats were excluded.
Why are repeats excluded?

>Schools were excluded from the analysis due to all schools being “gun-free zones” as a result of the Gun-Free Zones School Act of 1990.
>Schools were excluded
LOL ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME???

Nope. Stopped reading there. lol fuck your study.

>>1503228
More like
>defending yourself is racism

>>1503232
LMAO from the dumb nigger who pulls up a stat that excludes fucking school shootings! Oh my God, wow.
>You're literally basing your entire conclusion on incorrect data and vibes from headlines.
>he said, unironically, while using a study that excluded data of the MOST FAMOUS FORM OF ACTIVE SHOOTING

>>1503234
So translation none of you have a source and are making shit up again.

>>1503235
>>1503239
>>Schools were excluded
>LOL ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME???
Retard you need to fucking read. Schools were excluded BECAUSE THEY CANNOT BE GUN FREE. The point was to take locations then COMPARE the rate of mass shootings from the gun-free ones to the ones that allowed guns. Obviously every school shooting at a school is going to be a gun free zone shooting because schools are never going to be anything but.

>>1503243
>Schools were excluded BECAUSE THEY CANNOT BE GUN FREE.
Oh really? Elaborate.

>>1503239
>So translation none of you have a source and are making shit up again.
Do you have a source to back up your "Every concealed carrier at the scene of a mass shooting is a hero and will work as an individual agent to stop the shooting" theory? Saying "Well I'd do it" when you've never been in that scenario doesn't count.

>>1503246
>Do you have a source to back up your "Every concealed carrier at the scene of a mass shooting is a hero and will work as an individual agent to stop the shooting" theory?
Do you have a post where I said that, jackass? Or did I say we have multiple examples of concealed carriers stopping active shooters?

>>1503239
Do you really think most people carry guns? Sorry I just wanted to laugh at you even harder.

>>1503249
Moving the goalposts.

>>1503245
The point of the study was to compare types of locations where mass shootings occurred vs a control case of similar locations, then see which of those locations were and were not gun free with the intent of comparing how common gun free zones are with how often shootings take place there. Since schools are always gun free, they have no gun allowing counterpart to compare to. Accordingly, school shootings weren't included in the shootings list either.

>>1503247
>Do you have a post where I said that, jackass?
So do you agree the vast majority of concealed carriers do not confront shooters and instead flee the scene?

>>1503252
... by excluding the gun free zone that has the most mass shootings. lmao yeah that makes a lot of sense. Fucking KEK.

>>1503253
So you don't have a post where I said that, jackass. Just making sure you're another retard in this thread putting words in my mouth because you suck at arguing.

>>1503254
>... by excluding the gun free zone that has the most mass shootings.
Because that isn't relevant to the analysis; there are no non-gun free schools and there never will be. The point was to compare how common mass shootings are at gun-free locations and areas relative to how many gun-free locations and areas there are. So for example, how many shootings take place at restaurants that allow people to carry inside vs not relative to how many gun-free/gun-allowed restaurants there were.

>>1503258
>we're going to show how gun free zones are actually less likely to get shot up by an active shooter
>by excluding data from the gun free zone most often shot up by an active shooter
lol I can't even. Holy shit. People like you are why the economy is so terrible right now. We should trade you for a Mexican.

>>1503261
You're genuinely fucking retarded. First of all, schools aren't the most common target for active shooters. Secondly, the point of the study was literally to prove your point by seeing if gun-free zones were targeted more often. However, they found that 48% of the mass shooting cases they looked into occurred at gun free places, even though 61% of their control group of randomly chosen businesses were gun free. If your point was correct, the amount of gun free zones where shootings happened should be far greater than the percentage of gun free zones in the control group. But it's the opposite. Your theory is wrong. A business banning guns actually slightly DECREASES the chance of a mass shooting occurring there.

>>1503251
I didn't ever present any goalposts besides saying the year isn't 1885.

>>1503264
>studies literally show that gun-free zones actually have a lower shooting rate.
>as long as you don't use the most often targeted gun free zone
And it keeps getting funnier EVERY - SINGLE - TIME - I SEE IT!

>If your point was correct, the amount of gun free zones where shootings happened should be far greater than the percentage of gun free zones in the control group.
Gee I wonder if this study left out an important part from this control group. A place where hundreds of shootings have occurred.

lol fucking I can't even keep a straight face typing this.

