Gun Control

[wargunfan]

Phil, a few simple questions:
How many times would you allow an insane killer break into your house and shoot one of your children before you bought a gun?

Would you say the attacks are random so I don't need a gun?

Would you say I might accidentally shoot myself so I won't be armed for the next attack?

Would you try to remember how you had "wronged" the killer so that you could reason with him before arming yourself?

Would you say that your house has too many doors and windows and cannot be defended so I won't try?

Or would you do the rational thing and arm and train yourself to defend your children.

It really isn't complicated.

[philnotfil]

Originally Posted by wargunfan

How many of these attacks were against targets which had a high probability of an armed response? The shooter in Aurora chose the only theater out of seven which had a gun ban in effect. Don't you find it interesting that there are no attacks at gun shows for example or police stations. These killers may be insane but they are not stupid. Even though many of them intend to die in the attack they seem to want their deaths to be self inflicted. They appear to want to be in control of the ending of their attack. With no means of self defense the outcome of future attacks on schools is guaranteed. Why would we continue to conduct school security (or the lack thereof) in the same way and expect a different outcome??? A number of solutions is going to come out of the Sandy Hook shooting and some means to neutralize the shooter is going to be one of them. A predictable outcome of the Biden study will be some degree of gun control which will only penalize the law abiding.

Parkland, WA. 11/29/09, the shooter chose the coffee shop because there were marked police cars outside and he wanted to shoot cops.


Don't get me wrong, given rational thought processes and all other things being equal, a target with the ability to shoot back is less appealing than a target that can't shoot back. But we aren't dealing with rational thought processes, and all other things aren't equal. If it was true that only one shooting occurred in an area where guns were allowed, that would be pretty compelling evidence that we should allow guns in more areas. But many of the shootings took place in areas where guns were allowed, or at least not actively forbidden. When you start looking for what the shootings have in common, it isn't that they took place in gun free zones, it is that they involved the place where the shooter felt wronged and/or the people that the shooter felt wronged by (and they mostly involved people with mental health issues, who had given indications that they were going to do this). So let's stop wasting this effort trying to make the facts fit a theory that they don't fit (that this could all be prevented by having fewer gun free zones), and start looking at the reality of what has happened and go from there.

[philnotfil]

Originally Posted by wargunfan

Phil, a few simple questions:
How many times would you allow an insane killer break into your house and shoot one of your children before you bought a gun?

Would you say the attacks are random so I don't need a gun?

Would you say I might accidentally shoot myself so I won't be armed for the next attack?

Would you try to remember how you had "wronged" the killer so that you could reason with him before arming yourself?

Would you say that your house has too many doors and windows and cannot be defended so I won't try?

Or would you do the rational thing and arm and train yourself to defend your children.

It really isn't complicated.

You have me confused with someone else. I'm not anti-gun, I am pro dealing with reality as it is. Those arguing that the existence of gun free zones are the cause of our problem, or that reducing gun free zones would decrease mass shootings, aren't dealing with reality as it is, they are trying to twist facts to conform to their vision of how they want things to be.

[wargunfan]

Originally Posted by philnotfil

You have me confused with someone else. I'm not anti-fun, I am pro dealing with reality as it is. Those arguing that the existence of gun free zones are the cause of our problem, or that reducing gun free zones would decrease mass shootings, aren't dealing with reality as it is, they are trying to twist facts to conform to their vision of how they want things to be.

By inference you are saying that your home is not a gun free zone and that you would defend those who are precious to you. And yet you would perpetuate the nonsense of leaving school children and teachers defenseless in a gun free zone. How wonderfully consistent of you.

[philnotfil]

Originally Posted by wargunfan

By inference you are saying that your home is not a gun free zone and that you would defend those who are precious to you. And yet you would perpetuate the nonsense of leaving school children and teachers defenseless in a gun free zone. How wonderfully consistent of you.

There are two incorrect inferences in your post.

[Dreamliner]

What evidence is there that an attempted mass-shooting in the presence of gun owners might not be cut short ?

