DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Plane on October 01, 2015, 09:49:33 PM
-
In a joint statement, the American Association of Community Colleges and the Association of Community College Trustees said called the shootings a "tragedy" and said they were committed to on-campus safety and security.
But "while campus safety is of the utmost priority, due to their open nature, college and university campuses are susceptible to these types of events," the organizations said.
http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/oregon-college-shooting/multiple-casualties-after-shooting-umpqua-community-college-n437051
No.
They are not going to do anything that might even be slightly effective.
Aren't these the guys that made the campus gun free zone in the first place?
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oTvEEaYX-SA
President makes Moronic speech.
Yes , this same speech would be moronic if it were delivered by a white president.
Long version.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?annotation_id=annotation_1658140055&feature=iv&src_vid=oTvEEaYX-SA&v=NXDWKVsWV4k
-
Research financed by Bloomberg.
http://everytownresearch.org/reports/mass-shootings-analysis/
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.”
[][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][]
Research financed by Dr. John R. Lott, Jr
http://crimeresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/CPRC-Mass-Shooting-Analysis-Bloomberg2.pdf
Since
2009,
only
8
percent of mass public
shootings
have occurred in places where
civilians are allowed to defend themselves.
[][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][]
Bloomberg definitely minimizes this , Lott might be fairly suspected of inflating this, but both are on the same side of center on the safety of a gun free zone.
You are more liable to this sort of incident in a gun free zone.
If Bloomberg is pointing out his opinion that only 13% of these happen in gun free zones, try to remember that far less than one percent of this landmass is a gun free zone.
So there is not real disagreement that gun free zones increase the danger, the entire disagreement is in how much it increases the danger.
-
If Bloomberg is pointing out his opinion that only 13% of these happen in gun free zones, try to remember that far less than one percent of this landmass is a gun free zone.
So there is not real disagreement that gun free zones increase the danger, the entire disagreement is in how much it increases the danger.
Bingo....as in bottom line, the risk is greater in such designated "we're defenseless zones"..... I mean "gun free zones"
-
I am kinda sorry that I posted so much , but I watched the presidents speech and got wound up by it.
I don't suppose he is aware of how he seems .
-
Everyone needs to pack heat to attend community college, obviously.
This crap happens about every other month... only in this country.
American Exceptionalism at work.
-
And in this country, one more time, more people are saved using a firearm, than those taken by one. This happens every day, not just every other month
-
Strangely, people are not saved in Europe or Japan by civilian firearms... Because they are not threatened by guns in the first place.
The US has a murder rate and a gun accident rate higher than any other developed nation.
Your argument is spurious and I reject it entirely. Just more useless gun nut crap.
-
Not so strangely is because they don't have the same freedoms we do in carrying civilian firearms. Point remains unrefuted however that expnentially MORE lives are saved in THIS country, than those taken, in the attempted use to kill someone with a firearm
-
You were previously full of shit, and you continue to be full of shit.
If we wanted to be safe, we would make owning guns much more difficult, as saner countries do.
-
as somebody who work with armed coworkers. I got mixed feelings. the majority are highly responsible who I can trust with my safety but I do know people that hint they raped and killed overseas as sign of manhood. Not all servicemen deserve our respect.
-
Well, when the left redefines facts as AMBE, then guilty as charged
Owning guns isn't the issue or the problem. Bad guys using them illegally is. So, until the focus is on the bad guys and not the guns, then the more guns are going to be needed to deal with the bad guys, since they could care less about gun ownership. What they care about is as defenseless a victim can be
-
as somebody who work with armed coworkers. I got mixed feelings. the majority are highly responsible who I can trust with my safety but I do know people that hint they raped and killed overseas as sign of manhood. Not all servicemen deserve our respect.
This suggests a thought experiment.
Imagine all of these guys , the responsible and the irresponsible, being ordered to leave their guns behind.
Do the responsible obey?
Do the irresponsible obey?
-
Strangely, people are not saved in Europe or Japan by civilian firearms... Because they are not threatened by guns in the first place.
The US has a murder rate and a gun accident rate higher than any other developed nation.
Your argument is spurious and I reject it entirely. Just more useless gun nut crap.
Why don't you consider any South American Country to be "Developed"?
The US is actually right in the middle of the Pack in terms of the prevalence of violence .
And not all of the less developed are behind us.
Including the "developed" qualifier allows the argument to exclude any nation that does not support the theory.
Including all of the nations makes us look a lot better.
And we really have more in common with Brazil than we have in common with Norway.
So what is it that makes a nation "developed"?
Is it having less violent crime than the US?
There are nations with more violence than the US and stricter gun control.
There are nations with more access to guns and less violence.
The "developed" qualifier is spurious , if we had tougher gun control we might just as well move in the direction of Columbia as in the direction of France.
And we have more in common with Mexico than we have with any part of Europe.
-
Why don't you consider any South American Country to be "Developed"?
The US is actually right in the middle of the Pack in terms of the prevalence of violence .
And not all of the less developed are behind us.
==================================================================
Because they are middle income countries with an even bigger gap between the rich and the poor. I have been to many of them, you have not.
They are quite developed in the intellectual area. The people, however, lack money.
In the Dominican Republic, about a tenth of the people are middle class or richer. The 90% are poor by any standard. Poverty is concentrated away from the capital and the tourist areas, but the odds are that the people who wait on you in the fancy hotels do not have water on tap all the time, or electricity 24/7.
Uruguay, Chile and Ecuador are quite pleasant places to live if you can afford to eat and have a house with water and electricity.
This country is becoming more like Venezuela and less like Norway every year.
Republicans actively support this change. That call it "progress" and "freedom to rise". How can you experience the joy of bringing yourself out of grinding poverty unless there is ample poverty grinding around you?
-
(http://s17.postimg.org/bd2tc2wqn/12096008_10207904050142920_5116757485474579967_n.jpg)
-
(http://alliosnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/screenshot-150x150.png)
Umpqua shooting - a tragedy, not a trend
Oct 2, 2015
By James Alan Fox
Another mass shooting sears deep into our collective consciousness,
but it is hype and hysteria on the rise, not violence.
