Nice to know that all those places with right-to-carry and relaxed gun laws, like military bases and the state of Florida, are safe from gun violence.
Florida, for some strange reason, is often held up by gun-righters as an example of a good state. Yet Florida is violent and has become more so since gun control was relaxed.
Here's my logic:
The problem with people who don't believe in gun control is that Cell #2 is impossible to achieve so they choose to live in Cell #1.
Gun haters believe that Cell #4 is theoretically possible (and desirable), but it isn't politically possible in this country.
So we're left with either Cell #1 or Cell #3. And either way we're left with some gun carnage.
And though it certainly may seem that Cell #1 the better of the two ("if criminals and crazies have guns, better for us to, too!" ...Assuming we're not crazy, of course).
The problem is that there is a correlation between the general availability of guns and the odds that a criminal or crazy carries a gun.
I'd prefer to live in Cell #3 than Cell #1 because they'll be less carnage and I'll be safer, even though I would have to give up some feeling of control over my environment. That's why we have police.
Speaking of which, can somebody tell me why it takes a civilian police officer on or near an army base to shoot somebody? Don't the soldiers have guns?