“Voluntary safe storage is something that the gun community should adopt and encourage”. I’m pretty sure it already doe. As ever, I suppose, “it could do more”, but I get enough trite and tedious safety sermonizing as it is. Responsible gun owners already know this; irresponsible gun owners already don’t care. I’m thinking more lectures won’t move the needle.
Red flag laws tend to have serious due process/civil rights problems, which makes “do they work” either irrelevant or an attempt to sideline these problems.
The NICS system is a Second Amendment violation in its entirety. It is a prior restraint requiring you to get government permission (you can’t keep and bear arms without first buying them) and can’t be reconciled with the exercise of that right free of government interference.
Thanks for reading the EO. Sounds like another exercise in bureaucratic wankery and empire building.
They're legal to sell - they're not legal to *make with the intention to sell*. You can make one for yourself and sell it on later (or give it away), you can't make one with the intention to give it away or sell.
Nitpicking, yes, but its the difference between 'hobbyist' and 'makes guns for a living'. Though, of course, criminals don't care about laws anyway . . .
Bottom line, more worthless ink on paper pandering to the Kringe Karens who support Kamala, that does ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to make anyone better off. I agree, "meh" sums up this and the last 43 months.
>"Herein they print money and give it to states to fund red flag law initiatives. Whether red flag laws work or not is a hotly debated topic. Sometimes they seem to work fine, and sometimes the cops call in their own red flags to circumvent the warrant process on people they want to beat with sticks.
I'm not sure you can say they work fine.
I'll grant that its hard to say that you prevented a shooting before the fact - you never get enough info from the news about what was *really* happening with some dude who got his guns taken away because his ex-girlfriend called the cops, but from what I see, mass shooters are all 'on the radar' of police - yet no intervention is done.
It *mostly* seems to be used to circumvent the warrant process to beat someone up.
> It *mostly* seems to be used to circumvent the warrant process to beat someone up.
This is a statement that requires data to support. If you have the data I'd like to read it. I think it would be very interesting if true, but the data is hard to find.
Again, you hit many nails, nice and square. I believe though, that you missed the biggest point of these "make work" programs for feds - ALL parts of this will create massive databases which will later be used (after they change the definitions of 'danger to society' type things) and provide 'make work programs' for door kickers. Schools with 'guidance' for 'safe storage' my ass - I see that as a future, 'Kids, whose evil gun totin' parents don't follow this glorious guidance from the expert feds' type thing. All of this is already on the books as you noted, so there are obviously ulterior motives, IMHO.
The System wants to take away your guns so they can hurt you with impunity.
If crime and death reduction were the goal, there are plenty of opportunities to pursue actual criminals instead of law abiding citizens. Until I can safely walk the streets of Baltimore at night, any attempt to restrict firearm rights of non-criminals can only be seen as preparation by the government to abuse the citizenry.
"...nor will likely affect your life in meaningful ways. Nor will they do anything about actual crime..."
This may be technically true today but the constant filing away, even a single stroke of the file, removes protection of legal gun rights. Any sane person knows a legal gun owner is less likely to commit a gun crime than an illegal gun owner, and when legal gun owners get their guns taken away the criminals will still have theirs to continue on the crime spree happily...
The crime reporting failure was primarily 2021 and has almost entirely been plugged. Go read Jeff Asher's blog, the current crime stats are good, and this "ZOMG CRIME IS RAMPANT THEY JUST AREN'T REPORTING IT" meme that's running through conservative echo chambers right now is false.
When the city stops arresting criminals, people stop reporting crimes. Like magic, crime rates go down. This applies primarily to property crime. If it's not insured and you don't need a police report, why report a burglary when the official position of the state is that everyone is entitled to steal 2 TVs per day? Businesses haven't shut down locations to fuel conservative echo chambers. They have done so due to risk to their employees and too much merchandise being stolen.
When the FBI simply lies, even the violent crime rate can get better.