Another mass shooting sears deep into the collective consciousness of the American people. Another school, this time a community college in an otherwise peaceful town in rural Oregon is devastated by a young man taking aim at students trapped in classrooms. Nine are murdered, and many others wounded, before the gunman is killed in a shootout with the police.
Within a few hours, President Obama appeared before the camera, reinforcing the notion that America is under siege. "Somehow this has become routine," noted Obama with obvious emotion. "The reporting is routine."
Although the sense of urgency may be overstated, Obama is certainly correct about the almost formulaic media response. The Oregon shooting had countless news outlets flooding the airwaves and the Internet with questionable statistics on the incidence of mass shootings along with sidebar listings of the deadliest shooting sprees in U.S. history. In the usual rush to offer up some breaking information, news reports were embellished with unconfirmed details about the massacre and the assailant that did little but fuel a contagion of fear.
For context, media folks reminded us of the unforgettable, high profile shootings that have taken place over the past few months, hinting of a problem that has grown out of control. They lumped together rather different types of incidents (the hate-inspired church killing in Charleston, the random shooting at a Louisiana movie theater in which two victims were slain, and the targeted killing of two employees of a Virginia television station by a disgruntled former co-worker seeking payback for perceived mistreatment) as if there is a pattern emerging.
Further adding to the state of alarm and confusion, headlines featured scary yet conflicting statistics from various sources. By reducing the standard threshold in defining a mass shooting (four or more killed by gunfire, not including the perpetrator), the incidence can reach incredible proportions. For example, the "Mass Shooting Tracker" website redefines a mass shooting as an incident in which at least four people (including the assailant) are shot, but not necessarily killed. By this criterion, there have been nearly 300 thus far this year.
Notwithstanding the sadness caused by each of these tragedies, nothing has really changed in term of risk. One can take virtually any period of months or years during the past few decades and find a series of shootings that seemed at the time to signal a new epidemic. The 80s were marked by a flurry of deadly postal shootings, which gave rise to the term "going postal." The 90s witnessed a string of mass shootings in middle and high schools carried out by alienated adolescents with access to borrowed guns, prompting the venerable Dan Rather to declare an epidemic of school violence.
More recently, the "active shooter" has become the new boogeyman armed with a gun. Of course, there were shootings in public places long before this frightening catchphrase was created. Nowadays, any time someone shows up with a gun in a school, a church, a movie theater, a shopping mall or a restaurant, twitter becomes alive with messages of alarm.
I certainly don't mean to minimize the suffering of the Oregon victims and their families, but the shooting spree is not a reflection of more deadly times. Consider the facts.
According to a careful analysis of data on mass shootings (using the widely accepted definition of at least four killed), the Congressional Research Service found that there are, on average, just over 20 incidents annually. More important, the increase in cases, if there was one at all, is negligible. Indeed, the only genuine increase is in hype and hysteria.
James Alan Fox is the Lipman Professor of Criminology, Law and Public Policy at Northeastern University and a member of the USA TODAY Board of Contributors. He is co-author of Extreme Killing: Understanding Serial and Mass Murder.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2015/10/02/umpqua-community-college-shooting-oregon-mass-shooting-fbi-statistics-column/73199052/
-
Amen to that
-
since it`s all guesswork I say most of the responsible will and none of the irresponsible.
another thing about some of my co-workers. the one that I don`t trust got on permanent psychological leave. he started screaming and almost attacked his co-workers. a true postal event almost happened. he talked about his cache of guns he was gonna use to shoot our director. I totally predicted almost two years earlier this might happened. totally shocked I got it right. this is the third person in my job that has gone insane but the first to not kill. the first two actually took lives.
-
The problem in this country Kimba, as it relates to gun murders (not to mention every other murder with everything from fists to cars) is not the accessibility of guns, but the devalutation of life, be it aborting unborn faceless children to all forms of glorified justification in killing, in the movies. Our culture has caused much of the country to grow numb at killing. Combine that with the PC crowd in not wanting to potentially offend anyone that's either mentally unstable or not of this country, and you have a perfect recipe for the likes of the latest mass shooting
Nor is this a trend of increasing attacks on schools or students. The only thing trending is the hype
-
About a year ago we had a drill.
I saw the notice of the drill , so I went and locked the back door.
There was a guy there who called me nuts and unlocked the door.
I knew it was a drill, so I didn't insist.
This is a very large gun free zone , but it is patrolled by real soldiers, an active shooter would be met pretty soon with real resistance.
I am accustomed to being gun free, and relying on these patrolling soldiers.
But we do have idiots involved .
-
(http://s11.postimg.org/xsahoi0c3/12144752_10153148532517361_391939144922059828_n.jpg)
-
Bingo
-
The federal government is not in charge of Chicago. Chicago's police are.
There are too many guns in Chicago because they are brought in from elsewhere.
Very hard to do in Honolulu, where gun crimes are few.
Where are there the strictest gun laws?
Japan!
How many gun crimes in Japan in 2013?
TWO!
How many in the US? Over 95,000.
-
Government is in charge of Chicago, not the police. Government policies, at all levels, Federal,State, and local, enact policies that make it harder for people to defend themselves, against those who won't pay a damn to any gun laws, old or new And no, its not too many guns, near as much as its too many law abiding citizens being impeding from defending themselves with some form of equalizing force, by precisely those policies
And one more time, Hawaii is an island, and the U.S. is not Japan. We have far more freedoms than Japan. And we've had far too many people sacrifice themselves, defending those freedoms for the likes of you "think you know it all socialists" to even dream of enacting some form of ban, the likes of Japan
And one last fact to throw back in the face of emotionally tainted ranting....MORE lives are saved by a gun in this country, than those taken by one in a gun crime. Not my facts, either, sorry to say
-
Not true in any way. Just stupid NRA lies. Cram it and rotate it, it is not true.
-
(https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQItC9JP5v0-BAFdGWJ4B7OVuGkwZDKBec46heosdpv7Bh_1qkw)
Facts to a direhard leftist....like kryptonite to Superman
-
the devalutation of life, be it aborting unborn faceless children
SIRS this young man is right!
