Mass shooters target gun-free zones

[FA_Q2]

You guys ever hear of "suicide by cop"? They intend to die by being shot .If the cops don't do it, they do it themselves. Sure, they are going to kill people in the meantime. I am not convinced that an armed person would make much difference at the scene. In fact, unless the shooter is an idiot, the shooter would target him first if he can identify him. If he can't, then anybody in the crowd may have a gun concealed, whether it is a "no gun zone" or not. How the hell is anyone going to enforce a "no gun zone" against a "good" person carrying a concealed weapon? Your whole argument makes no sense at all.

Jaywalk or come into some other interaction with the police and they end up searching you and finding a weapon - go to jail. Why would a person subject themselves to that? They would not.

There is no grounds for you to believe that there is a real difference in meeting a cop or an armed citizen to the perpetrator. The result is the same. You claim that others arguments make no sense when you are demanding that there are arbitrary differences in an armed citizen stopping a crazy person and an armed cop without any reason behind it.

I don't even know what you are trying to say.

However, I have seen at least 4 posters on this board state that they have no intention to go anywhere without their weapon, (short of a place with a metal detector), "no gun zone" or not.

And, being an officer of the law myself (Sheriff Auxiliary volunteer), I know that deputies do not search anyone without probable cause. Any case they made that way would be thrown out of court and they would soon lose their job.

And? That does not change the statements I made at all.

That has nothing to do with what I stated. Most gun owners that carry are not going to carry in an area where it would be a crime to do so. They will simply not go there or not carry.

 

[Vandalshandle]

You guys ever hear of "suicide by cop"? They intend to die by being shot .If the cops don't do it, they do it themselves. Sure, they are going to kill people in the meantime. I am not convinced that an armed person would make much difference at the scene. In fact, unless the shooter is an idiot, the shooter would target him first if he can identify him. If he can't, then anybody in the crowd may have a gun concealed, whether it is a "no gun zone" or not. How the hell is anyone going to enforce a "no gun zone" against a "good" person carrying a concealed weapon? Your whole argument makes no sense at all.

Jaywalk or come into some other interaction with the police and they end up searching you and finding a weapon - go to jail. Why would a person subject themselves to that? They would not.

There is no grounds for you to believe that there is a real difference in meeting a cop or an armed citizen to the perpetrator. The result is the same. You claim that others arguments make no sense when you are demanding that there are arbitrary differences in an armed citizen stopping a crazy person and an armed cop without any reason behind it.

Only a tiny percent of people carry. Gun free zone or not the criminal is unlikely to run into one. And since they are suicidal it is unlikely it would change their actions.

Of course it would change their actions - they would commit suicide earlier and with less dead innocents.

Actions changed.

They would commit suicide faster, because they would be afraid they might get shot?

OOOOOOOKAY!

 

[OnePercenter]

If it is stolen the gun owner wasn't irresponsible, he is a victim of a crime.

If a gun owner doesn't have a secondary means of securing, then he/she is irresponsible. Remember, a two year old has enough strength to pull a trigger.

 

[Brain357]

You guys ever hear of "suicide by cop"? They intend to die by being shot .If the cops don't do it, they do it themselves. Sure, they are going to kill people in the meantime. I am not convinced that an armed person would make much difference at the scene. In fact, unless the shooter is an idiot, the shooter would target him first if he can identify him. If he can't, then anybody in the crowd may have a gun concealed, whether it is a "no gun zone" or not. How the hell is anyone going to enforce a "no gun zone" against a "good" person carrying a concealed weapon? Your whole argument makes no sense at all.

Jaywalk or come into some other interaction with the police and they end up searching you and finding a weapon - go to jail. Why would a person subject themselves to that? They would not.

There is no grounds for you to believe that there is a real difference in meeting a cop or an armed citizen to the perpetrator. The result is the same. You claim that others arguments make no sense when you are demanding that there are arbitrary differences in an armed citizen stopping a crazy person and an armed cop without any reason behind it.

Only a tiny percent of people carry. Gun free zone or not the criminal is unlikely to run into one. And since they are suicidal it is unlikely it would change their actions.