For example, the FBI report shows there were 499 homicides in Chicago in 2023, but the Chicago Police Department's own figures reported 617 homicides.
I'd rather find a non-Fox source, but my opinion is that everyone presenting "news," lies at all times. Based on FBI data, assuming the 10% drop in the national murder rate the FBI is claiming, we're still up 11% since 2019. The 11.6% drop is relative to the backdrop of "disband the police" and the subsequent knowledge of decreased enforcement effort combined with nationwide semi-house arrest of the entire country.
An inverse relationship between crime stats and surveyed results of criminal victimization is suspicious. Who's wrong?
I don't trust anyone to have correct data because too many people involved in data collection and publication have an interest in lying. I certainly don't trust an organization that shut down public conversation about effective treatments for a virus, claimed facts they knew were facts were the product of Russian disinformation (Hunter Biden laptop). When the Cheka tells you something, you don't have any new information.
I do trust my visual evaluation of crime adjacent behavior here at home, and in the various cities I travel to (SF, Raleigh NC, Denver, Wichita). This confirms the long-term trend I have observed in my lifetime. Suburbia is less violent because the American population is feminizing. Unsafe places are getting worse and their boundaries are expanding. Rural areas are pretty much the same as they have been so long as they have some distance from an urban center.
Final note: Imported criminals behave differently. It's long been known to our urban gangs that gang murders are not pursued as diligently as those against civilians or police. The new arrivals do not have experience with that culture. It's going to get worse.
Aside from the promised huge waste of taxpayer money and the always useless duplication of “thou shall not”, this fuzzy-bunny-feel-good EO was mostly about drumming up Soccer Mom support for the Harris-Walz campaign.
Regarding the murder rate thing, I saw an interesting argument recently, claiming that if it weren't for the vietnam-era improvements in golden-hour trauma medicine, the modern-era USA murder rate would be something like 4x higher than it currently is. So in theory, we actually have something like 4 times as many near-lethal injuries from homicide ATTEMPTS as back in 1963, we just manage to save 75% of their lives now. Obviously, those numbers are rough, and from memory.
There's something there but it's not huge. We had this argument on HWFO Slack a few days ago and I put together a graph about it. I might publish it later. TLDR, you can check this theory by graphing not only murder rate but the combined rate of murder and aggravated assault. It's also going down.
Maybe put some funds into studies on how many of the violent spree shooters are on any of the psyche meds that big Pharma pushes to our children. From adderall to riddlin or any of the antidepressants their put on. I know correlation isn’t necessarily causation… But I think it’s at least worth a look.
Yeah we have a lot of antidepressants flying around right now but we should expect that suicidal people get diagnosed and put on antidepressants, so we should expect that spree shooters are on the things more often than the genpop.
>The only fully 3D printable guns are basically one shot zip guns
1. *NOW*
2. And only if you consider additive manufacturing through an FDM printer. Add in laser-sintering (its possible to build a DIY *laser tube* and motion system), ECM (electrochemical machining) where you take a rod, using a shaped electrode, salt water, and electricity, cut out the barrel and rifling, and that desktop CNC is in the sub-5k range today . . .
3. There's even work in the community for plastic ammo - leaving just primers as the main supply bottleneck
10 years ago it would take a guy a garage full of machines, most over 2k to make a full gun on their own. 10 years from now it'll require a $250 printer $100 in parts for ECM, and maybe a $200 plasma cutter and a steady hand.
I've built a .22LR one-shot derringer where the only 'gun part' was a barrel liner and a 22 LR 'AR' with a plastic hammer and self-wound springs. Couple parts from an AR lower kit, barrel liner, and some generic hardware store stuff. We're not far away from being able to do it all at home.
I think you're mostly right about these updates. In your school safety post, I hoped to get some thoughts on this feedback, but I was late to the game. So I'll try again:
The thing that has never made sense to me about the harden-the-schools argument is that kids don't live in the schools. They ride buses and walk on sidewalks and play in football games outside those buildings, which are all highly vulnerable places that would be easily targeted if entering a building becomes more difficult.