(http://s3.postimg.org/3uao4bglv/11813497_1180185968708197_4175973998724385215_n.jpg)
-
The devaluing of life in this country is the biggest reason for any supposed upswing in murders. Not some proliferation of guns......especially when you consider violent crime has been declining despite more law abiding citizens owning fireams
-
The actual homicide rate has gone DOWN, mostly because of aging of the population.
Mass murders are going up, however.
The proliferation of guns is related to right wing paranoia.
-
That rationalizion, while you've used it multiple times, continues to ignore we've had more guns being sold to law abiding folk, while violent crime has been going down....which completely debunks the asanine notion that simply more guns = more crime. And mass murders aren't going up either, merely the media coverage, with murderers fuled by the ongoing devaluing of life
-
You make up your own "statistics" don't you?
-
Nope. But its funny that you opine some misguided explanation for the proliferation of firearm ownership, while its a moot point. In other words, even if we accepted your (ir)rationalization of the why, the FACT remains that you yourself have conceded, that violent crime has been going down, despite the proliferation 8)
Next question
-
SIRS.....I know you like facts....
watch this guy slowly and methodically destroy all the Left and XO'x arguments about guns with facts!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pELwCqz2JfE
-
The proliferation of guns is related to right wing paranoia.
Justified Right wing Paranoia.
When the Clintons were co-President, their anti-gun demagoguery was driving gun prices up as sales outran manufacture.
President Obama was not reassuringly respectful of the constitution either, he should remember that the Constitution is the source spring of his power and the main limiter to his resistors. If he makes another speech like the one he made a few days ago, there won't be a bullet left for sale anywhere , panicked buying will empty the shelves and drive prices skyward.
The high demand and prices have the salutary effect of encouraging the firearms industry to ramp up production, but it is irritating to an ordinary hunter in the meantime.
About thirty million more guns would make the ratio of persons to guns one for one here, if we elect Hillary we could very well surpass this and start working on paving our streets with pistols.
-
SIRS.....I know you like facts....
watch this guy slowly and methodically destroy all the Left and XO'x arguments about guns with facts!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pELwCqz2JfE
That is pretty cute.
I would hazard a guess that the violence in Democratic voting America is a lot higher than the violence in Republican voting America.
I can get indication of this by looking at the crime rates in Dem voting areas vs crime rate in Republican voting areas, but this is not real proof.
What one would have to do would be to study the violent criminals closely and scientifically
which I am ill equipped to do.
-
SIRS.....I know you like facts....
watch this guy slowly and methodically destroy all the Left and XO'x arguments about guns with facts!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pELwCqz2JfE
Wow!
-
Rural violence is less common that city violence. Not many gangs in Wyoming or central Nevada. They have crime, but it is a thief like Clive Bundy overgrazing land and refusing to pay rent, not drive by shooting in Compton.
-
Which changes nothing that the video made painfully clear about guns & gun violence, related to the rest of the world
-
I will not waste my time on your stupid youtube crap.
-
Liberal tactic 1a....when unrefutable facts are placed in front of you, bury head in sand & ignore
Check
xo tactic 2a....when unable to refute facts presented, deflect using sirs as source of deflection
Check (newflash....its not my "youtube crap"
-
(http://vignette4.wikia.nocookie.net/logopedia/images/f/f8/Wapo-logo.gif/revision/latest?cb=20140719115118)
Do civilians with guns ever stop mass shootings?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/10/03/do-civilians-with-guns-ever-stop-mass-shootings/?tid=pm_opinions_pop_b
-
It is "youtube crap" no matter who posted it.
-
Your opinion on it being crap is duly noted....as is the knee jerk requirement to stick your head in the sand and pretend those facts don't exist
-
SIRS YOU ARE RIGHT!
SHOCK: AS AMERICANS BOUGHT 170 MILLION GUNS, VIOLENT CRIME FELL 51%
by AWR HAWKINS
On August 28, the NRA presented ATF and FBI data showing Americans have purchased "170 million new guns" since 1991, and violent crime has fallen "51 percent."
The NRA tweeted, "Since '91, Americans have acquired over 170 million new firearms and violent crimes have declined by 51%."
This information squares with the findings of a Congressional Research Service (CRS) study covering the slightly shorter period of time from 1994 to 2009. For those years, CRS found that Americans purchased approximately 118 million firearms, and the 1993 "firearm-related murder and non-negligent homicide" rate of 6.6 per 100,000 fell to 3.6 per 100,000 by the year 2000. It eventually fell all the way to 3.2 per 100,000 in 2011.
That is more than a 50 percent reduction in "firearm-related murder and non-negligent homicide."
Then, in 2009, the year the CRS study ended, Obama took office and gun sales began their climb to record levels, which made covering the gap between the 118 million guns that had been purchased by 2009 and the "170 million new guns" that Americans would own by 2015 an easy gap to bridge.
Breitbart News previously reported that there were 21,093,273 background checks for firearms in 2013 alone. And each of those checks were on buyers who could have legally purchased multiple firearms.
The overarching message is simple, more guns, less crime. Americans have purchased "170 million new guns" since 1991, and violent crime has decreased as gun ownership has increased.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/08/31/shock-as-americans-bought-170-million-guns-violent-crime-fell-51/
-
(http://s29.postimg.org/xo4etvj8n/Swiss.jpg)
-
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2015/10/02/president-obama-just-identified-the-one-thing-that-could-make-real-gun-reform-possible/
What Obama seems to want to do is drive a wedge between America’s gun owners and the NRA. Is that possible? Maybe, but it would certainly be difficult. What we can say for sure is that nothing would be more terrifying for the NRA.
This author and the President are in for a lot of disappointment , because they do not understand at all what the NRA really is.
Hillary seems to be on a similar idea in a recent speech.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hillary-clinton-gun-control_5612b1e3e4b0dd85030cbe0b
Hillary Clinton suggested at a town hall in New Hampshire Monday that "responsible gun owners" should join together to create an alternative to the National Rifle Association.