Of course it would change their actions - they would commit suicide earlier and with less dead innocents.

Actions changed.

That would happen very rarely so no it would not change the places they targeted.

 

[FA_Q2]

You guys ever hear of "suicide by cop"? They intend to die by being shot .If the cops don't do it, they do it themselves. Sure, they are going to kill people in the meantime. I am not convinced that an armed person would make much difference at the scene. In fact, unless the shooter is an idiot, the shooter would target him first if he can identify him. If he can't, then anybody in the crowd may have a gun concealed, whether it is a "no gun zone" or not. How the hell is anyone going to enforce a "no gun zone" against a "good" person carrying a concealed weapon? Your whole argument makes no sense at all.

Jaywalk or come into some other interaction with the police and they end up searching you and finding a weapon - go to jail. Why would a person subject themselves to that? They would not.

There is no grounds for you to believe that there is a real difference in meeting a cop or an armed citizen to the perpetrator. The result is the same. You claim that others arguments make no sense when you are demanding that there are arbitrary differences in an armed citizen stopping a crazy person and an armed cop without any reason behind it.

Only a tiny percent of people carry. Gun free zone or not the criminal is unlikely to run into one. And since they are suicidal it is unlikely it would change their actions.

Of course it would change their actions - they would commit suicide earlier and with less dead innocents.

Actions changed.

They would commit suicide faster, because they would be afraid they might get shot?

OOOOOOOKAY!

Stop being insanely obtuse.

They commit suicide when they encounter resistance. They may encounter that resistance in 10 minuets when the cops get there or in 1 min with an armed citizen.

 

[FA_Q2]

You guys ever hear of "suicide by cop"? They intend to die by being shot .If the cops don't do it, they do it themselves. Sure, they are going to kill people in the meantime. I am not convinced that an armed person would make much difference at the scene. In fact, unless the shooter is an idiot, the shooter would target him first if he can identify him. If he can't, then anybody in the crowd may have a gun concealed, whether it is a "no gun zone" or not. How the hell is anyone going to enforce a "no gun zone" against a "good" person carrying a concealed weapon? Your whole argument makes no sense at all.

Jaywalk or come into some other interaction with the police and they end up searching you and finding a weapon - go to jail. Why would a person subject themselves to that? They would not.

There is no grounds for you to believe that there is a real difference in meeting a cop or an armed citizen to the perpetrator. The result is the same. You claim that others arguments make no sense when you are demanding that there are arbitrary differences in an armed citizen stopping a crazy person and an armed cop without any reason behind it.

Only a tiny percent of people carry. Gun free zone or not the criminal is unlikely to run into one. And since they are suicidal it is unlikely it would change their actions.

Of course it would change their actions - they would commit suicide earlier and with less dead innocents.

Actions changed.

That would happen very rarely so no it would not change the places they targeted.

Looking at where I made the claim that it would. Nope - not there.

Care to argue some more points that I have not made a statement on?

 

[Brain357]

You guys ever hear of "suicide by cop"? They intend to die by being shot .If the cops don't do it, they do it themselves. Sure, they are going to kill people in the meantime. I am not convinced that an armed person would make much difference at the scene. In fact, unless the shooter is an idiot, the shooter would target him first if he can identify him. If he can't, then anybody in the crowd may have a gun concealed, whether it is a "no gun zone" or not. How the hell is anyone going to enforce a "no gun zone" against a "good" person carrying a concealed weapon? Your whole argument makes no sense at all.

Jaywalk or come into some other interaction with the police and they end up searching you and finding a weapon - go to jail. Why would a person subject themselves to that? They would not.

There is no grounds for you to believe that there is a real difference in meeting a cop or an armed citizen to the perpetrator. The result is the same. You claim that others arguments make no sense when you are demanding that there are arbitrary differences in an armed citizen stopping a crazy person and an armed cop without any reason behind it.

Only a tiny percent of people carry. Gun free zone or not the criminal is unlikely to run into one. And since they are suicidal it is unlikely it would change their actions.

Of course it would change their actions - they would commit suicide earlier and with less dead innocents.

Actions changed.

They would commit suicide faster, because they would be afraid they might get shot?

