Ban gun free zones to reduce mass shootings

originally posted by: dukeofjive696969
Yes more guns plz, thats really all americans need more guns, yeeeeeeehaaaaaaaa

Thats ok. If I had a neighbor with that attitude , I would put a sign up in the front yard. This house protected by Glock 9s , AR 15s , and Desert Eagles. Go next door , Please. For your sake.

New FBI Report Casts Doubt on NRA's 'Good Guy Stops Bad Guy' Nonsense

After years of listening to Wayne LaPierre croon away about how "only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun," we finally have some real data to test whether this rationale for arming civilians (and selling more guns) is really true. I'm referring to a report on active shooting incidents just released by the FBI which analyzed 160 "active shootings" resulting in injuries to 1,043 victims, including 486 deaths, between 2000 and 2013.

More than half (56 percent) were terminated by the shooter who either took his or her own life, simply stopped shooting or fled the scene. Another 26 percent ended in the traditional Hollywood-like fashion with the shooter and law enforcement personnel exchanging gunfire and in nearly all of those situations the shooter ended up either wounded or dead. In 13 percent of the shooting situations, the shooter was successfully disarmed and restrained by unarmed civilians, and in 3 percent of the incidents the shooter was confronted by armed civilians, of whom four were on-duty security guards and one person was just your average "good guy" who happened to be carrying a gun

According to the FBI, of the 160 active shootings, 39 or roughly 25 percent took place in educational facilities and the shooters were overwhelmingly students who either attended or had attended the particular school. In most of these cases the connection of the shooter to the school was the motivating issue, not the fact that the schools were gun-free zones. More than two-thirds of all the active shooting incidents between 2000 and 2013 took place in locations which were not readily understood to be gun-free zones. But why let facts stand in the way of an opinion or, better yet, a good marketing scheme?

Since 2009, 92 Percent of Mass Shootings Have Occurred in Gun-Free Zones

I have seen this a lot when searching for gun free zone stats and can not find any actual FBI or government agency that backs those facts up. In fact the report originates from a biased source and was co authored by none other than John R. Lott, Jr. Name sound familiar...yeah because this guy would have nothing to gain from this report..

a reply to: theonenonlyone

Thanks for quoting Huff Po. That liberal rag is full of calculated obfuscation of the truth. So many holes in that BS you could fly a 757 through them.

a reply to: machineintelligence

"Ban gun free zones in public places to reduce mass shootings" - There, I fixed it for you, so the "what about private rperty distraction can end.

Excellent. I like the signs for places that don't want to comply, but I'd go with something like:

"We don't allow guns, so if you bring your business to us, it's at your own risk, because we prefer being targets."

Wait! Some are speaking as though private businesses are the only gun-free zones. By a wide margin in our area, the gun-free zones are places owned/operated by government or quasi-government agencies.
Schools have been the targets of crazies more times than I like to count. I've only ever seen a couple of reports where one of the loonies dropped in on the local police precinct to commit mass murder. Why? Because, as crazy as they are, they know they won't last more than a few seconds when there are armed people around. It ain't rocket science people. And you don't have to make a government-funded study to see what is unfolding before us. Even the wackos have that much sense.

Then show the stats that back anything you say up. Shouldn't be hard and also one that isn't biased or from the John Lott report.

Should be easy Go on counter the stats regarding the Huffington post.

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
a reply to: machineintelligence

"Ban gun free zones in public places to reduce mass shootings" - There, I fixed it for you, so the "what about private rperty distraction can end.

Excellent. I like the signs for places that don't want to comply, but I'd go with something like:

"We don't allow guns, so if you bring your business to us, it's at your own risk, because we prefer being targets."

Except the stats don't support your opinion.

a reply to: theonenonlyone

I do not see John Lott mentioned here: americangunfacts.com...

a reply to: machineintelligence

Nice page..but no stats that support gun free zones are specifically targeted by mass shooters.

Keep trying..

originally posted by: machineintelligence
a reply to: theonenonlyone

I do not see John Lott mentioned here: americangunfacts.com...

I understand that you may have received the partisan debate intended with the OP, but I would kindly ask that you address the points I mentioned earlier.

How can you reconcile violating personal property rights and demanding people abide by a government regulation, when your proposal clearly violates the fifth and fourteenth amendment?

a reply to: theonenonlyone

So what disqualification does John R. Lott, Jr. suffer from exactly? I did not get that part in the Huff Po hit piece.

a reply to: introvert

I am not sure exactly how my proposal violates those amendments more than say the civil rights act, or the Americans with Disabilities act.

originally posted by: machineintelligence
a reply to: introvert

I am not sure exactly how my proposal violates those amendments more than say the civil rights act, or the Americans with Disabilities act.

Perhaps that is the problem.

originally posted by: machineintelligence
a reply to: theonenonlyone

So what disqualification does John R. Lott, Jr. suffer from exactly? I did not get that part in the Huff Po hit piece.

His own bias and government agencies do not support his stats and his "paper" is the only source for those skewed stats. Just for the record it is OK to be wrong and but to continue to debate when you are does not help your credibility.

a reply to: introvert

I see your point. A congressional act should never supersede or attempt to alter the purpose of a constitutional amendment. There should instead be a constitutional convention convened to amend the constitution.

originally posted by: Logman

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!

Just shows deductive reasoning is a dying skill. Did you know there are more shootings in malls then bowling alleys. I think the solution may be for more people to carry around bowling balls.

originally posted by: diggindirt
Wait! Some are speaking as though private businesses are the only gun-free zones. By a wide margin in our area, the gun-free zones are places owned/operated by government or quasi-government agencies.
Schools have been the targets of crazies more times than I like to count. I've only ever seen a couple of reports where one of the loonies dropped in on the local police precinct to commit mass murder. Why? Because, as crazy as they are, they know they won't last more than a few seconds when there are armed people around. It ain't rocket science people. And you don't have to make a government-funded study to see what is unfolding before us. Even the wackos have that much sense.

Really you think people don't attack police stations because they are armed? Odd then how did this happen?
www.cnn.com...

The right to carry is fine but don't think if everyone had guns bad things wouldn't happen sorry that's the NRA talking. Truth is crimes would still happen people would still die. If you feel the need for personal protection by all means get a permit and carry. However do not fool yourself into thinking your making things safer for the general public that's why it's called personal protection. And trust me even if you have a gun that isn't protection people can be better armed and wearing body armor. Meaning you might as well be shooting spit balls because they will kill you.

originally posted by: machineintelligence
a reply to: introvert

That is clearly an off topic post. Responding to it would drive the conversation off topic.

It is not off topic at all.
Care to answer his points they are very good points.

a reply to: dragonridr
So the guy in the link was an unsuccessful mass murderer. I missed the story because of his failure I suppose. The fact that only he was a victim that day kinda proves my point doesn't it? If a would-be mass murderer still has a couple of synapses firing, they don't target heavily armed areas.

If I carry it is for protecting me. I'm trained for that. I'm responsible for me. I'm under no illusions that if I were in such a situation I would be any sort of hero. I'm not trained for that. But I would also hope that there would be others who would be trained to take out bad guys.
You can bet that if I encountered such a situation I'd be hiding under a desk and listening for the sound of the swat team showing up. I have no experience dealing with armored people with rifles and bombs.