Nope, she does not know what the NRA is , nor how big it could get if she were campaigning against it.
http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/10/02/hillary-clinton-on-n-r-a-s-hold-over-republicans-it-is-sickening-to-me/
A day after the deadly shootings in Oregon, Hillary Rodham Clinton used a campaign appearance here on Friday to begin an impassioned attack on the National Rifle Association and Republican members of Congress who she said did the group’s bidding.
??
“It is sickening to me,” she told ................
http://nypost.com/2015/10/05/hillary-clintons-pathetic-gun-control-ideas/
Clinton is risking a fierce backlash. She promises to make her change in the “gun show loophole” through unilateral executive action, a pledge that couldn’t be better designed to activate the NRA.
?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/clinton-makes-big-gun-control-pitch-marking-shift-in-presidential-politics/2015/07/09/4309232c-2580-11e5-b72c-2b7d516e1e0e_story.html
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) is drawing big crowds, such as Monday’s rally in Portland, Maine, but gun control is an issue on which Hillary Rodham Clinton has a more progressive record. ..........................
Clinton’s comments could stoke millions of politically active gun owners, and Wayne LaPierre, the NRA’s executive vice president, argued that the move was fraught with peril for her.
“We’ve been down this road before with the Clintons,” LaPierre said through a spokesman. “She needs to read her husband’s book.”
In his memoir, “My Life,” former president Bill Clinton suggested that his vice president, Al Gore, lost the 2000 presidential election in part because of backlash in states such as...........................
Mark Glaze, a longtime gun-control advocate who until recently oversaw former New York mayor Michael R. Bloomberg’s gun-control efforts, argued that Hillary Clinton should embrace her husband’s record.
“The Clintons pulled off the almost-impossible by giving us the background-check system and banning assault weapons,” Glaze said. “That’s something President Obama wasn’t able to do. Their political interest lies in owning, rather than obscuring, that accomplishment.”
Many Democratic strategists said campaigning on guns is smart politics for Hillary Clinton both in the ......
Hehehe. I didn't want Hillary to stand a chance anyway, but if she really stands on the success of the Assault Weapons ban and the success of the proliferation of gun free zones, she isn't just going down, she is sucking down this whole issue.
?
In her 2008 presidential campaign, Clinton stayed nearly silent on guns. An exception was after Obama’s “cling to guns” comment surfaced, when she attacked him as being “elitist” and fondly recalled her father teaching her to shoot as a little girl at her grandfather’s Pennsylvania lake house.
Ok , that is a little confusing.
I don't think that she can get on Bernie Sanders left on this one issue, certainly not temporarily, being for one year and against another.
-
Liechtenstein and Monaco have a murder rate of 0.0 for 2012
Iceland has a rate of 0.3, Switzerland has double that rate at 0.6
Only male members of the Swiss reserves are required to have a gun in the house. Ammo for army guns is NOT stored in the house.
Snopes gives a rundown of this silly thing.
Snopes rates this thing FALSE.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/hondswitz.asp
-
Liechtenstein and Monaco have a murder rate of 0.0 for 2012
How do these countries compare in size to Rode Island?
Lets compare them to Mayberry.
-
Hong Kong and Japan also have Switzerland beat.
Again, Snopes rates this as FALSE.
-
SNOPES is often a joke.
They pretend you can't compare the countries mentioned for stupid ass reasons like "land-locked" and "culture".
Ha Ha...
But yet Leftist control freaks that want to ban guns (because they know who we're going to eventually use our guns on)
never seem to care about landlocked or cultural issues when comparing the US to other countries.
Snopes pretends to be some unbiased entity.....it's real name should be JOKES.
-
Snopes is smarter than you and your entire family put together.
-
Snopes is smarter than you and your entire family put together.
Nah Nah Nah and my belly is skinnier than yours!
LOL.....
-
Notice how so often the left's "response" is rarely substantive to the topic, and more along the lines of personal insults and demeaning references. As if the effort is not to debate, but simply shut down any debate
-
Perhaps I should not have been as angered at the President as I was, I allowed myself to speak in anger.
After all what he did and what my response was are close to being the same thing.
I would like this crisis to be the genesis of an ending to gun free zone traps just as much as he wishes to compose a new version of the Assault weapons ban.
But there is such a thing as reality.
-
Perhaps I should not have been as angered at the President as I was
The man has no shame....he even admitted before the facts were in that he was going to politicize this tragedy.
-
Politicize means to find a political solution, to pass a law. That is what most Americans want him to do.
There are no solutions to ending massacres that would not involve some sort of political solution.
Politicians are elected to do politics.
Saying President Obama should be ashamed of politicizing this is like saying that a mechanic should be shamed for using a wrench or a screwdriver.
The right wingers have no solutions. Abolishing gun free zones really means making them free fire zones, where armed gun nut A can shoot armed gun nut B if he thinks that gnut B is about to go ballistic. That is NOT a solution. It is more mayhem.
-
You have absolutely no credible leg to stand on in trying to proclaim what Obama should do based on "what most Americans want". Most Americans never wanted Obamacare. Most Americans support support abortion restrictions. Most Americans support stronger border enforcement. Most Americans support less intrusive Government. Most Americans support the 2nd amendment.
Obama hadn't even allowed all the bodies to be collected, before he started to politicize the latest tragedy to push measures, THAT WOULD HAVE NOT PREVENTED THIS FROM HAPPENING
The left wingers have no solution. it's never about solutions to folks like yourself & Obama, its all about pushing an agenda. We have "free fire zones" all across the country, and you rarely see any mass shootings in them. It's almost always in a "we're defenseless, come shoot us zone"
-
It's almost always in a "we're defenseless, come shoot us zone"
Every military base in the country is such a place. Soldiers, Sailors, Marines and Cost Guardsmen are prohibited from going about the base with a loaded sidearm or rifle. When they drill with rifles, the rifles are unloaded, unless shooting is being practiced.
Our military men certainly are better trained at using guns safely that the average guy that you think should be strutting about schoolyards and campuses with a loaded weapon.
Is it possible that the generals and admirals know more about guns that you do?