OOOOOOOKAY!

Stop being insanely obtuse.

They commit suicide when they encounter resistance. They may encounter that resistance in 10 minuets when the cops get there or in 1 min with an armed citizen.

Based on the number of people who choose to carry the citizen scenario is extremely rare. The criminal won't change his target based on something very unlikely to happen.

 

[Brain357]

You guys ever hear of "suicide by cop"? They intend to die by being shot .If the cops don't do it, they do it themselves. Sure, they are going to kill people in the meantime. I am not convinced that an armed person would make much difference at the scene. In fact, unless the shooter is an idiot, the shooter would target him first if he can identify him. If he can't, then anybody in the crowd may have a gun concealed, whether it is a "no gun zone" or not. How the hell is anyone going to enforce a "no gun zone" against a "good" person carrying a concealed weapon? Your whole argument makes no sense at all.

Jaywalk or come into some other interaction with the police and they end up searching you and finding a weapon - go to jail. Why would a person subject themselves to that? They would not.

There is no grounds for you to believe that there is a real difference in meeting a cop or an armed citizen to the perpetrator. The result is the same. You claim that others arguments make no sense when you are demanding that there are arbitrary differences in an armed citizen stopping a crazy person and an armed cop without any reason behind it.

Only a tiny percent of people carry. Gun free zone or not the criminal is unlikely to run into one. And since they are suicidal it is unlikely it would change their actions.

Of course it would change their actions - they would commit suicide earlier and with less dead innocents.

Actions changed.

That would happen very rarely so no it would not change the places they targeted.

Looking at where I made the claim that it would. Nope - not there.

Care to argue some more points that I have not made a statement on?

You really aren't making sense.

 

[FA_Q2]

Jaywalk or come into some other interaction with the police and they end up searching you and finding a weapon - go to jail. Why would a person subject themselves to that? They would not.

There is no grounds for you to believe that there is a real difference in meeting a cop or an armed citizen to the perpetrator. The result is the same. You claim that others arguments make no sense when you are demanding that there are arbitrary differences in an armed citizen stopping a crazy person and an armed cop without any reason behind it.

Only a tiny percent of people carry. Gun free zone or not the criminal is unlikely to run into one. And since they are suicidal it is unlikely it would change their actions.

Of course it would change their actions - they would commit suicide earlier and with less dead innocents.

Actions changed.

That would happen very rarely so no it would not change the places they targeted.

Looking at where I made the claim that it would. Nope - not there.

Care to argue some more points that I have not made a statement on?

You really aren't making sense.

Of course not. This is because you are arguing points I have not made.

When you hear what you want and argue straw men not much is going to make sense.

 

[Vandalshandle]

I'm still wrestling with the argument that a gunner intent on killing people and then himself is going to cut short his plan to avoid getting killed... I may have to think about that for a couple of days.

 

[koshergrl]

I think it is revealiing that the anti gun extremists that post here...focus on always punishing the people who didn't commit a crime.......

Aka...the victims.

 

[koshergrl]

Jaywalk or come into some other interaction with the police and they end up searching you and finding a weapon - go to jail. Why would a person subject themselves to that? They would not.

There is no grounds for you to believe that there is a real difference in meeting a cop or an armed citizen to the perpetrator. The result is the same. You claim that others arguments make no sense when you are demanding that there are arbitrary differences in an armed citizen stopping a crazy person and an armed cop without any reason behind it.

Only a tiny percent of people carry. Gun free zone or not the criminal is unlikely to run into one. And since they are suicidal it is unlikely it would change their actions.

Of course it would change their actions - they would commit suicide earlier and with less dead innocents.

Actions changed.

They would commit suicide faster, because they would be afraid they might get shot?

OOOOOOOKAY!

Stop being insanely obtuse.

They commit suicide when they encounter resistance. They may encounter that resistance in 10 minuets when the cops get there or in 1 min with an armed citizen.

Based on the number of people who choose to carry the citizen scenario is extremely rare. The criminal won't change his target based on something very unlikely to happen.

What are you gibbering about...when confronted by an armed person, mass shooters WITHOUT EXCEPTION stop what they are doing. And mass murderers 97 percent of the time target areas that have advertised their vulnerability.

