Good Guy with a gun?

  • You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.
Jul 5, 2020
2,093
400
213
59
Broken Arrow
#21
The Mayor is now convinced there is some kind of Coverup going on in the Texas DPS targeting him and his officers...however, this report is the 4th different Report to show his cities officers failed horribly . This report was done by Texas State University


UVALDE, Texas – Uvalde Mayor Don McLaughlinsaid he suspects Texas Department of Public Safety Director Steven McCrawis “covering up” details of the Robb Elementary School massacre.
McLaughlin spoke with CNN Tuesday and said he suspects McCraw is covering up for his agency.
“It’s always hard when you tell a lie that you have to keep telling a lie. I’m not saying he’s lying. Maybe he was misled with information,” McLaughlin said.
McCraw has placed blame for the bungled handling of the active shooter scenario on May 24 squarely on Uvalde schools police Chief Pete Arredondo. He has maintained that Arredondo is responsible in the weeks since, calling the response to the shooting an “abject failure” during a special Texas Senate committee hearingon June 21.
“You know, every agency in that hallway is gonna have to share the blame,” McLaughlin said. “And like I said again, I’ll go back to when have you ever seen a federal or state law enforcement officer take their cues from local law enforcement?”

https://www.ksat.com/news/local/202...ps-is-covering-up-details-of-uvalde-shooting/
The lights are on and the cockroaches are scrambling
 
Last edited:

Midnight Toker

Federal Marshal
May 28, 2010
10,359
1,908
1,743
#22
When is this good guy going to stop one of the mass shooters from Murdering innocent people.
Or is it just clever messaging by the gun manufacturers.

In truth!
I believe we already know the answer.
It’s only going to get worse.
I always say look at the data

2015 Harvard University study Hemenway worked on that analyzed data from 2007 to 2011 found that of more than 14,000 crimes in which a victim was present, just under 1% involved a gun used in self defense

I also read somewhere that something like less than 5% of mass shootings have been stopped by good guy with a gun. That Buffalo supermarket shooting has an armed security guard who grazed the shooter with one shot but then he ended up getting killed.
 

Midnight Toker

Federal Marshal
May 28, 2010
10,359
1,908
1,743
#23
Jul 5, 2020
2,093
400
213
59
Broken Arrow
#24
I always say look at the data

2015 Harvard University study Hemenway worked on that analyzed data from 2007 to 2011 found that of more than 14,000 crimes in which a victim was present, just under 1% involved a gun used in self defense

I also read somewhere that something like less than 5% of mass shootings have been stopped by good guy with a gun. That Buffalo supermarket shooting has an armed security guard who grazed the shooter with one shot but then he ended up getting killed.
I'll also try to find some data on it, but in that context I'd like to know 1) how many "mass shootings" (however that's defined) took place during that period of time compared to 2018-2022, and 2) in what states those shootings took place. Regardless, however, and maybe I'm misreading your comments (sorry if I am), but even if the data was consistent what does that tell you? That it's of no good and provides no safety for an otherwise law abiding citizen to own a firearm? That it somehow negates the 2A?
 

Midnight Toker

Federal Marshal
May 28, 2010
10,359
1,908
1,743
#25
I always say look at the data

2015 Harvard University study Hemenway worked on that analyzed data from 2007 to 2011 found that of more than 14,000 crimes in which a victim was present, just under 1% involved a gun used in self defense

I also read somewhere that something like less than 5% of mass shootings have been stopped by good guy with a gun. That Buffalo supermarket shooting has an armed security guard who grazed the shooter with one shot but then he ended up getting killed.
I'll also try to find some data on it, but in that context I'd like to know 1) how many "mass shootings" (however that's defined) took place during that period of time compared to 2018-2022, and 2) in what states those shootings took place. Regardless, however, and maybe I'm misreading your comments (sorry if I am), but even if the data was consistent what does that tell you? That it's of no good and provides no safety for an otherwise law abiding citizen to own a firearm? That it somehow negates the 2A?
What the data shows is that there is very Little history of incidents where a good guy with a gun has prevented mass shootings or stopped mass shootings.

And of course we can just review our own memories and recall how useless the police were in Uvalde, and how useless the school resource officer was in Florida, and there are too many examples of that.

I’m just looking at the data, I’m not making any declarations or sharing any opinions. I’m trying to understand the concept of a good guy with a gun and how it applies to real mass shootings. I know it sounds great in concept, I’m with it. But what actually happened in real life? And unfortunately, with regard to mass shootings, the good guy with a gun has been statistically irrelevant.