-
Precisely the point....they occur in DESIGNATED Gun Free zones. Like holding up a big sign that says come here, if you want to inflict mass casualties. You don't see these occurring anywhere guns are legally prevelent
-
The fact is that the military is correct in banning guns on bases, and it makes sense to ban them on colleges as well.
Thanks to and your goddamned infernal paranoia, we will all end up having to be patted down, and billed for having to pay for guards.
-
No, the FACT is that shootings where someone is intent on causing the most casualties, are nearly always in a desginated "gun free zone". THAT's what makes sense to a want-to-be mass killer
-
There have been shooting on bases as well, But there would be far more is everyone were armed.
-
And as you've pointed out, nearly all bases are designated gun free zones. Thank you for helping to reinforce the point being made
-
It's almost always in a "we're defenseless, come shoot us zone"
Every military base in the country is such a place. Soldiers, Sailors, Marines and Cost Guardsmen are prohibited from going about the base with a loaded sidearm or rifle. When they drill with rifles, the rifles are unloaded, unless shooting is being practiced.
Our military men certainly are better trained at using guns safely that the average guy that you think should be strutting about schoolyards and campuses with a loaded weapon.
Is it possible that the generals and admirals know more about guns that you do?
Congress tells the generals what to do.
And yes there have been a few shooters who have taken advantage of the unarmed on military bases.
The fact is that the military is correct in banning guns on bases, and it makes sense to ban them on colleges as well.
Thanks to and your goddamned infernal paranoia, we will all end up having to be patted down, and billed for having to pay for guards.
Why?
And How?
Does a gun free zone reduce the potential for murder or mass murder?
It doesn't seem to work, and I can't understand expecting it to work.
-
Obviously no sane college is going to tell students that they can carry their guns to class.
The college's insurance will go through thru the roof.
If there is just one shooting by some pistol-packing student after the campus has been declared a "free fire zone" (ie they take down the 'firearms prohibited' sign) then the parents sue, win the case and the college and many others will no longer be able to afford insurance at all. This will happen if it is only some idiot wounding himself, if it makes the papers.
The alternative, of course, it to pat down everyone who enters the campus to make sure no one is packing. And that mean they have to hire guards, and force everyone to come through only or two gates. This costs money,and either the students, the taxpayers or both will have to pay more.
-
Obviously no sane college is going to tell students that they can carry their guns to class.
Why? If they're law abiding citizens, and passed all the necessary hurdles to have obtained their CCW, what's the problem??
-
The college is responsible for protecting the students against harm.
If students are harmed due to anything that can be construed as negligence, the colleges ass will be seriously sued.
Normally, colleges have insurance to pay for such lawsuits. The more claims there are, the more the insurance will cost.
Some goofy pistol-packing student is showing his gun to his girlfriend and BANG! irgoes off and hits her in the foot. Now she will be crippled for life. Her career as a dancer is destroyed. Prosthetics are very expensive. And since the pistol-packing student has no money, the college is responsible for letting this idiot bring his gun to school. The Jury decides that the student would not have brought his pistol to class had there been a "gun free sign" posted and awards $(fill in the blank).
So that is the problem. Shit happens, the deepest pockets pay.
-
(http://s1.postimg.org/scdtdfdpr/12122809_10204600397440804_4738911146364816624_n.jpg)
-
The college is responsible for protecting the students against harm.
And students who have gone the extra mile to obtain a CCW ARE NOT THE PROBLEM. They are literally an added level of protection for the students against harm
Please demonstrate for us the last time someone with a CCW, "went off" and just started shooting up a bunch of people. Don't worry, we'll wait. And yes, it has to be an example in THIS country
-
It would not be necessary for some gun nut to go apeshit and kill a bunch of people.
Just ONE accident and ONE lawsuit would cause the insurance to skyrocket.
If a school allows people to carry guns on campus, making it a "free fire zone", then the school is financially actionable for everything that goes wrong.
This is not something I invented is is what actually happens.
-
So, in other words, you have no examples to pin such outrageous acts on. News flash, anyone can illegally carry a firearm onto any campus currently. Where's all the accidental shootings? Now, where's this proliferation of shootings by CCW holders? Hmmmmmm?......... Exactly. CCW holders aren't the problem. In fact, they can be an integral solution. ..... if certain leftists could get over their paranoia that guns somehow take over possession of an otherwise normal person, even MORE lives would be saved by a firearm than there is already
-
Obviously no sane college is going to tell students that they can carry their guns to class.
The college's insurance will go through thru the roof.
If there is just one shooting by some pistol-packing student after the campus has been declared a "free fire zone" (ie they take down the 'firearms prohibited' sign).................................................. .................................
That is a good idea , but...
Why doesn't this work?
There have been several shootings on campuses after the school has erected "You must remain vulnerable" signs.
Nobody is so stupid that they erect a sign on their front lawn saying "This is the only house on the block that is not armed". You could not even sell a "gun free zone" placard for home use, everyone in the private world knows better than this.
So when a University erects such a sign , and the result is a very predictable shooting spree, why are not the parents of the dead and wounded getting themselves lawyered up?
How would a University defend itself in court for doing something so obviously inviting to mayhem?
This is a fact, fewer than one in one million Americans is deranged enough to shoot up a campus or other public venue in any given year.
But...!
Of these few , better than four of five are savvy enough to seek a gun free zone to rampage.
Be on notice schools of Middle Georgia, If I am on your campus and obeying your rules , my safety becomes your problem to exactly the extent that you remove from me my own responsibility for my safety. If I am wounded by a kook that you have invited with promises of my helplessness You will face a Jury of Georgians to explain it.
-
Well said, Plane 8)
-
http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/gun-sales-hit-a-record-high-for-the-fifth-month-in-a-row/ar-AAffYEt?li=AAa0dzB
If gun manufacturers are not pro Obama, then they must not care that he is a fountain of profit for them.
Remington and Norinco should pay President Obama a tip amounting to at least 10% of the increase he is responsible for, a waitress that serves this well would expect more.
The FBI conducted 1,795,102 firearm background checks through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) in September, suggesting gun sales were at an all-time high that month.
The number of background checks represents a new record, up more than 20% from the previous September high set in 2012, when 1,459,363 background checks were conducted.