 

[koshergrl]

You guys ever hear of "suicide by cop"? They intend to die by being shot .If the cops don't do it, they do it themselves. Sure, they are going to kill people in the meantime. I am not convinced that an armed person would make much difference at the scene. In fact, unless the shooter is an idiot, the shooter would target him first if he can identify him. If he can't, then anybody in the crowd may have a gun concealed, whether it is a "no gun zone" or not. How the hell is anyone going to enforce a "no gun zone" against a "good" person carrying a concealed weapon? Your whole argument makes no sense at all.

Because good people obey the law moron. If you carry a concealed carry gun into a school zone you can be punished as a misdemeanor, and lose your gun rights, have to go to court, and pay a lawyer....you can also lose your job if you get a felony for it......so law abiding people have a lot to lose by not obeying the law and there are all kinds of cops who are gun grabbers and prosecutors and judges too, just waiting to throw the book at a law abiding citizen who carries a gun.

For example, the woman in New Jersey...she was from Pennsylvania and had a concealed carry permit. She drove into New Jersey not realizing that her permit was no good in New Jersey....she was stopped for speeding or another traffic infraction and she did as she was trained to do in Penn. she told the cop she was a lawful concealed carrier and that she had a weapon on her person.....

She was arrested by the officer for felony weapon possessiion in the state of New Jersey, and faced going to prison for 3 years, getting a felony conviction and as a nurse, with that felony conviction she would have lost her job.....it took action by Chris Christie to keep her out of jail......and to clear her record...

That is why law abiding people don't carry guns into gun free zones.


And in Oregon...if you were caught with a concealed carry gun as a student, you would be expelled, and as an employee, you would be fired....even though it is legal to carry a gun on a university campus.

so that is why law abiding people don't carry in gun free zones.

2aguy, I am putting you on "ignore" for the following reasons:
1. You are not mature enough to carry a conversation without childish name calling (dipshit, moron, etc., etc). Most people grow out of that by the time they enter college,
2. Your constant spamming, which you have done yet again, on this thread.
3. Your repetitious posts. I know damned well that you have not said anything here that you haven't posted word for word, time, after time, after time (2 million times per year guns save lives, yadda, yadda, yadda). I didn't believe it the first time I read it months ago, and I sure as hell don't believe it now. Adios.

Well adios...asswipe...go fuck yourself...aloha......

It doesn't take much to get a coward to surrender lol.

 

[koshergrl]

Would-be killers target gun-free zones

 

[koshergrl]

Now you're just babbling.

No. Only 12 million choose to carry in a country of over 300 million. The criminal is unlikely to run into one. And if he did the criminal has all the advantages.

Really?

Trayvon Martin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Dayton Woman Shoots, Kills Intruder - % stationx.name %] ABC 22 News :: News - Top Stories

Woman who shot intruder in her Newport News home speaks out

Woman shoots, kills intruder in Detroit

Trayvon was the victim.

You examples are intruders at homes. Has nothing to do with comcealed carry or mass shootings.

I already posted multiple examples of mass shootings that were prevented or where the death count was inarguably reduced thanks to an armed citizen.

Like I said, I like to see you people argue to increase the body counts.

And many of those simply weren't true as I've pointed out. Not saying it hasn't happened, just so unlikely that it won't change the criminals actions.

You didn't point out anything. You lied and made up a false narrative.

 

[OnePercenter]

Would-be killers target gun-free zones

We need more police.

 

[2aguy]

Would-be killers target gun-free zones

We need more police.

I don't think anyone disagrees with that...

 

[2aguy]

Now you're just babbling.

No. Only 12 million choose to carry in a country of over 300 million. The criminal is unlikely to run into one. And if he did the criminal has all the advantages.

Really?

Trayvon Martin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Dayton Woman Shoots, Kills Intruder - % stationx.name %] ABC 22 News :: News - Top Stories

Woman who shot intruder in her Newport News home speaks out

Woman shoots, kills intruder in Detroit

Trayvon was the victim.

You examples are intruders at homes. Has nothing to do with comcealed carry or mass shootings.

