Reply #6: For the lulz...

[Atypical Liberal]

First of all, they don't ALL happen in gun-free zones. We've seen the nuts do it in police stations, too.

As was pointed out above, the single instance of an assault on a police station resulted in no fatalities except the criminal, because he was met with armed response almost instantly. As opposed to places like Utoya where the shooter had 90 minutes in which to hunt down his victims unopposed.

But, to the question, are multiple murderers attracted to gun-free zones, they might be. That sounds reasonable, especially for the crazy ones who plan the job and are not stupid.

Of course it sounds reasonable. If your intent is to murder as many people as you can, naturally you'd prefer a place where your victims can't fight back and no one can come to help them.

But the solution is where we differ. Doing away with gun free zones will cause more problems than it solves, just like guns do anywhere.

First of all, let me state that I believe there are places that should be gun-free. Namely places that contain highly controversial public figures. For example courthouses will contain judges who are quite likely to be the target of ire of criminal elements. People who work in Public Office will frequently have citizens who are angry at them for some policy decision. Therefore it makes sense that such places should be "gun free", but also that there should be security forces working there to insure the safety of all the disarmed people within them.

But with those few exceptions, there should be no gun-free zones, at least, not gun-free to people who have been vetted to carry concealed firearms. Why? Because we know that such people are hardly ever involved in any kind of crime, let alone firearm-related crime. It doesn't matter where those people go - to the supermarket or to a college campus - they are unlikely to be involved in a crime.

So there is little reason to keep CCW permit holders out of "gun free zones", and, of course, criminals are not going to care if a zone is gun-free or not.

Even if it would prevent the big incidents like the ones you mentioned, let's not forget we have an equivalent of the Norway tragedy EVERY SINGLE DAY in the U.S., and that's largly due to gun availability (or partly due to it).

As pointed out above, this is blatantly and provably untrue.

Here's the solution. Every gun owner must be licensed. To qualify one would have to pass a battery of medical and psychological tests, in addition to the usual criminal background check. The medical board appointed to conduct these tests would have a policy similar to may-issue. They would have the power to exclude the unfit.

There is no need to go to such trouble and expense. NICS is sufficient for screening firearm owners. We just have to be sure that the states are properly reporting people with disqualifying mental health and criminal histories.

And of course the big problem with your opt-in approach to firearm licensing is that it eliminates firearm ownership anonymity.

Do you think a requirement like that would screen out some of the problem cases and prevent some of the tragedies? Yes or no.

Of course it would. But the inconvenience and loss of privacy is not worth the price.

The single biggest determinator as to whether or not someone is going to commit a firearm-related crime is whether or not they have a past criminal history. You would be far, far, far, better off directing efforts to keep firearms out of the hands of criminals than worrying about mental health screenings.