>>1503269
In response to
>>The reality is nine times out of ten even someone with a concealed carry is just going to run away from the area if they hear shots, even if they have their carry out when they do so.
>[citation needed]
I know this might be a little advance, but you need to have a better argument than "Come on, people! It's [current year]!"

Now do you have a source that 9 times out of 10 a CCW is going to run away? If not, shut the fuck up.

>>1503273
Your entire thesis here is that mass shooters target places that don't allow guns vs places that do. This study shows the opposite and shows that shootings are slightly more common at places that allow guns, and meanwhile you're over here laughing yourself into a stupor because the study trying to compare gun-free vs gun-allowed locations didn't include the one type of location where there are no gun-allowed versions to compare to?

There aren't any schools that allow guns you retard. Shooters target schools because they're schools, not because they're gun free. Otherwise gun free zones of all other kinds would have much numbers higher than how commonly they're gun free.

>>1503278
>This study shows the opposite
Because it intentionally left out school shootings. Fuck me, you are hilarious. I can't even believe you're still trying to defend this dogshit study.

>There aren't any schools that allow guns you retard.
Which is why they keep getting shot up, you retard. I seriously can't understand how this is so hard for you to figure out when we have multiple active shooters who wrote down in their faggy journal 'hey I'm going to light this place up because nobody can stop me'.

>Shooters target schools because they're schools, not because they're gun free.
But that's hilariously wrong you fucking retard.

>>1503281
Your entire argument is "Gun free zones are less safe, that's why say, MILITARY BASES shouldn't be them". But this shows that isn't true because comparing businesses and locations that allow guns vs ones that do not, it should show that a higher percentages of shootings happen at gun-free zones vs how many of them are gun-free. But they aren't. So the reality is that a gun-free area, such as say, a MILITARY BASE, is going to have a slightly lower chance of being shot up than if that same area allowed guns.

>>1503288
>But this shows
Bro stop. Just stop. Your study is terrible. It is hilariously fucking flawed. It is time to stop using it. Find another one that actually includes schools next time.
>it should show that a higher percentages of shootings happen at gun-free zones vs how many of them are gun-free. But they aren't.
lmao because your study left out the most important gun free zone. This is some next level cherry-picking.

>But they aren't. So the reality is that a gun-free area, such as say, a MILITARY BASE, is going to have a slightly lower chance of being shot up than if that same area allowed guns.
Let me see if I can try an example that might ... meh, it's not going to work on your handicapped brain, but fuck it I'll take a shot (pun intended)... Would you say a police station is more or less likely to get shot up than a school?

>>1503289
>lmao because your study left out the most important gun free zone.
Because there is no comparison you absolute fucking brainlet. There is no gun-allowed school zones. 100% of shootings at schools happen in a gun-free zone because 100% of schools are gun-free zones. Yet in every circumstance where there ARE an equivalent that allows guns, that one has a slightly higher rate of being shot up. You are literally too retarded to recognize this even though you're literally arguing that a military base that allows guns would be safer than one that doesn't.

>Would you say a police station is more or less likely to get shot up than a school?
A police station and a school aren't comparable in any way in terms of who is inside and how they are situated. Jesus christ, ask yourself this; what is the rate of stores that allow guns inside having mass shooters target them vs the rate of stores that don't allow guns inside having mass shooters target them. Because according to you, it should overwhelmingly favor the latter, but actual studies show it slightly favors the former. Please explain that.

>>1503291
>100% of shootings at schools happen in a gun-free zone because 100% of schools are gun-free zones.
Congratulations! You finally got it! It took hours but finally we made some progress.

>Yet in every circumstance where there ARE an equivalent that allows guns, that one has a slightly higher rate of being shot up.
And the part you're too retarded to get is nobody fucking cares about your cherry-picked parameters. You started this whole bit out by claiming that gun free zones were less likely to get shot up by an active shooter than non-gun-free-zones, and the only way you can even try to make that argument is by excluding gun free zones from your dogshit study. Whether they have a non-gun-free equivalent is irrelevant. Active shooters target these gun free zones because they are easy targets with lots of people for them to kill. Stop trying to salvage your retarded study, it's as much of a failure as you are.

>You are literally too retarded to recognize this even though you're literally arguing that a military base that allows guns would be safer than one that doesn't.
That is so wrong on so many levels it's almost pathetic. This has been proven since the red cell days back in the 80s: a terrorist is going to pick the least secure base to attack every single time. And before you spaz out, the same logic applies to active shooters. If base A allows their soldiers to carry guns and base B doesn't, he's going to shoot up base B, 10 out of 10 times.