Trayvon was the attacker.....moron.

Ah right to childish name calling. Grow up.

Trayvon the child was harassed by zimmerman the armed adult. Trayvon was the victim.

No....you should actually study what happened.....Martin could have just walked home...but he doubled back to attack Zimmerman, who was going back to his car to meet with the police.....Martin caused the violence, not Zimmerman.

 

[2aguy]

Now you're just babbling.

No. Only 12 million choose to carry in a country of over 300 million. The criminal is unlikely to run into one. And if he did the criminal has all the advantages.

Really?

Trayvon Martin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Dayton Woman Shoots, Kills Intruder - % stationx.name %] ABC 22 News :: News - Top Stories

Woman who shot intruder in her Newport News home speaks out

Woman shoots, kills intruder in Detroit

Trayvon was the victim.

You examples are intruders at homes. Has nothing to do with comcealed carry or mass shootings.

I already posted multiple examples of mass shootings that were prevented or where the death count was inarguably reduced thanks to an armed citizen.

Like I said, I like to see you people argue to increase the body counts.

And many of those simply weren't true as I've pointed out. Not saying it hasn't happened, just so unlikely that it won't change the criminals actions.

Yeah...they were true, no matter how the anti gun extremists like you brain lie about them because they undermine and expose your stupid ideas for what they are....

 

[2aguy]

Yeah...each year mass shootings kill less than 75 people...

according to bill clinton and his Department of Justice, Americans use guns 1.5 million times each uear to stop violent criminal attack...

funny how you always over look the times that guns save lives...


let's see...can you tell which number is bigger....

75 victims in a bad year


1.5 million violent crimes stopped.....

keeping in mind that you guys have created the gun free zones that allow these guys to kill those people.

Gee, the lie was "over 2 million times" a few weeks ago.

Were you lying then or lying now? Or lying both times?

No...the average of all the studies done over 40 years, showed that Americans use guns to stop violent criminal attack 2 million times a year....I post the 1.5 number because that is the number that bill clinton found through his anti gun study.....

I don't loe...I am not a lefty.

You can't even show your number is mathematically possible.

I just averaged the studies......which were conducted by different researchers, from both private and public researchers, over a period of 40 years looking specifically at guns and self defense....the name of the researcher is first, then the year then the number of times they determined guns were used for self defense......notice how many of them there are and how many of them were done by gun grabbers like the clinton Justice Dept. and the obama CDC

And these aren't all of the studies either...there are more...and they support the ones below.....

A quick guide to the studies and the numbers.....the full lay out of what was studied by each study is in the links....
GunCite-Gun Control-How Often Are Guns Used in Self-Defense

GunCite Frequency of Defensive Gun Use in Previous Surveys

Field...1976....3,052,717 ( no cops, military)
DMIa 1978...2,141,512 ( no cops, military)
L.A. TIMES...1994...3,609,68 ( no cops, military)
Kleck......1994...2.5 million ( no cops, military)

Obama's CDC....2013....500,000--3million

--------------------


Bordua...1977...1,414,544

DMIb...1978...1,098,409 ( no cops, military)

Hart...1981...1.797,461 ( no cops, military)

Mauser...1990...1,487,342 ( no cops, military)

Gallup...1993...1,621,377 ( no cops, military)

DEPT. OF JUSTICE...1994...1.5 million

Journal of Quantitative Criminology--- 989,883 times per year."
(Based on survey data from a 2000 study published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology,[17] U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year.[18])

Paper: "Measuring Civilian Defensive Firearm Use: A Methodological Experiment." By David McDowall and others. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, March 2000. Measuring Civilian Defensive Firearm Use: A Methodological Experiment - Springer


-------------------------------------------

Ohio...1982...771,043

Gallup...1991...777,152

Tarrance... 1994... 764,036 (no cops, military)

Lawerence Southwich Jr. 400,000 fewer violent crimes and at least 800,000 violent crimes deterred..
*****************************************
If you take the studies from that Kleck cites in his paper, 16 of them....and you only average the ones that exclude military and police shootings..the average becomes 2 million...I use those studies because I have the details on them...and they are still 10 studies (including Kleck's)....