I look at everything objective, I’m just driven by the data. And I say this as a proud gun owner.
 

OranGE-KK

Deputy
A/V Subscriber
Dec 11, 2011
1,620
1,256
1,743
38
#26
So does your data factor in the likelihood that these perpetrators intentionally selected locations to carry out these mass shootings where the chance of encountering a “good guy with a gun” were basically guaranteed to be 0?
 

Midnight Toker

Federal Marshal
May 28, 2010
10,359
1,908
1,743
#27
So does your data factor in the likelihood that these perpetrators intentionally selected locations to carry out these mass shootings where the chance of encountering a “good guy with a gun” were basically guaranteed to be 0?
Data doesnt factor in likelihoods, it factors in only what actually happened. In Many of these incidences there were armed people around who were either ineffective or too late.
 

LS1 Z28

Territorial Marshal
Oct 30, 2007
5,354
4,200
1,743
#29
So does your data factor in the likelihood that these perpetrators intentionally selected locations to carry out these mass shootings where the chance of encountering a “good guy with a gun” were basically guaranteed to be 0?
Statistics show that roughly 94% of mass shootings in our country since 1950 have occurred in gun free zones. It's hard for a good guy with a gun to stop a mass shooter in areas where they aren't allowed to carry.

That figure drops significantly if you include gang/drug/domestic shootings, but no one seems to care about that type of mass shooting.
 

llcoolw

Territorial Marshal
Feb 7, 2005
8,987
3,896
1,743
Sammamish, Washington.Dallas, Texas.Maui, Hawaii
#30
When is this good guy going to stop one of the mass shooters from Murdering innocent people.
Or is it just clever messaging by the gun manufacturers.

In truth!
I believe we already know the answer.
It’s only going to get worse.
Any answers or solutions or even thoughtful scenarios?

Is it only the guns that bother you killing people at parades?
 

Binman4OSU

Legendary Cowboy
Aug 31, 2007
37,973
10,912
1,743
Stupid about AGW!!
#31
Statistics show that roughly 94% of mass shootings in our country since 1950 have occurred in gun free zones. It's hard for a good guy with a gun to stop a mass shooter in areas where they aren't allowed to carry.

That figure drops significantly if you include gang/drug/domestic shootings, but no one seems to care about that type of mass shooting.
If only coach would have put me in. We be State Champs. No DOUBT!

1657221580100.png
 

Binman4OSU

Legendary Cowboy
Aug 31, 2007
37,973
10,912
1,743
Stupid about AGW!!
#33
I'm not arguing that mass shootings would disappear without gun free zones. All I'm saying is that it's silly to ask why good guys with guns aren't stopping mass shootings in areas where the aren't allowed to carry.
View attachment 96283
Yeah about those numbers..they come from Trump FYI and are 98+% not 94%


Long Read but 100% worth it as it is interesting how we can have some reports at 10% and some at 86%!!! Its all in how you spin the data....historically.


The Facts
Trump is citing an updated 2014 report from the Crime Prevention Research Center.
Founded by economist John R. Lott, CPRC is cited regularly by gun-rights advocates. Lott found that 98.4 percent of mass shootings occurred in gun-free zones between 1950 and July 10, 2016. Some quick Googling turned up another study — from the gun-control advocacy group Everytown for Gun Safety — that found that 10 percent of mass shootings between 2009 and 2016 took place in gun-free zones.

Using data that Lott provided, we tightened the time frame so we could compare his research with the Everytown study. Under Lott’s methodology, we found that about 86 percent of mass public shootings took place in gun-free zones from 2009 to 2016.

Eight-six percent and 10 percent are about as far apart as statistics get. So who’s right? The answer hinges on dueling definitions. For the sake of an apples-to-apples comparison, let’s break down how Lott and Everytown calculated the percent of mass shootings in gun-free zones between 2009 and 2016.
What is a ‘mass shooting’?
Everytown identified 156 mass shootings between 2009 to 2016. Lott found 28 mass public shootings over the same period. Both Lott and Everytown define a mass shooting as any incident in which “four or more” people are killed in one location, not including the shooter.

Here’s where the two start to differ. Lott tightens his definition, excluding shootings that resulted from gang or drug violence or during the commission of a crime. Everytown includes these incidents. Lott justifies this by citing a 2014 FBI study on active-shooter incidents. (Caveat: An active shooter may be but is not necessarily the same as a mass shooter. The FBI did not require fatalities when it evaluated “active shooter” situations, and the report underlines this difference, noting, “This is not a study of mass killings or mass shootings, but rather a study of a specific type of shooting situation law enforcement and the public may face.”)

