Ban gun free zones to reduce mass shootings

originally posted by: machineintelligence
a reply to: introvert

but your scenario also places the establishment at a higher risk of liability should something go terribly wrong.

I would say that a mass causality scenario would also qualify as something going terribly wrong wouldn't you?

That's an appeal to emotion logical fallacy and I don't play that game.

I've used nothing but simple logic and asked very relevant questions as to individual rights, government force and legal liability.

Can you address those points or are we going to turn this in to a silly argument?

Can we start with the Capitol?

That seems fair.

a reply to: introvert

Should automakers be required to put a label on the steering wheel saying "You're more likely to die in this car today than from a firearm"?

That is a logical fallacy since an auto maker is not eroding your inalienable rights by making his product. When someone decides to make an area a gun free zone they are putting everyone entering at risk. If the concealed carry person in an area pulls out a weapon and shoots it that person will take the responsibility for that action. Problem solved. Allow licensed concealed carry everywhere and there will be no liability issue for the business. If they choose to create a so called gun free zone they should also bear the responsibility for the dangerous situation they have created.

If your in a mass shooting and you have a gun, your going to do the same thing people without a gun do. Find cover and try and figure out what is going on. And also be very careful that another civilian with a gun or cop does not see you with a gun and shoot you. Frankly people seem to think being under fire is like a movie and they are going jump know exactly who and where the bad guys. The reality is much like the cops at Columbine they had to wait for back up before the could properly clear and secure the building. The US is already one of the most heavily armed nations on Earth and we have more mass shooting than anybody. The idea guns is the solution makes sense only if you think life is like video game.

a reply to: machineintelligence

That is far too sane for many gun right deniers. I still say if everyone was armed crime would be practically eliminated not to mention people would be a lot more polite to each other.

a reply to: MrSpad

I do not have a video game awareness of firearms since I never play them but I do have extensive training with firearms and have trained others for more that 30 years. I also know exactly that a live fire situation can only be resolved with firepower and training. I have been shot when I was unarmed and wished I had been armed at the time. I lost a thumb and the use of that arm. Had the person not been familiar and had I been armed I think the situation would have been different.

a reply to: machineintelligence

That is a logical fallacy since an auto maker is not eroding your inalienable rights by making his product.

A property owner not allowing armed individuals on to their property does not erode your rights. An armed individual can still exercise his right, just not on that property.

You have the right to choose to comply or be on your way. The decision is up to you. No rights violated.

When someone decides to make an area a gun free zone they are putting everyone entering at risk.

No they are not. Those people are granted the right to choose to enter that establishment or go elsewhere.

If they choose to create a so called gun free zone they should also bear the responsibility for the dangerous situation they have created.

Hold private property owners accountable for the actions of killers with guns?

Does that make any sense?

a reply to: introvert

Gun free zones create a hazardous environment in a society that is armed. Federal law can force a business owner to provide ramps and bathrooms for the handicapped but not post their property as a hazard due to gun restrictions at the business? That makes no sense.

originally posted by: Metallicus
a reply to: machineintelligence

That is far too sane for many gun right deniers. I still say if everyone was armed crime would be practically eliminated not to mention people would be a lot more polite to each other.

History doesn't bear that our are you familiar with the Western United States in the 1800s? Everyone could carry many did and guess what no difference people will be people. Though I am slightly concerned you think carrying a gun gets you some kind of respect. And I say this as a permit holder.

originally posted by: machineintelligence
Mass shooting in gun free zones are far, far more common than mass shootings at places like shooting ranges, gun shows, or cop bars for that matter.

Wow, that's incredible. Can that really be true? There are more shootings at Malls than shooting ranges? How is that possible? My mind has been blown. Is that post-graduate level reasoning? I knew I should have continued my life in academia. If you write a book about this I will definitely buy it!

a reply to: Logman

Typical British itbag snark. Good servant of the crown. Here is your tea and biscuit.

a reply to: machineintelligence

You have not addressed any of my concerns or assertions.

Can you do that?

a reply to: introvert

You have not addressed any of my concerns or assertions. Can you do that?

