Originally Posted by detbuch (Post 1089683)

Evidence? What evidence is there that some locations weren't chosen because they were gun-free zones? What evidence is there that the killer was not familiar with the lack of guns on a location, such as where he worked, even if it wasn't designated a gun free zone? If the majority of FBI defined mass killings were domestic in nature, occurring in private homes, which were obviously not designated as gun free zones, what evidence is there that the killer was not familiar with the lack of guns or where they were in those homes, especially if the available gun was in their hands?

A couple of the articles or "studies" that I've seen, which claimed to destroy the so-called "myth" of gun free zones, try to emphasize the personal motivation of the killer over the choice of location, and then insinuate that, therefore, the reason for the shooting was not the gun free zone. That is a straw man argument, since it is mostly not claimed that gun free zones are motivations to kill, but that they make it easier.

And then those "studies" bring up statistics such as 67% of mass shootings happened in private homes and only 15% in public gun free zones, and 30% in work places. Well, that 15% (another anti-gun "study" claimed that there were "no more" than 25%) occurring in gun free zones is "evidence" that, for some (15 to 25 percent), they are attractive locations.

So, even though private homes are not classified as gun free zones, as I said above, the shooter's knowledge and familiarity with who has guns and where they are, and the advantage of having the gun, perhaps the only one in the home, in his hand while his victims are unprepared for what is about to happen, gives the shooter a "gun free" advantage when he faces those unarmed victims he is about to shoot. A similar knowledge and comfort level exists in a workplace mass shooting.

So, granted that the motivation for the domestic or workplace shootings, as well even in the gun free zone ones, is not the location, the shooter is well acquainted enough with those locations to know he can either kill all of those he is really "motivated" to kill, or a good number before he is stopped. If he is stopped. And this is true, using the above statistics, in the vast majority of mass shootings.

On the other hand, if the killer actually knew that each person in the location of his choice was well armed and trained, would he be as likely to choose that location? Do we have "evidence" that no mass shooter would choose a place with less resistance?

I did a quick check on the subject and these are the first four I saw:

http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...un-free-zones/

http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...john-r-lott-jr

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinio...ntrol/1770345/

http://www.american-partisan.com/cols/brown/080800.htm

I found a few which disputed the gun free zone "myth," but they had the typical straw man arguments. I suppose, if your inclination or preference is to believe them, then for you there is no "evidence" for the gun free zone "myth." I got a kick out of one anti-myth study which said:

"To put the improbability of mass deaths occurring at school in context, consider that the total number of handgun deaths in the United States (1980-2006) was about 32,000 per year. By comparison, since 1980, 297 people have been killed in school shootings. This amounts to roughly 9 deaths per year at school. Essentially, John Lott and other gun-advocates want teachers, professors, and security officers carrying guns in order to deter extremely unlikely events, a policy that has no substantiating evidence."

So all this urgent fuss about needing more gun control laws to make our schools safer from mass shootings is about deterring "extremely unlikely events."

Originally Posted by Rmarsh (Post 1089721)

What facts do you think im wrong about?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman (Post 1089670)

You mean like San Bernadino, Ft Hood, the Washington Navy Yard, Aurora Colorado, Planned Parenthood, Chatanooga Tennessee, Charleston SC Church, and Arizona (Gabby Giffords)......those the ones you're talking about
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Originally Posted by scottw (Post 1089725)

read the facts from the 2005 law it's not nearly as simple as you state...the reason for the "exemption" as you call it was because gun manufacturers were being treated "differently" by these cities and counties...these cities would never sue a car manufacturer because drivers misused their cars....the gun manufacturers sought protection....what would you have them do?

Originally Posted by buckman (Post 1089724)

If your goal is to put gun companies out of business , make a bunch of lawyers rich and make people less responsible for their own actions , then work to repeal the law .
Or maybe you want to make it so that the wealthy are the only ones that can afford firearms , as repealing this law will certainly a sure a huge spike in firearm cost . An interesting strategy , especially if your conclusion is poor people commit most of the gun crimes .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Originally Posted by spence (Post 1089729)

No, the NRA's argument was that the gun manufacturers didn't have the financial resources to respond to the civil lawsuits, which by the way, weren't about liability around the use of the gun as much as the gun makers responsibility (or irresponsibility) for how they market and track sales of weapons.

Originally Posted by spence (Post 1089729)

No, the NRA's argument was that the gun manufacturers didn't have the financial resources to respond to the civil lawsuits, which by the way, weren't about liability around the use of the gun as much as the gun makers responsibility (or irresponsibility) for how they market and track sales of weapons.

Originally Posted by Rmarsh (Post 1089730)

Not my goal to do any sort of thing like that. Just pointing out the fact that gun companies have a special privilege. I think a jury should decide accountability just like they do with all other commercial enterprises.
If I'm a contractor and someone gets hurt even through there own stupidity...I can be sued. My son is a bartender, if he serves someone too much alcohol he and the establishment can be sued. Doctor makes a mistake ...he gets sued....not saying it's right but that's how it is for any business.