Another major difference between Lott and Everytown is in where they argue a mass shooting can occur. Lott is very clear that he looks only at “mass public shootings.” Referring to the same FBI study, he writes, “The FBI also defines ‘public’ places as ‘includ[ing] commercial areas (divided into malls, businesses open to pedestrian traffic, and businesses closed to pedestrian traffic), educational environments (divided into schools [pre-kindergarten through 12th grade] and IHEs), open spaces, government properties (divided into military and other government properties), houses of worship, and health care facilities.’ ”
Lott did not mention that the list, defined as locations “where the public was most at risk during an [active-shooter] incident,” also included “residences,” which accounted for 4.4 percent of such incidents. He explained these exclusions in a Fox News op-ed, arguing that “mass public shootings are uniquely motivated,” unlike a shooting that is the result of a gang fight or a drug sale. He added that “shootings in private residences are distinctly different, since they often involve killers who know the homeowners and whether they own guns.”

Louis Klarevas, a University of Massachusetts professor and the author of “Rampage Nation: Securing America from Mass Shootings,” dismissed Lott’s reasoning, noting that plenty of mass shootings occurred in residential settings and querying why those victims should be overlooked. Everytown’s director of research and implementation, Sarah Tofte, went further. “The claim that so-called ‘gun-free zones’ attract mass shooters doesn’t stand up to scrutiny,” she told us via email. “It’s just not what the numbers show. We look closely at the data on mass shootings, and it shows that relatively few take place in areas where civilians are prohibited from carrying firearms. In fact, the vast majority of mass shootings take place in private homes and are often tied to domestic violence.” The organization’s data found that incidents that took place in private homes accounted for 63 percent of the total number of mass shootings they examined between 2009 and 2016.

What is a ‘gun-free zone’?
It’s not only the discrepancies between how Lott and Everytown define “mass shooting” that contribute to their differing estimates — there is also disagreement about how to define “gun-free zone.”

Everytown reported 16 mass shootings in gun-free zones between 2009 and 2016; Lott reported 24. This is clearly attributed to the difference in definitions. Everytown defines gun-free zones as “areas where civilians are prohibited from carrying firearms and there is not a regular armed law enforcement presence.”
Here, Lott has a much wider definition. In an email, he wrote that gun-free zones are “places where only police or military policy are classified, places where it is illegal to carry a permitted concealed handgun, places that are posted as not allowing a permitted concealed handgun, places where ‘general citizens’ are not allowed to obtain permits or where permits are either not issued to any general citizens or to only a very tiny selective segment.”

In layman’s terms, Lott’s definition is so wide that the White House, where there are snipers on the roof, would be considered a gun-free zone. His data set classifies the shootings that took place at Fort Hood and the Washington Navy Yard as having occurred in gun-free zones. Klarevas disputed Lott’s characterization — wondering how “a place can be a gun free zone if guns are present?”

Lott previously defended his assessment. “Regular military members are banned from carrying guns at military bases in the United States, making the bases surprisingly soft targets,” he wrote. “The only people who can carry guns on domestic bases are military police, so the situation is much the same as at the Pulse nightclub.”
A White House official stood by Lott’s study, saying the president had cited a widely used statistic.

Lott’s original data set — which Trump referenced — spans from 1950 to 2016, but the admittedly vague concept of “gun-free zones” entered the lexicon only in the early 1990s, when two federal laws that restrict guns in and around schools were passed. Before 1990, Klarevas said, only certain government facilities (post offices, for example) explicitly prohibited firearms.

So where did the prior 40 years of data come from? Lott used a wide definition of “gun-free zone” to compile this data. He said he included anyplace where a “general citizen” wasn’t able to carry a concealed weapon. This included any state that didn’t have either a right-to-carry or concealed-carry law.
Pinocchio Test
No matter how we spin these numbers, one thing is clear – they can be spun. And they have been. Without a commonly accepted and uniform definition of “mass shooting” or agreement on what constitutes a “gun-free zone,” it’s difficult to settle this debate. Advocates on both sides can point to holes and debatable logic in the reasoning of the study from the other sides.
 

LS1 Z28

Territorial Marshal
Oct 30, 2007
5,354
4,200
1,743
#34
Yeah about those numbers..they come from Trump FYI and are 98+% not 94%


Long Read but 100% worth it as it is interesting how we can have some reports at 10% and some at 86%!!! Its all in how you spin the data....historically.