>A police station and a school aren't comparable in any way in terms of who is inside and how they are situated.
And like I thought you would, refusing to answer the question because it's so simple and obvious what the correct answer is that you won't answer it because it blows your whole argument up.

comment too long

>>1503291
>what is the rate of stores that allow guns inside having mass shooters target them vs the rate of stores that don't allow guns inside having mass shooters target them. Because according to you, it should overwhelmingly favor the latter, but actual studies show it slightly favors the former.
Show me these other studies - besides your debunked trash you tried to use and failed miserably (hilariously even) an hour ago. That study you used is debunked, void and whoreshit. I don't even want to hear about it anymore, I've had enough laughs. Pull up another study that backs up this bullshit claim of yours.

>>1503298
that's a lot of words to say you lost the argument there shill anon.

>>1503300
>i'm going to prove that gun free zones are less likely to get shot up by using a study that excludes the most commonly shot up gun free zone
>No we can't include that in the study because there's no non-gun-free equivalent and it would ruin my argument!
By the way, that anon was wrong about that too. There are colleges that allow concealed carry. Thankfully, none of them have been targeted by an active shooter yet (I wonder why).

>>1503303
you sure love being a perpetually incorrect faggot

>>1503305
Also Alabama, Kansas, Michigan, New Hampshire, Oregon, Utah, and Wyoming allow licensed concealed carriers to carry on K-12 schools. So yeah, he was also lying about there not being an equivalent.

What a day.

>>1503303
If the shooter is suicidal he’s probably more likely to target a concealed carry zone, so he can get into a shootout and get killed

>>1503307
Are there any high schools that allow concealed carry?

>>1503309
Yes.

>>1503303
>There are colleges that allow concealed carry.
Colleges were included in the study.

>>1503295
>If base A allows their soldiers to carry guns and base B doesn't, he's going to shoot up base B, 10 out of 10 times.
Then why did the study find otherwise in every other scenario where there's a gun-free versus a gun-allowed area?

>>1503317
>Why does my flawed study that leaves important shit out favor my viewpoint?
I'm still waiting on you to provide another study. One that's actually reliable this time. Y'know since you said there are studies - plural.

>>1503303
>Thankfully, none of them have been targeted by an active shooter yet (I wonder why).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_Umpqua_Community_College_shooting

Oregon literally requires all campuses to allow people with concealed carry licenses to have guns.

>>1503310
Is there any statistical analysis done comparing the rate of shootings between concealed carry high schools and gun free zone high schools?

>>1503321
Here's one on bars in fucking Texas:
>https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11524-024-00928-x
Here's one on schools specifically using a St Louis school as a base
>https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37964181/

Now, I'm curious: do you have anything of your own that proves them wrong? Surely someone must've made a study showing there's a hardline link between gun free zones and being targeted for shootings.

You know what, compare the rate of shootings between countries which allow guns and those that don’t. That’ll prove something

>>1503324
>Oregon literally requires all campuses to allow people with concealed carry licenses to have guns.
Ah nice try, slick. They're allow NOW, but back in 2015, CHL holders on college campus could only carry on the GROUNDS, not in buildings, dorms, classrooms, etc.

>>1503327
Do vibe checks by below average IQ retards count as statistical analysis?
Its never mathed out even for areas where you're allowed to conceal carry. Its just paranoia from the bottom 20% of society

>>1503330
>They're allow NOW, but back in 2015, CHL holders on college campus could only carry on the GROUNDS, not in buildings, dorms, classrooms, etc.
Source on that? Because from what I'm seeing it's the opposite; a law passed in 2021 ALLOWING the banning of firearms in university buildings. Before they weren't allowed to be banned as long as you could concealed carry.

>>1502860
>I love how leftists are so anti-gun they don't even want our own MILITARY owning guns. It's fucking hilarious!

this is the same retarded quip-hunting behavior we used to see from creationists

>>1503578
A vast majority of gun crime is committed by "diverse" "people". The obvious solution to gun crime is clearly to ban diversity, not gun.

>MUH MASS SHOOTERS
the societal and social conditions that create the mental illnesses that leads to mass shootings are all directly tied to diversity.

>>1503621
you're literally not white. or american.