September is also the fifth month in a row to set a record for background checks. May, June, July, and August all saw record numbers.
(Take this with a grain of salt, not every background check represents a sale.)
-
If I am wounded by a kook that you have invited with promises of my helplessness You will face a Jury of Georgians to explain it.
If there is any validity to this at all, someone will sue and win.
But I am pretty sure that no court would rule in favor of unrestricted guns on campus.
There would be far more lawsuits if campuses were "free fire zones" and some nut harmed someone with his gun.
Legal cases like this are inevitable.
-
Are there no Colleges that mind their own business?
-
Are there no Colleges that mind their own business?
There are no choices other than to ban guns or to allow them, so no.
-
Until the Constitution is amended, A) is not an choice either
-
Are there no Colleges that mind their own business?
There are no choices other than to ban guns or to allow them, so no.
I think they are on thin ice to ban them.
Especially since the scientific method known as "counting" finds this to increase the danger.
-
The assumption is that banning guns is likely to be safer than permitting them. No one disputes a bank or a store banning firearms. A large pawnshop in my neighborhood has a large "NO GUNS PERMITTED" sign on the door. I imagine that the owners are armed, though. Other pawnshops advertise that they deal in guns. But all of them have a system in which you have to ring a bell and they look at you before they let you in. Of course, I have never tried to enter with a gun, so I do not know what would happen if I had one with me.
-
Signs don't prevent anyone from entering illegally, which was likely the intent to begin with
-
This will be for some court to decide. Someone will get shot in a palce where guns are not banned,and if the jury awards a bunch of money, the insurance on all such places will increase.
Or perhaps someone will sue for banning guns and someone will sue for THAT being negligent. Then they will stop banning guns.
-
Sorry....you're again arguing a point that's moot. In this country, we have the right to defend ourselves with a firearm. Now you can continue to exercise your 1st Amendment right, to complain about my 2nd Amendment right, although ironically it's my 2nd Amendment right that ultimately defends your 1st Amendment. You're welcome
-
This will be for some court to decide. Someone will get shot in a palce where guns are not banned,and if the jury awards a bunch of money, the insurance on all such places will increase.
Or perhaps someone will sue for banning guns and someone will sue for THAT being negligent. Then they will stop banning guns.
This really does not work .
Every shooting is one or the other of these, and there isn't a stampede into court.
If someone wanted to sue on the basis that there was no ban on guns and there should have been , there will be a burden of proof for them , that such a ban has a reasonable expectation of reducing the risk a reasonable amount.
So that a reasonable authority has a reasonable responsibility to ban.
Good luck on that.
Starbucks has tried this one way and then the other , no suits either way.
-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suzanna_Hupp
Suzana Hupp had about as good a grounds to sue as anyone ever , but rather than sue she got elected and helped write the better law.
-
The assumption is that banning guns is likely to be safer than permitting them.
Reasonable people are starting to question this assumption.
and ...
There is reason to suspect that gun restriction fans are unlikely to be reasonable.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/oregon-8th-grader-suspended-from-school-for-wearing-patriotic-shirt-showing-gun/ar-AAflijQ?li=AAa0dzB
-
The assumption is that banning guns is likely to be safer than permitting them.
Reasonable people are starting to question this assumption.
I do believe the only place this is "assumed" is with those who are already paranoid at even the thought of a gun, much less anyone actually owning one
-
This has nothing whatever to do with some kid wearing a shirt, or being banned for wearing a shirt.
We have not seen the shirt, nor have we heard what the kid had to say about his shirt.
But is it pretty clear that shirts and not lethal.
-
This has nothing whatever to do with some kid wearing a shirt, or being banned for wearing a shirt.
We have not seen the shirt, nor have we heard what the kid had to say about his shirt.
But is it pretty clear that shirts and not lethal.
Be aware that the faction of our politically active population that favors increased gun control includes some who are unreasonable .
This is bad for trust issues overall.
Consider this one.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/mo-cop-kicked-out-of-olive-garden-because-of-duty-gun/ar-AAflpTR?li=AAa0dzB
What part of "gun free" did you not understand officer?
-
Olive Garden is within its rights to ask the officer to take the gun elsewhere. It is rather stupid of of the restaurant to do this, as a uniformed policeman is clearly no threat to people eating pasta and pizza. Like the kid with a gun on his shirt, this is excessive.
If the kid were shouting that "I got a gun like this, and I'm gonna come back and KILL you with it!" or if the cop were waving his gun about, that would be a different situation. Armed police eating pizza or pasta are no threat to anyone.
I recall a liquor store in Rhode Island where I had to show my ID to prove I was old enough to buy beer. They made everyone show ID, regardless of age. I did, because it was no big deal, but it was stupid, as I rarely have to even ask for a Senior discount.
-
Armed police eating pizza or pasta are no threat to anyone.
Why would you think that? You've made many a mention about how out of control police officers can get. And having a gun apparently makes people do crazy and reckless acts, that they wouldn't otherwise do. You're not being very consistent
-
This particular cop was not out of control.
Most cops are not out of control most of the time, and cops being armed does not bother me.
The cops that killed the guy in Baltimore and the other cops that killed the guy IN NYC who was peddling single cigarettes were out of line, but they did not use their guns.
What I oppose is cops shooting unarmed people when they are not threatened, like the guy in North Charleston.
It may seem inconsistent to you, because you lack reasoning skills, as we see daily. But it isn't.
-
This particular cop was not out of control.
But he had a gun. And as we've all been led to believe, simply having a gun can cause people to be overtly reckless. And this was a police officer on top of that. I mean, that's a receipe for mass carnage
-
This particular cop was not out of control.
Can you wait for an officer to be out of control before you insist he leave or disarm?
If you are going to disarm the police it should be while they are in their law abiding mode and with proper authority.
The Police have always been major contributors to the death by firearm statistics.
It would seem the easiest and fastest means to reduce the death by firearm stat would be to disarm the police.
If this does not seem logical to you , this might because you have seldom seem the reduction to absurdity.
Perfect consistency, with no exceptions made , often spirals into absurdity.