The Facts
Trump is citing an updated 2014 report from the Crime Prevention Research Center.
Founded by economist John R. Lott, CPRC is cited regularly by gun-rights advocates. Lott found that 98.4 percent of mass shootings occurred in gun-free zones between 1950 and July 10, 2016. Some quick Googling turned up another study — from the gun-control advocacy group Everytown for Gun Safety — that found that 10 percent of mass shootings between 2009 and 2016 took place in gun-free zones.

Using data that Lott provided, we tightened the time frame so we could compare his research with the Everytown study. Under Lott’s methodology, we found that about 86 percent of mass public shootings took place in gun-free zones from 2009 to 2016.

Eight-six percent and 10 percent are about as far apart as statistics get. So who’s right? The answer hinges on dueling definitions. For the sake of an apples-to-apples comparison, let’s break down how Lott and Everytown calculated the percent of mass shootings in gun-free zones between 2009 and 2016.
What is a ‘mass shooting’?
Everytown identified 156 mass shootings between 2009 to 2016. Lott found 28 mass public shootings over the same period. Both Lott and Everytown define a mass shooting as any incident in which “four or more” people are killed in one location, not including the shooter.

Here’s where the two start to differ. Lott tightens his definition, excluding shootings that resulted from gang or drug violence or during the commission of a crime. Everytown includes these incidents. Lott justifies this by citing a 2014 FBI studyon active-shooter incidents. (Caveat: An active shooter may be but is not necessarily the same as a mass shooter. The FBI did not require fatalities when it evaluated “active shooter” situations, and the report underlines this difference, noting, “This is not a study of mass killings or mass shootings, but rather a study of a specific type of shooting situation law enforcement and the public may face.”)

Another major difference between Lott and Everytown is in where they argue a mass shooting can occur. Lott is very clear that he looks only at “mass public shootings.” Referring to the same FBI study, he writes, “The FBI also defines ‘public’ places as ‘includ[ing] commercial areas (divided into malls, businesses open to pedestrian traffic, and businesses closed to pedestrian traffic), educational environments (divided into schools [pre-kindergarten through 12th grade] and IHEs), open spaces, government properties (divided into military and other government properties), houses of worship, and health care facilities.’ ”
Lott did not mention that the list, defined as locations “where the public was most at risk during an [active-shooter] incident,” also included “residences,” which accounted for 4.4 percent of such incidents. He explained these exclusions in a Fox News op-ed, arguing that “mass public shootings are uniquely motivated,” unlike a shooting that is the result of a gang fight or a drug sale. He added that “shootings in private residences are distinctly different, since they often involve killers who know the homeowners and whether they own guns.”

Louis Klarevas, a University of Massachusetts professor and the author of “Rampage Nation: Securing America from Mass Shootings,” dismissed Lott’s reasoning, noting that plenty of mass shootings occurred in residential settings and querying why those victims should be overlooked. Everytown’s director of research and implementation, Sarah Tofte, went further. “The claim that so-called ‘gun-free zones’ attract mass shooters doesn’t stand up to scrutiny,” she told us via email. “It’s just not what the numbers show. We look closely at the data on mass shootings, and it shows that relatively few take place in areas where civilians are prohibited from carrying firearms. In fact, the vast majority of mass shootings take place in private homes and are often tied to domestic violence.” The organization’s data found that incidents that took place in private homes accounted for 63 percent of the total number of mass shootings they examined between 2009 and 2016.

What is a ‘gun-free zone’?
It’s not only the discrepancies between how Lott and Everytown define “mass shooting” that contribute to their differing estimates — there is also disagreement about how to define “gun-free zone.”

Everytown reported 16 mass shootings in gun-free zones between 2009 and 2016; Lott reported 24. This is clearly attributed to the difference in definitions. Everytown defines gun-free zones as “areas where civilians are prohibited from carrying firearms and there is not a regular armed law enforcement presence.”
Here, Lott has a much wider definition. In an email, he wrote that gun-free zones are “places where only police or military policy are classified, places where it is illegal to carry a permitted concealed handgun, places that are posted as not allowing a permitted concealed handgun, places where ‘general citizens’ are not allowed to obtain permits or where permits are either not issued to any general citizens or to only a very tiny selective segment.”

In layman’s terms, Lott’s definition is so wide that the White House, where there are snipers on the roof, would be considered a gun-free zone. His data set classifies the shootings that took place at Fort Hood and the Washington Navy Yard as having occurred in gun-free zones. Klarevas disputed Lott’s characterization — wondering how “a place can be a gun free zone if guns are present?”