You seem to have made up your mind long before this conversation so what would be the point?

It's a myth about gun free zones being the target of mass shootings made up by pro gun advocates. .

Debunking the Gun Free Zone Myth: “Mass Murder Magnets”

There is no evidence that mass killers select locations based on gun policy, or that lawful gun owners have been able to intervene to stop these attacks.

In one example of statistical malpractice, Lott excludes many mass-shooting incidents in which the shooter was committing an additional felony (such as armed robbery) during the crime, despite the fact that felony-related mass murders account for 36 percent of the data set on which he bases the study. Lott’s explanation for doing so was an unjustified presumption that bystanders in crimes like robberies or drug deals will already “be engaged in unlawful activities that often require them to carry guns.” However, analysis of this claim reveals that 69 percent of the mass shootings excluded by Lott involved robberies committed in public locations (like convenience stores and fast-food restaurants) where the bystanders were innocent civilians. If RTC laws are to have any effect at all, then surely they would apply to such situations, making it unclear how Lott could choose to ignore them.

They concluded that “RTC laws have no effect on mass public shootings at all.

But counter to what gun-rights advocates claim, many of the active shootings in the FBI’s database occurred in areas that were not gun-free zones. Our own analysis of the FBI study, in which we looked at all 160 incidents, examining state and local laws along with the firearms policies of individual businesses, found that of the 65 shootings in open spaces and businesses with pedestrian traffic, at least 25 occurred in areas permitting firearms.

originally posted by: machineintelligence
a reply to: introvert

You have not addressed any of my concerns or assertions. Can you do that?

You seem to have made up your mind long before this conversation so what would be the point?

It appears you made up your mind before you created the OP. What was the point in creating it?

Were you trying to spark an honest conversation, or trying to create a thread where everyone patted themselves on the back for the most pro-gun comment?

I like a honest conversation. I'm also pro-2nd.

a reply to: theonenonlyone

Our own analysis of the FBI study, in which we looked at all 160 incidents, examining state and local laws along with the firearms policies of individual businesses, found that of the 65 shootings in open spaces and businesses with pedestrian traffic, at least 25 occurred in areas permitting firearms.

So you are stating that the vast majority of mass shootings occur in gun free zones then. 25 out of 65 leaves 40 from 65 so a supermajority. Thanks for sharing this information supportive of my supposition.

a reply to: introvert

I like a honest conversation. I'm also pro-2nd.

Your threads and posts on this site do not support those comments.

Any mitigation would require drastic means, which would be self defeating.

It is what it is.

originally posted by: machineintelligence
a reply to: introvert

I like a honest conversation. I'm also pro-2nd.

Your threads and posts on this site do not support those comments.

Believe as you wish, but the fact remains that you have not addressed my specific points.

Comment on that and not my post history.

a reply to: machineintelligence

Analysis of Mass Shootings

“Gun-free” Zones Ninety-one of the 133 incidents (68%) took place wholly in private residences. Of the 37 incidents in public spaces, at least 21 took place wholly or in part where concealed guns could be lawfully carried. All told, no more than 17 of the shootings (13%) took place entirely in public spaces that were so-called “gun-free zones.”

On CNN, Mark Kelly Debunks Myth That "Gun-Free Zones" Attract Shooters

Kelly: "Less Than 15 Percent Of [Mass Shootings] Have Happened In A Gun-Free Zone"

Opinion flashback: NRA's gun-free zone myth

If more guns in more places is a solution to the bloodshed, then why did we just witness the worst year for mass shootings in recent history?

Among the 62 mass shootings over the past 30 years that we studied, not a single case includes evidence that the killer chose to target a place because it banned guns.

Both its underlying assumptions are contradicted by data

Nearly 80% of the mass shooters we documented obtained their weapons legally

The Myth of the Good Guy With the Gun

Parker is just one of many armed civilians who have been present or proximal to a mass shooting but was unable to stop it.

‘It’s not a gun-free zone’: Firearms were common on Umpqua Community College campus

a dozen students and others connected to Umpqua Community College in Roseburg said many students carried guns despite the campus ban and that this was common knowledge.