Are mass-shootings happening in such settings and armed people are simply freezing up ?

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

Originally Posted by VAg8r1

You want an example of another mass shooting not in a gun free zone. How about this one?

linky

You would be incorrect sir. Which you would have know had you read the whole article;

In response to the massacre,[5] the Texas Legislature in 1995 passed a shall-issue gun law, which requires that all qualifying applicants be issued a Concealed Handgun License (the state's required permit to carry concealed weapons), removing the personal discretion of the issuing authority to deny such licenses. To qualify for a license, one must be free-and-clear of crimes, attend a minimum 10-hour class taught by a state-certified instructor, pass a 50-question test, show proficiency in a 50-round shooting test, and pass two background tests, one shallow and one deep. The license costs $240 to $290, depending on the added instructor's fee.

The law had been campaigned for by Suzanna Hupp, who was present at the time of the massacre where both of her parents were shot and killed. She later expressed regret about deciding to leave her gun in her car lest she risk possibly running afoul of the state's concealed weapons laws; during the shootings, she reached for her weapon but then remembered that it was "a hundred feet away in my car.

Next?

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

Originally Posted by philnotfil

What evidence do we have that the Aurora shooter was looking for a gun free zone?

From the National Review article.

...the Aurora shooter, who killed twelve people earlier this year, had a choice of seven movie theaters that were showing the Batman movie he was obsessed with. All were within a 20-minute drive of his home. The Cinemark Theater the killer ultimately chose wasn’t the closest, but it was the only one that posted signs saying it banned concealed handguns carried by law-abiding individuals. All of the other theaters allowed the approximately 4 percent of Colorado adults who have a concealed-handgun permit to enter with their weapons.

This is not absolute proof, but it IS interesting

[philnotfil]

Originally Posted by MichaelJoeWilliamson

You would be incorrect sir. Which you would have know had you read the whole article;



Next?

The article says that she chose not to take her gun with her, not that the diner was a gun free zone.

[philnotfil]

Originally Posted by MichaelJoeWilliamson

From the National Review article.

[/b]

This is not absolute proof, but it IS interesting

Yes, it is interesting, but as you say, it isn't proof of anything. Since he is still alive I hope that we will get some more information about why he chose that particular movie theater. (and why he chose that particular movie)

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

Originally Posted by philnotfil

The article says that she chose not to take her gun with her, not that the diner was a gun free zone.

You are incorrect. Apparently, the then current Texas laws made ALL PUBLIC PLACES gun free zones. She did not take her gun, because she worried that might run afoul of the law. Texas later enacted "shall issue" CCP just because of this problem.

[philnotfil]

Originally Posted by MichaelJoeWilliamson

You are incorrect. Apparently, the then current Texas laws made ALL PUBLIC PLACES gun free zones. She did not take her gun, because she worried that might run afoul of the law. Texas later enacted "shall issue" CCP just because of this problem.

That may be true, but that isn't what the article says.

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

Originally Posted by philnotfil

Yes, it is interesting, but as you say, it isn't proof of anything. Since he is still alive I hope that we will get some more information about why he chose that particular movie theater. (and why he chose that particular movie)

We kinda know why he chose the movie. He was infatuated with "the joker" and mass murder. The fact that he chose THE ONLY THEATER that was a gun free zone is the interesting part. Again not proof, but it DOES allow one to assume he chose the theater specifically for that reason. After all, it was one of seven within 20 miles of his house showing the picture and it was not even the closest.

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

Originally Posted by philnotfil

Those arguing that the existence of gun free zones are the cause of our problem,

Gun free zones most certainly DO NOT cause the problem. There would certainly be mass killings even if every place that currently prohibits concealed weapon changed to allow them.

But I do think it exacerbates the problem.

My opinion about gun ownership is as follows;

1. The right to own guns is protected by the Constitution
2. Guns are a valid means for protection, but ownership does require the responsibility of safely using and maintaining the weapon. A person that owns guns is legally and financially liable for its safe use.
3. There are very valid reasons fro restricting gun ownership from certain individuals. Most of those reasons are already part of current state and federal law.
4. There are some places legally designated as gun free zones that are supportable. But a lot fewer than are currently part of many state laws. And any property owner has to right to designate his or her property a gun free zones, but if they do, they also bear the legal and financial responsibility for that decision.