Lott previously defended his assessment. “Regular military members are banned from carrying guns at military bases in the United States, making the bases surprisingly soft targets,” he wrote. “The only people who can carry guns on domestic bases are military police, so the situation is much the same as at the Pulse nightclub.”
A White House official stood by Lott’s study, saying the president had cited a widely used statistic.

Lott’s original data set — which Trump referenced — spans from 1950 to 2016, but the admittedly vague concept of “gun-free zones” entered the lexicon only in the early 1990s, when two federal laws that restrict guns in and around schools were passed. Before 1990, Klarevas said, only certain government facilities (post offices, for example) explicitly prohibited firearms.

So where did the prior 40 years of data come from? Lott used a wide definition of “gun-free zone” to compile this data. He said he included anyplace where a “general citizen” wasn’t able to carry a concealed weapon. This included any state that didn’t have either a right-to-carry or concealed-carry law.
Pinocchio Test
No matter how we spin these numbers, one thing is clear – they can be spun. And they have been. Without a commonly accepted and uniform definition of “mass shooting” or agreement on what constitutes a “gun-free zone,” it’s difficult to settle this debate. Advocates on both sides can point to holes and debatable logic in the reasoning of the study from the other sides.
I think I've read this before in the past. The 98% figure from Lott's study was revised down to 94% after it was discovered that some of the older data counted the same mass shootings more than once. The stats aren't incorrect, it just comes down to how you define a mass shooting.

Here's what I've seen:
1. Excluding gang/drug/domestic incidents, 94% of mass shootings occurred in gun free zones.
2. Including those incidents, only 12% occurred in gun free zones.

It makes sense when you think about it, because that type shooting doesn't typically occur in a gun free zone. The media doesn't seem to care much about mass shootings that occur in inner cities though.
 

Binman4OSU

Legendary Cowboy
Aug 31, 2007
37,973
10,912
1,743
Stupid about AGW!!
#35
I think I've read this before in the past. The 98% figure from Lott's study was revised down to 94% after it was discovered that some of the older data counted the same mass shootings more than once. The stats aren't incorrect, it just comes down to how you define a mass shooting.

Here's what I've seen:
1. Excluding gang/drug/domestic incidents, 94% of mass shootings occurred in gun free zones.
2. Including those incidents, only 12% occurred in gun free zones.

It makes sense when you think about it, because that type shooting doesn't typically occur in a gun free zone. The media doesn't seem to care much about mass shootings that occur in inner cities though.
Gun free zones didn't exist until 1990...but lott took the gun free zone laws of 1990 and extended them back to 1940 and includes 50 years of shooting data when the term gun free didn't exist .....it's an interesting take , but doesn't represent factually what it says it does

It's like saying hey in 1990 a post office became a gun free zone.....well there were 10 mass shootings at post offices from 1945-1955....so those count as mass shootings in gun free zones per Lott

Ohh banks are gun free zones as of 1990...well every bank robbery from 1940-1990 that includes multiple shooting victims then for Lott would count as a shooting in a gun free zone...
 

LS1 Z28

Territorial Marshal
Oct 30, 2007
5,354
4,200
1,743
#36
Gun free zones didn't exist until 1990...but lott took the gun free zone laws of 1990 and extended them back to 1940 and includes 50 years of shooting data when the term gun free didn't exist .....it's an interesting take , but doesn't represent factually what it says it does

It's like saying hey in 1990 a post office became a gun free zone.....well there were 10 mass shootings at post offices from 1945-1955....so those count as mass shootings in gun free zones per Lott

Ohh banks are gun free zones as of 1990...well every bank robbery from 1940-1990 then for Lott would count as a shooting in a gun free zone...
The term "gun free zone" may not have existed until the Gun Free School Zone Act of 1990 was passed, but there have been areas where regular citizens have been prohibited from carrying firearms for a long time.

According to the article you posted, post offices prohibited firearms prior to 1990.