But from the point of view of my faction, absurdity starts sooner on this track than you might recognize it.
Where such records are kept , the holders of Concealed Carry Permits generally have fewer complaints of abuse against them and fewer crimes overall than the police in the same region.
So by our logic it is counterproductive to disarm the well behaved.
The opposition presents a harder to comprehend idea that every gun fewer , no matter who it is taken from , reduces the potential for mayhem. This is even carried into the far future when all of the presently responsibly owned and used guns will have been left in wills and estate sales, presumably to less responsible generations.
But the staff of that Olive Garden was behaving as if the gun itself was a problem, and that it was carried by a policeman made no difference. Perfect consistency makes no exceptions and opens the window of absurdity.
-
I am all for cops being armed in restaurants. I am against clowns with open carry permits doing the same. They have taken no vows to protect anyone, they are nutballs and jerks who feel so impotent they have to run around armed to tell the world they are Big Swinging Dicks.
-
With your ongoing condemnation of Police actions, you make no sense. Unless they're sitting down and eating, its ok for them to be armed??
-
You are incapable of rational comment.
-
(http://s3.postimg.org/q288gfchv/Guns_Guns_Guns.jpg)
-
You are incapable of rational comment.
Said the pot to the kettle. Couldn't get around that one
-
No one is going to overthrow the government of this country with handguns.
-
And who the hell ever claimed that was going or could happen?? We weren't arming folks with simple "handguns" ::)
-
No pone is going to overthrow the government with any sort of gun that a civilian can purchase without a special permit. The Army has all manner of devices that could disable any sort of civilian uprising with little or no loss of life. eat weapons, sonic weapons, nighty-night gas. I am commenting on the yellow message posted above.
-
No pone is going to overthrow the government with any sort of gun that a civilian can purchase without a special permit. The Army has all manner of devices that could disable any sort of civilian uprising with little or no loss of life. eat weapons, sonic weapons, nighty-night gas. I am commenting on the yellow message posted above.
This simply means that the Second amendment needs better enforcement.
When the second amendment was written it helped ensure continued parity between the armed population and the lesser armed US Army.
-
(http://s8.postimg.org/5nh8xmz9x/526108_267386973394488_1134808810_n_jpg_oh_28c8e.jpg)
-
(http://i.picresize.com/images/2015/10/13/d7ziq.jpg)
-
D'oh
-
The number of crazy gunman attacks on groups of people is the issue, not overall homicides.
-
Washington Free Beacon
Concealed Carrier Stops Kidnapping Attempt
"He saved all of us"
BY: Stephen Gutowski
October 14, 2015
(http://s3.freebeacon.com/up/2015/01/AP99040802570-540x378.jpg)
A Pennsylvania man used his concealed firearm to stop an attempted kidnapping near the northeastern town of Plymouth last monday.
An unidentified man who is now in police custody assaulted a local woman Katherine DeLuca outside a Quick & EZ Stop in Plymouth, Pennsylvania and tried to steal her car. However, when she refused to give up her car the man then ran into the road and tried to steal another woman's car. That car had two children in the back seat and the woman driving immediately began yelling for help as she was thrown to the ground.
"She was yelling, "My kids are in the car, my kids are in the car," DeLuca told the Times Leader.
It was at that point a local man named Rob Ragukus drew his concealed handgun and intervened. "I have a license to carry this gun, don't move," he reportedly said. Ragukus was able to hold the man at gun point until police arrived. No gunshots or serious injuries were reported from the incident.
The owner of the gas station, Mike Sharma, told the Leader that Ragukus was "the best man."
"He saved all of us," he said.
Ragukus said he was merely doing what anyone should do if they encounter a situation like he did. "I had to do what I had to do," Ragukus told the paper. "Its something everyone needs to do, step up and take back their town."
http://freebeacon.com/issues/concealed-carrier-stops-kidnapping-attempt/
-
And its CCW holders, along with law enforcement that are pivotal in minimizing the death toll from "crazy gunman attacks"
Notice how the professor never could be bothered to demonstrate what constitutes a "lazy" mass shooter, that registering supposedly would have addressed. I wonder what % of mass shooters can be officially classified as "lazy"?
-
We would not know how many were too lazy to register until they were required to register. So the question cannot be answered.
-
So without a credible answer, there's no justification to saddle millions of law abiding gun owners with such onerous extra level of bureaucracy, and tax payers with even more mandates, and all predicated on trusting the Central Government in not abusing such a database of gun owners WHO AREN'T THE PROBLEM
-
(http://s7.postimg.org/r87rbw36j/17023_719046161532630_8553760754548770125_n_jpg.jpg)
-
(http://thefederalistpapers.integratedmarket.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/fbicrime.jpg)
-
Overall gun crimes are one thing, Mass killings in public places (schools, malls, theaters and churches) is something entirely different.
You show no statistics on the latter. But that is what this debate is REALLY about.
-
And guns aren't the problem, as you have demonstrated over and over, how registration wouldn't have stopped even one of these mass shootings. The statistics on the latter HAVE been presented, in that their common denominator is that nearly all are desginated as "gun free zones", as if that stops a criminal from anything. THAT's what this is about
-
You have claimed that crazy people could not be deprived of their guns and even that they should not be deprived of them until they have killed someone.
-
You have yet to demonstrate how to legally classify "crazy" before doing something crazy. You realize we already have laws to prevent legally diagnosed mentally ill folks from legally purchasing firearms, right?
-
I realize that the laws do not work.
-
Registration would not make them work any better, since they're not legally cleared to purchase them in the 1st place
-
The number of crazy gunman attacks on groups of people is the issue, not overall homicides.
Is there a chart or stat that illustrates your point?
In absolute terms , or percapata, are these incidents keeping up with increases in gun ownership or keeping pace with population increases?
-
So you are saying that if a mass murderer might want to shoot a huge number of unarmed people, he should head for the nearest military base?