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

Originally Posted by philnotfil

That may be true, but that isn't what the article says.

Again, you are incorrect.

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

Originally Posted by MichaelJoeWilliamson

Gun free zones most certainly DO NOT cause the problem. There would certainly be mass killings even if every place that currently prohibits concealed weapon changed to allow them.

But I do think it exacerbates the problem.

My opinion about gun ownership is as follows;

1. The right to own guns is protected by the Constitution
2. Guns are a valid means for protection, but ownership does require the responsibility of safely using and maintaining the weapon. A person that owns guns is legally and financially liable for its safe use.
3. There are very valid reasons fro restricting gun ownership from certain individuals. Most of those reasons are already part of current state and federal law.
4. There are some places legally designated as gun free zones that are supportable. But a lot fewer than are currently part of many state laws. And any property owner has to right to designate his or her property a gun free zones, but if they do, they also bear the legal and financial responsibility for that decision.

BTW, as a follow up to this, I am also of the opinion that gun ownership does not make a society more violent. Too many studies have shown that violence in a given areas does not increase with gun ownership in the same area. I do however think that guns tend to make violent encounters more lethal. Gets to #2 of the above points.

[Lawdog88]

Originally Posted by MichaelJoeWilliamson

BTW, as a follow up to this, I am also of the opinion that gun ownership does not make a society more violent. Too many studies have shown that violence in a given areas does not increase with gun ownership in the same area. I do however think that guns tend to make violent encounters more lethal. Gets to #2 of the above points.

Excellent points.

[philnotfil]

Originally Posted by MichaelJoeWilliamson

Again, you are incorrect.

Can you show where the article says that the diner was a gun free zone? The part of the link you quoted says that Hupp was able to get the state of Texas to pass a law saying that local authorities couldn't deny someone a concealed weapon permit if they met the requirements. Reading through the full entry I couldn't find anything about the diner being a gun free zone.

I'm not saying that you are wrong in your claim that the diner was a gun free zone, just that the evidence you have provided doesn't support that claim. I haven't seen anything yet that suggests that the diner was a gun free zone. If that evidence exists, I would like to see it.

[philnotfil]

Originally Posted by MichaelJoeWilliamson

Gun free zones most certainly DO NOT cause the problem. There would certainly be mass killings even if every place that currently prohibits concealed weapon changed to allow them.

But I do think it exacerbates the problem.

My opinion about gun ownership is as follows;

1. The right to own guns is protected by the Constitution
2. Guns are a valid means for protection, but ownership does require the responsibility of safely using and maintaining the weapon. A person that owns guns is legally and financially liable for its safe use.
3. There are very valid reasons fro restricting gun ownership from certain individuals. Most of those reasons are already part of current state and federal law.
4. There are some places legally designated as gun free zones that are supportable. But a lot fewer than are currently part of many state laws. And any property owner has to right to designate his or her property a gun free zones, but if they do, they also bear the legal and financial responsibility for that decision.

Agree with 1-3, and mostly agree with 4. I don't think that a property owner should bear the legal and financial responsibility for someone else's decision to kill someone on their property. I also don't think that property owner's should bear the legal and financial responsibility for someone doing something dumb on their property. If you are under a tree in my yard and someone climbing the tree falls and breaks your arm, that is your problem with them, I have nothing to do with it. If you get shot in my store when I had a sign posted saying that guns weren't allowed, your problem is with the person who shot you, not with me.

[philnotfil]

Originally Posted by MichaelJoeWilliamson

BTW, as a follow up to this, I am also of the opinion that gun ownership does not make a society more violent. Too many studies have shown that violence in a given areas does not increase with gun ownership in the same area. I do however think that guns tend to make violent encounters more lethal. Gets to #2 of the above points.

Agreed.