We can all site studies that support our views I suppose... but a study found that affluent societies with more gun ownership have more homicides.

Originally Posted by Rmarsh (Post 1089732)

Gun manufacturers fought hard against a regulation that would require additional sets of serial numbers in hidden locations on guns because it would cost too much.
Trouble is some of the guns used to kill people, including police officers have these serial numbers erased or removed and can't be traced, so killers can't be brought to justice.
Some of these victims families find it irresponsible of gun companies, why deny them the right to be heard in court.

Originally Posted by spence (Post 1089735)

Yea, but that would just make it easier to tell which shops are selling guns that find their way into cop killers hands...

Oh wait.

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles (Post 1089691)

So.... This is a gun nut

Again,I am not opposed to guns. Just stupidity.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Originally Posted by Rmarsh (Post 1089732)

Gun manufacturers fought hard against a regulation that would require additional sets of serial numbers in hidden locations on guns because it would cost too much.
Trouble is some of the guns used to kill people, including police officers have these serial numbers erased or removed and can't be traced, so killers can't be brought to justice.
Some of these victims families find it irresponsible of gun companies, why deny them the right to be heard in court.

Originally Posted by ecduzitgood (Post 1089737)

And how about ghost guns that are made with no serial number or even with a serial number of a legal gun. It's the people who misuse the guns that are to blame. If I use a Bic lighter to set a home on fire killing the people inside should Bic be held responsible?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Originally Posted by spence (Post 1089735)

Yea, but that would just make it easier to tell which shops are selling guns that find their way into cop killers hands...

Oh wait.

Originally Posted by spence (Post 1089728)

I didn't say all, I said the majority of...you're just cherry picking.

And in several of these you mention the killer clearly didn't have a plan to stay alive. Creating a situation where you're likely going to die is basically the same thing.

Originally Posted by scottw (Post 1089745)

I know right...because criminals frequently purchase their guns legally and register them to themselves and then leave them at the scene of the crime so that the police can trace the weapon back them....good grief:confused:

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman (Post 1089746)

Maybe they didn't believe they were going to die.....considering they were gun free zones....
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Originally Posted by spence (Post 1089748)

How did you suspend your logic to post that?

Originally Posted by tysdad115 (Post 1089739)

As am I.

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman (Post 1089753)

I fed the info into the Spence-O-Meter.....its an invention of mine that takes the info, strips out the facts, removes common sense......then neatly spits it out all wrapped up in a nice bundle of unsubstantiated beliefs and sarcastic innuendos.

Don't worry., I'll credit you when I get the patent registered
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Originally Posted by spence (Post 1089726)

I kept reading and waiting for some good evidence, even one great anecdote and came up empty.

And your reasoning that because some mass shootings do happen in gun free zones as proof of it as a factor really doesn't pass the smell test.

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles (Post 1089767)

So your comment about hoping the weak are put into situations to suffer the consequence of their cowardice.....is that supposed to make you sound intelligent? Because I got the opposite effect. Btw,do guns make people stronger?
Again,there are no dumb guns. But an abundance of dumb gun owners.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Originally Posted by nightfighter (Post 1089779)

“Americans have the right and advantage of being armed, unlike the people of other countries, whose leaders are afraid to trust them with arms.” – James Madison.

Originally Posted by ecduzitgood (Post 1089737)

And how about ghost guns that are made with no serial number or even with a serial number of a legal gun. It's the people who misuse the guns that are to blame. If I use a Bic lighter to set a home on fire killing the people inside should Bic be held responsible?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND (Post 1089793)

So, I am not a gun owner, and am admittedly a bit naive on the process. As a sportsman I have a lot of friends that hunt and support that right, and the right to carry if you feel the need.

What I want to know, and Andy and Ross, educate me. How DO so many guns get into the wrong hands? I don't just mean the mentally ill, but the gang bangers etc.. where do they come from?

Straw purchases (i.e. San Bernadino)?
Illegal imports (i.e. the 'Irish' on Sons of Anarchy)
Stolen? (from where? Homes? Factories?)
Secret manufacturing plants?
The so-called gun show loop holes?

How do we deal with this without restricting your rights?

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles (Post 1089802)

Thank you Ross for a coherent and educated response. This thread has demonstrated that not all gun owners are reckless and also perhaps that those who choose not to exercise their privilege to carry may not be cowards who deserve to be threatened. I have to admit that I had no idea that anybody with a permit could purchase an assault rifle. I am all for an amendment to this area of the law.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles (Post 1089805)

I am honestly not sure
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Originally Posted by buckman (Post 1089807)

It's a made up definition used to scare people.

Originally Posted by buckman (Post 1089807)

It's a made up definition used to scare people
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Originally Posted by spence (Post 1089814)

I never realized that. I thought it was just a very plainspoken way to describe a gun that has features designed and intended for combat over say hunting or self defense.

Originally Posted by spence (Post 1089814)

I never realized that. I thought it was just a very plainspoken way to describe a gun that has features designed and intended for combat over say hunting or self defense.