Not a very good suggestion, in my opinion
-
Worked for Hasan, as such bases have strict gun restrictions, if on base.....as in its virtually a "gun free zone". But far smarter for such a shooter to visit ..... pretty much any school, for maximal casualty infliction
Not to mention registration would do absolutely nothing to prevent it
-
Are we ever going to see any evidence or stats to try and classify "lazy" mass shooters & "crazy" mass shooters?.......as in how do we legally classify someone as "lazy" or "crazy", with the goal of preventing them from LEGALLY acquiring a firearm, before any such shooting? (since nothing prevents either from acquiring firearms illegally)
-
So you are saying that if a mass murderer might want to shoot a huge number of unarmed people, he should head for the nearest military base?
Not a very good suggestion, in my opinion
Yes they are practically all gun free zones.
But there are more frequent armed patrols than most civilian areas , so a school campus is still probably the easiest target.
Last time a shooter chose a military establishment a disobedient soldier returned fire.
If he had survived do you suppose that soldier would have been disciplined for his disobedience?
-
Are we ever going to see any evidence or stats to try and classify "lazy" mass shooters & "crazy" mass shooters?.......as in how do we legally classify someone as "lazy" or "crazy", with the goal of preventing them from LEGALLY acquiring a firearm, before any such shooting? (since nothing prevents either from acquiring firearms illegally)
That answer is apparently, no, as well. So much easier, and ironically "lazier" to just emotionally decry how horrible death due to firearms are, and that we "need to do something". Never once of course actually coming up with anything that would do anything in this country that wasn't unconstitutional.
Did we all know that gun deaths have been.....wait for it.....DECREASING over the last 30years, while legal gun sales have been increasing significantly? Yea, yea, that can't be believed.....as in stick the head in the sand and pretend the sky isn't blue. If one doesn't believe it, why then....it just can't be true....right? ;)
-
Gotta love this guy!
(http://s12.postimg.org/4298alrkt/12063888_955136984573898_9137652774430430786_n_j.jpg)
http://www.indystar.com/story/news/crime/2015/10/25/after-papa-roux-robbery-saturday-discount-promised-concealed-carry-permit-holders/74584026/
-
Now....let's see if this place ever robbed, from this point on
-
The success of any restaurant depends on the food, how it is served and the price.
Robberies are rarely a concern, because they have insurance for that.
-
It's not the theft that's the primary concern...its about the potential for loss of life
-
This is just an advertising ploy used to drag in more customers. People are rarely killed in restaurant robberies, and fast food places are a far better target, because they have more in the register.
Like Bose stereo's ads in the AARP magazine touting their great sound quality. People over 65 cannot hear the difference, anyway. This is just marketing.
-
The fact is restaurants are robbed justifies any legal action they decide to take
The fact is people HAVE BEEN SHOT & KILLED in restaurants, despite your efforts to minimize those deaths
The fact is you have no fricken clue as to their motivations
-
How many people have been robbed in THIS restaurant? How many killed?
In thirty years in Miami, I have heard of only three people killed in a restaurant. And two of them died in a drive by shooting that no open carry clown could have stopped.
-
How many times do they need to be robbed.....how many need to be killed before they should be allowed to legally do whatever they can to prevent anthing further?? Do you see how ridiculous your question is?? Weren't you the one just yesterday touting how jewelry stores provided added security to their cases, not because they've been robbed, but because they could be??
Fact is, people HAVE been shot and killed in restaurants, and whatever a restaurant wants to do legally to prevent any such death in their establishment should be applauded. You are under no obligation to provide them business. My guess is, that as long as the food is good, they'll do just fine without your patronage
-
I have no idea where this place is, so I am unlikely to even go there.
I recall years ago, my buddy, Dr Jerry Katz, a psyche professor, and I went to a restaurant named Culpeper's BBQ.
When we got the check, the amount was half the amount shown in the menu. I told Jerry, and he said "don't say anything, just leave a nice tip", so I did.
He explained that they thought we were undercover cops, because the way we were dressed. We hate a lot of great meals at Culpepers until they raised the rent, closed the restaurant down and replaced it with an Exxon station/convenience store.
It was a good deal: we got a good meal, the waitress got good tips and everyone felt safe.
It does not bother me that this place gives 25% off for pistol-packin' patrons. I just think that it is a marketing scheme.
50% off is a lot better than 25%, that is for sure.
-
I have no idea where this place is, so I am unlikely to even go there.
Irrelevent. Even if it were next door, you're not obligated to give them any service
-
How many people have been robbed in THIS restaurant? How many killed?
How many times has my house burned down?
Never!
Ok boss with that logic I will go ahead and cancel my home owners fire insurance policy! ::)
How many times had Ebola broke out at US Hospital?
Never!
So we should not have training and prevention before it happened? ::)
How many times has my boat ever capsized/sunk?
Never!
Ok I won't wear my life preserver when crossing the lake.
-
Thus my reference as to how ridiculous the question posed was in the 1st place
-
I have no idea where this place is, so I am unlikely to even go there.
I recall years ago, my buddy, Dr Jerry Katz, a psyche professor, and I went to a restaurant named Culpeper's BBQ.
When we got the check, the amount was half the amount shown in the menu. I told Jerry, and he said "don't say anything, just leave a nice tip", so I did.
He explained that they thought we were undercover cops, because the way we were dressed. We hate a lot of great meals at Culpepers until they raised the rent, closed the restaurant down and replaced it with an Exxon station/convenience store.
It was a good deal: we got a good meal, the waitress got good tips and everyone felt safe.
It does not bother me that this place gives 25% off for pistol-packin' patrons. I just think that it is a marketing scheme.
50% off is a lot better than 25%, that is for sure.
I presume that you and your friend were not armed , but you looked like undercover policeman?
Were you in more, or were you in less, risk because your appearance was alike to armed men?
-
I did not feel I was at risk at all.
We wearing sport coats, ties and chinos. The wait staff drew its own conclusions.
Perhaps we looked formidable to any possible burglars than happened by, but I don't think any did.
I do not know whether all undercover detectives in the County were armed at time. I imagine they were.
The advantage of concealed carry could be that it looks just like no carry.
The BBQ was good and the price was right.
-
The advantage to CCW is not "looking formidable", the advantage is the bad guy not knowing who, thus not able to target that person(s) immediately. You passed CCW lesson 101. Good job