As for possible solutions, enforceable red flag laws combined with severe penalties for parents/guardians if their gun is used in such a shooting. This wouldn't be a cure-all but it could help as a reduction measure.
Hardening schools would do exactly zero to reduce spree shootings, it would just direct them elsewhere. Which, apparently, is something we must endeavor to do to reduce the anxiety of the Facebook Karens.
So I wonder about that, we know from the GWOT anti-terrorism days that a hardened security postures reduces attacks to that specific target. Are you saying the school shooters would then look for softer targets (McDonalds, Grocery Stores, GameStop's)? Isn't the reason those locations aren't targeted now that the concern of conceal carries, cops, and a random encounter with Obi Wan-Nairobi types sufficient deterrent?
So you are FOR what amounts to a Constitutional Right being stripped in a "Minority Report" fashion?
Just like "Swatting," RFLs HAVE been used by everything from a vindictive ex to a "Karen" neighbor because they don't like your political signs in your front yard. Better think long and HARD about that.
I don't think I stated I was for or against any particular thing in the analysis. I think I just went through and analyzed what the EO was likely to do.
Do you think every person in this country should be able to own a gun? If not, then it is a balancing act, which is the system we inherited from the founders.
"If they are a threat, perhaps they should be incarcerated / involuntarily committed." Permanent imprisonment based on the status of "threat" would be a much bigger constitutional violation than preventing gun ownership.
What about the rights of the multiple rounds of victims? Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is tough if we give a crazy person multiple violent felonies before removing the most efficient way of causing harm to others.
I'd say past patterns would be a pretty good indicator. Especially 'repeat' offenders. The NRA pushed the "Three Strikes and You're Out" but it was a bit too broadly written, and it pissed off the liberals because IT WORKED.
I think "the harden-the-schools argument" amounts to locking the doors where they can't be opened from outside, and have a crash bar inside for easy egress when needed. And maybe a metal detector for back packs and the like. Also, an off duty police officer to meet an aggressor at the front door that is willing and able to respond with quick, adequate force to repel said aggressor.
I totally agree with your last statement about irresponsible parents that let the child have access to the firearm. It needs to happen.
I think a couple of bored army vets with ARs and plate carriers sitting under a tent canopy out front drinking diet coke out of a cooler will pretty much end any possibility of a school shooter at that particular school.
But, even if we could make every school impenetrable, what is to stop kids being targeted outside the school? I don't think hardening the schools solves the problem, it just moves it slightly farther away from the school building.
Take a look at the Colorado movie theater shooting.
The shooter passed up all the closer theaters and went for the one that was posted NO GUNS ALLOWED. Gee, I wonder why.
And we all know how THAT worked out.
So, the answer is: GET RID OF ALL PUBLIC GUN FREE ZONES.
And don't even BOTHER to respond with crap about jails and similar secured areas.
But, you really wanna post your PRIVATE place "Gun Free?"
Fine.
Then they need to have a legally binding agreement that makes the property owner LIABLE for your safety once you cross the threshold.
I don't care if it's a HOSPITAL, School, Shopping Mall, or other publicly accessible area.
You wanna post it? You're responsible. If you want to include metal detectors, armed security, etc. that's the OWNERS responsibility, nobody else, and I will chose to take my business elsewhere.
Legally armed citizens should be able to carry pretty much ANYWHERE they want. Period.
Oh, before you go down the road about cops having training, etc. you might want to compare the shots fired VS hits scored on target by both LEOs and armed citizens. You'll find that the citizens FAR out shoot the average beat cop by a large margin. (I make an exception for SWAT teams, and people like the Hanford Atomic Energy security teams that regularly generate 55 gallon drums of empty .45 cases every few months.)
Recent CA firearm/ammo 11% tax was sold as school safety, but it's not a 'shall' spend requirement nor the primary recipients of the largesse made available to unnacountable groups.
The cynicism apparent inside the laws that get written chronically reinforces distrust.