According to Google, Montana is the only state that prohibits individuals from carrying a gun into a bank on private property. I believe they're generally allowed to set their own rules like other private businesses.
 

llcoolw

Territorial Marshal
Feb 7, 2005
8,987
3,896
1,743
Sammamish, Washington.Dallas, Texas.Maui, Hawaii
#38
Discussion
The firearm homicide rate in 2020 was the highest recorded since 1994 (1). However, the increase in firearm homicides was not equally distributed. Young persons, males, and Black persons consistently have the highest firearm homicide rates, and these groups experienced the largest increases in 2020. These increases represent the widening of long-standing disparities in firearm homicide rates. For example, the firearm homicide rate among Black males aged 10–24 years was 20.6 times as high as the rate among White males of the same age in 2019, and this ratio increased to 21.6 in 2020. Although the overall firearm suicide rate remained relatively unchanged between 2019 and 2020, young persons and some racial/ethnic minority groups experienced increases in firearm suicide. Notably, the largest increase occurred among AI/AN persons, resulting in this group having the highest firearm suicide rate as of 2020. Racial and ethnic minority groups are more likely to live in communities with high surrounding poverty, and firearm homicide and suicide were also associated with poverty. Counties with the smallest proportion of the population living below the poverty line experienced a 22% increase in firearm homicides, whereas all other counties experienced an increase of ≥40%. In 2020, counties with the highest poverty level had firearm homicide and firearm suicide rates that were 4.5 and 1.3 times as high, respectively, as counties with the lowest poverty level.


https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7119e1.htm?s_cid=mm7119e1_w

Found it strange as the cdc pontificates as to why this uptick happened, yet, they never bring up the defund the police movement happening at the same time as the surge.

That got me wondering.

How many children were killed in school shootings? Don’t know why I never asked this before but the answer is 169 since 1999.

Freaking tragic. Almost 8 kids on an average year are shot in school. Not beat or stabbed or OD but just shot and killed.

https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/...ol-related-mass-shootings-since-1999/3063890/


That led me to this question. How many kids are killed by overdose?

492! Almost 22 children a year on average killed by drugs. Then I realized, that was just 2019! Not since 99’.

Then 2020 came along. 954!!!!

Which leads me to the last question. Why does our political leadership keep screaming and whipping up their bases on an issue that killed 169 kids and give no where even close to the same scream for the estimated 1400 of just the last 24 months?

Did the kids taking a pill want to die? Is that why, they deserved it? They risked it?

Or since they’re drug users, they’re too far gone to even try to save?


So, how many people total killed in mass shootings? 840-850 depending on source.

Not just this year. Not the last 2. Not the last 5. Not the last 10. Not the last 20. But the last 23 years or the same amount of time as the school shootings stats. 1999-2022 (May, 22)


https://www.statista.com/statistics...the-united-states-by-fatalities-and-injuries/


Care to know the total overdose deaths for all since 99’?

Slightly over 900,000 lives!!!

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_drug_overdose_death_rates_and_totals_over_time


You’d think by now, somebody somewhere would be interested in saving lives by following laws already made instead of tricking mouth breathers with new laws.
 

LS1 Z28

Territorial Marshal
Oct 30, 2007
5,354
4,200
1,743
#39
Do you want gun-free zones to go away?
That's a tough question. What I really want is for mass shootings to stop in gun free zones. I'm not sure if eliminating them would make the problem better or worse.

I agree with the Supreme Court that gun free zones should be allowed in sensitive places like courthouses and schools. I also support a private business's right to decide this policy for themselves.

IMO, gun free zones need to have adequate security. All you're doing is creating a soft target without it.
 

steross

he/him
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
33,184
33,334
1,743
oklahoma city
#40
That's a tough question. What I really want is for mass shootings to stop in gun free zones. I'm not sure if eliminating them would make the problem better or worse.

I agree with the Supreme Court that gun free zones should be allowed in sensitive places like courthouses and schools. I also support a private business's right to decide this policy for themselves.

IMO, gun free zones need to have adequate security. All you're doing is creating a soft target without it.
So, all small business that does not want guns on their property should have to pay for private security in addition to the tax they pay for policing not because they have a high-risk business but because anywhere can be a target? Our already strapped education system should spend millions of dollars securing schools (recently shown not to work BTW)?

Seems like a big, expensive ask of the innocents to me. I really can't believe that the founding fathers that created this amendment thought this through to a point in the future where people with semi-automatic weapons would go into public places and mow down as many innocents as possible centuries later. If they could come back and see that the amendment they made at that time was being used as it is now I think there is a very strong chance that they would not agree that it meets their intent and purpose.

I don't think that trying to fix the issue by "hardening" all potential victims is in any way a solution. It seems unrealistic to me to think we can make all of society protected against a shooter at all times. It also seems that we are creating a war zone if any public space not protected by armed "soldiers" is a target of attack. While I realize what you are saying sounds like a plan. It would sound horrific to anyone not from modern America or a war zone. Nobody else thinks this way.
 
Last edited: