in libtardville, the dude from the Southside of Chicago walking around with a Saturday Night Special (that would be an illegal homemade gun) is not going to murder somebody because possessing that gun is illegal
okie dokie
okie dokie
Think bigger than that, Willie.
Since nobody breaks laws once they are passed, then all Congress needs to do is pass a law which stipulates it's illegal for anyone to be poor, homeless or hungry.
Voila! Poverty, shelter and hunger solved overnight. What a 3-run HR that would be!
I remember an episode of Beavis and Butthead where they were putting dollar bills into a copy machine and were all excited because they thought they were now loaded with counterfeit money. Butthead hilariously exclaimed "I can't believe no one has ever thought of this before!" And that's what I say about these strong laws, which will surely prevent whatever the problem is again. "I can't believe nobody ever thought of this before!"
Actually, vit...to your point above about bank vaults, putting up signs that say "gun-free zones" is essentially the exact equivalent of a bank leaving their vault wide open to the public and taping a note to the door that says "Please don't take money that doesn't belong to you."
Since nobody breaks laws once they are passed, then all Congress needs to do is pass a law which stipulates it's illegal for anyone to be poor, homeless or hungry.
Voila! Poverty, shelter and hunger solved overnight. What a 3-run HR that would be!
I remember an episode of Beavis and Butthead where they were putting dollar bills into a copy machine and were all excited because they thought they were now loaded with counterfeit money. Butthead hilariously exclaimed "I can't believe no one has ever thought of this before!" And that's what I say about these strong laws, which will surely prevent whatever the problem is again. "I can't believe nobody ever thought of this before!"
Actually, vit...to your point above about bank vaults, putting up signs that say "gun-free zones" is essentially the exact equivalent of a bank leaving their vault wide open to the public and taping a note to the door that says "Please don't take money that doesn't belong to you."
Oh come on Willie, 55 saves lives!!
Remember how central planners used to tell us how raising the speed limit would kill all those people? (overall statewide fatality rates fell by 3.4% to 5.1% for the group of states that adopted the 65 mph limit).
Listen to the central planners Willie!
Remember how central planners used to tell us how raising the speed limit would kill all those people? (overall statewide fatality rates fell by 3.4% to 5.1% for the group of states that adopted the 65 mph limit).
Listen to the central planners Willie!
no no no no no, you can't go down that path
you argue we pass a law, problem solved. Obviously you must know that's not true
I'm mocking that argument
my argument is that it's about parenting and values
Who said problem solved? Of course it isn't solved....but stopping people from getting multiple guns, killing machines, and enough ammo to kill 20 people in seconds isn't a bad thing. If it saves a few innocent lives....it's worth it.
Its unrealistic to just rely on parents, for every competent parent like you, there is a horrible one not paying attention. Having measures to help protect the rest of us from these misguided lunatics, is a responsibility of society...and as much as you hate it, society consists of a government with ability to restrict some of this.
this one hits the nail on the head, just replace the terrorist looking dudes with any street thug
Unfortunately the facts dispute this:
1) out of the mass shootings between 2009-2015 only 13 percent were in gun free zones
2) out of mass public shootings over 30 years....none were stopped by a civilian with a gun
those pesky facts again
What about this article Vit?
[h=2]On October 9, the Crime Prevention Research Center (CPRC) released a revised report showing that 92% of mass public shootings between January 2009 and July 2014 took place in gun-free zones.[/h]The CPRC report was released in response to an Everytown for Gun Safety study claiming only 14% of mass public shootings took place in gun-free zones. Everytown actually claimed 86% of such incidents occurred in places where guns were allowed.
CPRC showed that the 86% claim rests on Everytown’s “inclusion of attacks in private homes” and “numerous errors in identifying whether citizens can defend themselves.” For example, Everytown “[ignores] rules that prevent general citizens from carrying guns [for self-defense]” in certain cities, and they fail to recognize that “allowing police to carry guns is not the same thing as letting civilians defend themselves.”
So Everytown might count an attack in a public area in Los Angeles as a mass shooting where guns are allowed because certain guns are allowed in the city with a permit. However, they miss the fact that L.A. County issues a minuscule number of concealed carry permits, and many of the ones that are issued are granted only “to wealthy [political] donors.”
Using the same numerical standard that Everytown used–four or more people killed–but taking all rules and regulations against firearm possession into account, CPRC showed that only 8% of mass public shootings occurred in places where citizens could have guns for self defense.
[h=2]On October 9, the Crime Prevention Research Center (CPRC) released a revised report showing that 92% of mass public shootings between January 2009 and July 2014 took place in gun-free zones.[/h]The CPRC report was released in response to an Everytown for Gun Safety study claiming only 14% of mass public shootings took place in gun-free zones. Everytown actually claimed 86% of such incidents occurred in places where guns were allowed.