There is one thing I don't see mentioned here and which I only really realised recently, so for the benefit of the other readers that haven't yet: There are A LOT of people that are good at sounding superficially nice and moderately competent, but are actually incompetent and worse, have completely insane unworkable policy preferences. These invariably try to get some safe work position that doesn't pay much but that in practice require almost no real work & challenge. If they get them, they spend a large chunk of their time advocating for their pet issues, up to and including harassing people they consider in the way. Expanding the bureaucracy or money going to a charity that you haven't THOUROGHLY vetted will not only be wasted money! It will mean more advocacy, more pressure on normal people, and so on.
A couple of thoughts (OK, three):
“Voluntary safe storage is something that the gun community should adopt and encourage”. I’m pretty sure it already doe. As ever, I suppose, “it could do more”, but I get enough trite and tedious safety sermonizing as it is. Responsible gun owners already know this; irresponsible gun owners already don’t care. I’m thinking more lectures won’t move the needle.
Red flag laws tend to have serious due process/civil rights problems, which makes “do they work” either irrelevant or an attempt to sideline these problems.
The NICS system is a Second Amendment violation in its entirety. It is a prior restraint requiring you to get government permission (you can’t keep and bear arms without first buying them) and can’t be reconciled with the exercise of that right free of government interference.
Thanks for reading the EO. Sounds like another exercise in bureaucratic wankery and empire building.
>They’re only illegal to sell.
They're legal to sell - they're not legal to *make with the intention to sell*. You can make one for yourself and sell it on later (or give it away), you can't make one with the intention to give it away or sell.
Nitpicking, yes, but its the difference between 'hobbyist' and 'makes guns for a living'. Though, of course, criminals don't care about laws anyway . . .
Bottom line, more worthless ink on paper pandering to the Kringe Karens who support Kamala, that does ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to make anyone better off. I agree, "meh" sums up this and the last 43 months.
>"Herein they print money and give it to states to fund red flag law initiatives. Whether red flag laws work or not is a hotly debated topic. Sometimes they seem to work fine, and sometimes the cops call in their own red flags to circumvent the warrant process on people they want to beat with sticks.
I'm not sure you can say they work fine.
I'll grant that its hard to say that you prevented a shooting before the fact - you never get enough info from the news about what was *really* happening with some dude who got his guns taken away because his ex-girlfriend called the cops, but from what I see, mass shooters are all 'on the radar' of police - yet no intervention is done.
It *mostly* seems to be used to circumvent the warrant process to beat someone up.
> It *mostly* seems to be used to circumvent the warrant process to beat someone up.
This is a statement that requires data to support. If you have the data I'd like to read it. I think it would be very interesting if true, but the data is hard to find.
Again, you hit many nails, nice and square. I believe though, that you missed the biggest point of these "make work" programs for feds - ALL parts of this will create massive databases which will later be used (after they change the definitions of 'danger to society' type things) and provide 'make work programs' for door kickers. Schools with 'guidance' for 'safe storage' my ass - I see that as a future, 'Kids, whose evil gun totin' parents don't follow this glorious guidance from the expert feds' type thing. All of this is already on the books as you noted, so there are obviously ulterior motives, IMHO.
The System wants to take away your guns so they can hurt you with impunity.
If crime and death reduction were the goal, there are plenty of opportunities to pursue actual criminals instead of law abiding citizens. Until I can safely walk the streets of Baltimore at night, any attempt to restrict firearm rights of non-criminals can only be seen as preparation by the government to abuse the citizenry.
"...nor will likely affect your life in meaningful ways. Nor will they do anything about actual crime..."
This may be technically true today but the constant filing away, even a single stroke of the file, removes protection of legal gun rights. Any sane person knows a legal gun owner is less likely to commit a gun crime than an illegal gun owner, and when legal gun owners get their guns taken away the criminals will still have theirs to continue on the crime spree happily...
Where's the mention of the roughly 20% drop in the VOLUNTARY crime reporting stats to the Feds?