CPRC showed that the 86% claim rests on Everytown’s “inclusion of attacks in private homes” and “numerous errors in identifying whether citizens can defend themselves.” For example, Everytown “[ignores] rules that prevent general citizens from carrying guns [for self-defense]” in certain cities, and they fail to recognize that “allowing police to carry guns is not the same thing as letting civilians defend themselves.”
So Everytown might count an attack in a public area in Los Angeles as a mass shooting where guns are allowed because certain guns are allowed in the city with a permit. However, they miss the fact that L.A. County issues a minuscule number of concealed carry permits, and many of the ones that are issued are granted only “to wealthy [political] donors.”
Using the same numerical standard that Everytown used–four or more people killed–but taking all rules and regulations against firearm possession into account, CPRC showed that only 8% of mass public shootings occurred in places where citizens could have guns for self defense.
http://crimeresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/CPRC-Mass-Shooting-Analysis-Bloomberg2.pdf
IV. Gun-Free ZonesAre areas where civilians cannot carry guns for protection more likely to attract criminals?
The Everytown report claims that 86% of mass shootings occur in places where guns are allowed. But their high figure is primarily driven by their inclusion of attacks in private homes.10 Everytown also makes numerous errors in identifying whether citizens can defend themselves.
Thus, they ignore rules that prevent general citizens from carrying guns (e.g., not acknowledging that Los Angeles County issued only 240 concealed handgun permits to very wealthy donors out of an adult population of 7.6 million adults). They ignore that allowing police to carry guns is not the same thing as letting civilians defend themselves. They fail to separate out gang-related attacks (see Appendix for a complete list of their errors). They also mistakenly rely on news reports to determine whether guns were banned in an area. Unfortunately, the media virtually never mentions that attacks occur in gun-free zones.
But the issue over gun-free zones has always focused on non-gang attacks in public places. Gang fights over valuable drug turf or criminals committing robberies are entirely different from incidents where killers engage in mass public shootings to obtain publicity. Mass public shooters intend to commit suicide, but they also want attention. They realize that the more people killed, the more attention they generate
.Since 2009, only 8 percent of mass public shootings have occurred in places where civilians are allowed to defend themselves. Since the only attacks in places that have allowed civilians to carry concealed handguns have occurred over the period of time that Everytown covered since January 2009, the true probability is less than that.
The summer of 2014 clearly illustrated how mass public shooters pay attention to whether people with guns will be present to defend themselves. Elliot Rodger, who shot to death three people in Santa Barbara, explained why he picked his target. His 141-page "manifesto" shows how he worried someone with a gun would stop him before he was able to kill enough people. He wrote: "Another option was Deltopia, a day in which many young people pour in from all 10 In these residential attacks by family members, the attacker may likely know whether a gun is
IV. Gun-Free ZonesAre areas where civilians cannot carry guns for protection more likely to attract criminals?
The Everytown report claims that 86% of mass shootings occur in places where guns are allowed. But their high figure is primarily driven by their inclusion of attacks in private homes.10 Everytown also makes numerous errors in identifying whether citizens can defend themselves.
Thus, they ignore rules that prevent general citizens from carrying guns (e.g., not acknowledging that Los Angeles County issued only 240 concealed handgun permits to very wealthy donors out of an adult population of 7.6 million adults). They ignore that allowing police to carry guns is not the same thing as letting civilians defend themselves. They fail to separate out gang-related attacks (see Appendix for a complete list of their errors). They also mistakenly rely on news reports to determine whether guns were banned in an area. Unfortunately, the media virtually never mentions that attacks occur in gun-free zones.
But the issue over gun-free zones has always focused on non-gang attacks in public places. Gang fights over valuable drug turf or criminals committing robberies are entirely different from incidents where killers engage in mass public shootings to obtain publicity. Mass public shooters intend to commit suicide, but they also want attention. They realize that the more people killed, the more attention they generate
.Since 2009, only 8 percent of mass public shootings have occurred in places where civilians are allowed to defend themselves. Since the only attacks in places that have allowed civilians to carry concealed handguns have occurred over the period of time that Everytown covered since January 2009, the true probability is less than that.
The summer of 2014 clearly illustrated how mass public shooters pay attention to whether people with guns will be present to defend themselves. Elliot Rodger, who shot to death three people in Santa Barbara, explained why he picked his target. His 141-page "manifesto" shows how he worried someone with a gun would stop him before he was able to kill enough people. He wrote: "Another option was Deltopia, a day in which many young people pour in from all 10 In these residential attacks by family members, the attacker may likely know whether a gun is