Even MSN is reporting on Dr. John Lotts' Crime Prevention Research Center statistics blowing that 'drop' right outta the water...
The crime reporting failure was primarily 2021 and has almost entirely been plugged. Go read Jeff Asher's blog, the current crime stats are good, and this "ZOMG CRIME IS RAMPANT THEY JUST AREN'T REPORTING IT" meme that's running through conservative echo chambers right now is false.
When the city stops arresting criminals, people stop reporting crimes. Like magic, crime rates go down. This applies primarily to property crime. If it's not insured and you don't need a police report, why report a burglary when the official position of the state is that everyone is entitled to steal 2 TVs per day? Businesses haven't shut down locations to fuel conservative echo chambers. They have done so due to risk to their employees and too much merchandise being stolen.
When the FBI simply lies, even the violent crime rate can get better.
https://www.foxnews.com/us/fbis-flawed-crime-data-highlighted-chicagos-116-missing-murders-expert
summary:
For example, the FBI report shows there were 499 homicides in Chicago in 2023, but the Chicago Police Department's own figures reported 617 homicides.
I'd rather find a non-Fox source, but my opinion is that everyone presenting "news," lies at all times. Based on FBI data, assuming the 10% drop in the national murder rate the FBI is claiming, we're still up 11% since 2019. The 11.6% drop is relative to the backdrop of "disband the police" and the subsequent knowledge of decreased enforcement effort combined with nationwide semi-house arrest of the entire country.
On reported versus unreported crime:
https://nypost.com/2024/08/13/opinion/democrats-hide-the-rise-in-violent-crime-with-tricky-stats/
An inverse relationship between crime stats and surveyed results of criminal victimization is suspicious. Who's wrong?
I don't trust anyone to have correct data because too many people involved in data collection and publication have an interest in lying. I certainly don't trust an organization that shut down public conversation about effective treatments for a virus, claimed facts they knew were facts were the product of Russian disinformation (Hunter Biden laptop). When the Cheka tells you something, you don't have any new information.
I do trust my visual evaluation of crime adjacent behavior here at home, and in the various cities I travel to (SF, Raleigh NC, Denver, Wichita). This confirms the long-term trend I have observed in my lifetime. Suburbia is less violent because the American population is feminizing. Unsafe places are getting worse and their boundaries are expanding. Rural areas are pretty much the same as they have been so long as they have some distance from an urban center.
Final note: Imported criminals behave differently. It's long been known to our urban gangs that gang murders are not pursued as diligently as those against civilians or police. The new arrivals do not have experience with that culture. It's going to get worse.
Quick look at Jeff Ashers' substack shows him relying on the Gun Violence Archive.
Yeah, right. A Brady Bunch special.
I'm SURE that they are a good source of unbiased info... /sarc - as if needed.
I have my doubts, for the same reason that JimmyinTEXAS does.
"And when cities stop reporting crimes because they have stopped arresting and prosecuting them it sure make s it appear the rate has gone down..."
And when cities stop reporting crimes because they have stopped arresting and prosecuting them it sure make s it appear the rate has gone down...
Aside from the promised huge waste of taxpayer money and the always useless duplication of “thou shall not”, this fuzzy-bunny-feel-good EO was mostly about drumming up Soccer Mom support for the Harris-Walz campaign.
Does it mention anything about gun crime rates in Afghanistan? Just curious because I'm not sure those fellas passed the background checks
Regarding the murder rate thing, I saw an interesting argument recently, claiming that if it weren't for the vietnam-era improvements in golden-hour trauma medicine, the modern-era USA murder rate would be something like 4x higher than it currently is. So in theory, we actually have something like 4 times as many near-lethal injuries from homicide ATTEMPTS as back in 1963, we just manage to save 75% of their lives now. Obviously, those numbers are rough, and from memory.
There's something there but it's not huge. We had this argument on HWFO Slack a few days ago and I put together a graph about it. I might publish it later. TLDR, you can check this theory by graphing not only murder rate but the combined rate of murder and aggravated assault. It's also going down.
Maybe put some funds into studies on how many of the violent spree shooters are on any of the psyche meds that big Pharma pushes to our children. From adderall to riddlin or any of the antidepressants their put on. I know correlation isn’t necessarily causation… But I think it’s at least worth a look.
The problem is causation.
Yeah we have a lot of antidepressants flying around right now but we should expect that suicidal people get diagnosed and put on antidepressants, so we should expect that spree shooters are on the things more often than the genpop.
>The only fully 3D printable guns are basically one shot zip guns
1. *NOW*
2. And only if you consider additive manufacturing through an FDM printer. Add in laser-sintering (its possible to build a DIY *laser tube* and motion system), ECM (electrochemical machining) where you take a rod, using a shaped electrode, salt water, and electricity, cut out the barrel and rifling, and that desktop CNC is in the sub-5k range today . . .
3. There's even work in the community for plastic ammo - leaving just primers as the main supply bottleneck
10 years ago it would take a guy a garage full of machines, most over 2k to make a full gun on their own. 10 years from now it'll require a $250 printer $100 in parts for ECM, and maybe a $200 plasma cutter and a steady hand.
I've built a .22LR one-shot derringer where the only 'gun part' was a barrel liner and a 22 LR 'AR' with a plastic hammer and self-wound springs. Couple parts from an AR lower kit, barrel liner, and some generic hardware store stuff. We're not far away from being able to do it all at home.
That's cool and interesting and if I were you I wouldn't post that anywhere on the internet. Your pager could explode.
Hit up the plumbing department of any hardware store and you can walk out with the parts for your very own slam fire shotgun...
I think you're mostly right about these updates. In your school safety post, I hoped to get some thoughts on this feedback, but I was late to the game. So I'll try again:
The thing that has never made sense to me about the harden-the-schools argument is that kids don't live in the schools. They ride buses and walk on sidewalks and play in football games outside those buildings, which are all highly vulnerable places that would be easily targeted if entering a building becomes more difficult.
As for possible solutions, enforceable red flag laws combined with severe penalties for parents/guardians if their gun is used in such a shooting. This wouldn't be a cure-all but it could help as a reduction measure.
Hardening schools would do exactly zero to reduce spree shootings, it would just direct them elsewhere. Which, apparently, is something we must endeavor to do to reduce the anxiety of the Facebook Karens.
So I wonder about that, we know from the GWOT anti-terrorism days that a hardened security postures reduces attacks to that specific target. Are you saying the school shooters would then look for softer targets (McDonalds, Grocery Stores, GameStop's)? Isn't the reason those locations aren't targeted now that the concern of conceal carries, cops, and a random encounter with Obi Wan-Nairobi types sufficient deterrent?
Aren't most school shootings done by school age kids? They don't necessarily have to be students at the school they choose to shoot up.
They could go to a movie theater in Aurora Colorado if their school is hardened.
"Enforceable" Red Flag laws?
So you are FOR what amounts to a Constitutional Right being stripped in a "Minority Report" fashion?
Just like "Swatting," RFLs HAVE been used by everything from a vindictive ex to a "Karen" neighbor because they don't like your political signs in your front yard. Better think long and HARD about that.
I don't think I stated I was for or against any particular thing in the analysis. I think I just went through and analyzed what the EO was likely to do.
Right, I understand, but I was answering Dewey...
Do you think every person in this country should be able to own a gun? If not, then it is a balancing act, which is the system we inherited from the founders.
Pretty much every CITIZEN, for sure.
If they are a threat, perhaps they should be incarcerated / involuntarily committed.
Precisely.
I wrote something similar below.
"If they are a threat, perhaps they should be incarcerated / involuntarily committed." Permanent imprisonment based on the status of "threat" would be a much bigger constitutional violation than preventing gun ownership.
If a person is safe enough to walk among their fellow citizens, they should be able to do so armed.
PERIOD.
The reason for this is, criminals do not follow laws and can/will obtain a firearm without the permission of the government.
All gun laws are an infringement.
Who decides “safe enough”?
I'd say multiple violent felony's would qualify, especially if committed AFTER a period of incarceration, don't you?
What about the rights of the multiple rounds of victims? Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is tough if we give a crazy person multiple violent felonies before removing the most efficient way of causing harm to others.
Who defines the threat?
I'd say past patterns would be a pretty good indicator. Especially 'repeat' offenders. The NRA pushed the "Three Strikes and You're Out" but it was a bit too broadly written, and it pissed off the liberals because IT WORKED.
Yes. Every person who is not in prison has the right to own firearms.
Guns are really not the problem anyway. Isn't the problem the break down of societal norms, and an indifference to human life and death.
I think "the harden-the-schools argument" amounts to locking the doors where they can't be opened from outside, and have a crash bar inside for easy egress when needed. And maybe a metal detector for back packs and the like. Also, an off duty police officer to meet an aggressor at the front door that is willing and able to respond with quick, adequate force to repel said aggressor.
I totally agree with your last statement about irresponsible parents that let the child have access to the firearm. It needs to happen.
I think a couple of bored army vets with ARs and plate carriers sitting under a tent canopy out front drinking diet coke out of a cooler will pretty much end any possibility of a school shooter at that particular school.
I started shooting at six years old.
Of course, I didn't go blast the crap out of my 7th grade math teacher, despite loathing the ground she walked on.
I'm glad to hear that...
But, even if we could make every school impenetrable, what is to stop kids being targeted outside the school? I don't think hardening the schools solves the problem, it just moves it slightly farther away from the school building.
Take a look at the Colorado movie theater shooting.
The shooter passed up all the closer theaters and went for the one that was posted NO GUNS ALLOWED. Gee, I wonder why.
And we all know how THAT worked out.
So, the answer is: GET RID OF ALL PUBLIC GUN FREE ZONES.
And don't even BOTHER to respond with crap about jails and similar secured areas.
But, you really wanna post your PRIVATE place "Gun Free?"
Fine.
Then they need to have a legally binding agreement that makes the property owner LIABLE for your safety once you cross the threshold.
I don't care if it's a HOSPITAL, School, Shopping Mall, or other publicly accessible area.
You wanna post it? You're responsible. If you want to include metal detectors, armed security, etc. that's the OWNERS responsibility, nobody else, and I will chose to take my business elsewhere.
Legally armed citizens should be able to carry pretty much ANYWHERE they want. Period.
Oh, before you go down the road about cops having training, etc. you might want to compare the shots fired VS hits scored on target by both LEOs and armed citizens. You'll find that the citizens FAR out shoot the average beat cop by a large margin. (I make an exception for SWAT teams, and people like the Hanford Atomic Energy security teams that regularly generate 55 gallon drums of empty .45 cases every few months.)
You and I are 100% in agreement on firearms. Carry on, sir.
But getting it out of the schools, by definition, solves the school shooting problems.
Sorry.
Recent CA firearm/ammo 11% tax was sold as school safety, but it's not a 'shall' spend requirement nor the primary recipients of the largesse made available to unnacountable groups.
The cynicism apparent inside the laws that get written chronically reinforces distrust.
https://www.cdtfa.ca.gov/lawguides/vol4/fetl/fetl-36005.html
There is one thing I don't see mentioned here and which I only really realised recently, so for the benefit of the other readers that haven't yet: There are A LOT of people that are good at sounding superficially nice and moderately competent, but are actually incompetent and worse, have completely insane unworkable policy preferences. These invariably try to get some safe work position that doesn't pay much but that in practice require almost no real work & challenge. If they get them, they spend a large chunk of their time advocating for their pet issues, up to and including harassing people they consider in the way. Expanding the bureaucracy or money going to a charity that you haven't THOUROGHLY vetted will not only be wasted money! It will mean more advocacy, more pressure on normal people, and so on.