Zone1 The Problem Is Guns, And Easy Access To Guns

[Grumblenuts]

you would have to disregard the constitution for that to be true.

No disregard of the Constitution. The majority ruled both when Prop. 8 was first implemented in CA and again when the SC expanded the definition of marriage nationwide. Democracy. Horrors!

 

[2aguy]

Why do you agree with the concept of gun free zones? Are they not a magnet for the crazies and the bad people to shoot people without fear of return fire? From what I've read, many of these attacks are planned out in advance, and I might think that an attack in the gun free zone could be a factor. After all, these guys want to make a name for themselves and kill as many as possible to make the evening news, no? All the GFZ does is basically disarm the citizens that might save lives if they take out the shooter early on.

You don't have to "think,' it is a factor....the actual shooters tell us it is one of the biggest factors....

Police said the suspect’s writings revealed she planned to hit another location but was deterred by “too much security.”




Transgender Shooter Kills Six At Nashville Christian School




5/15/22.....

New York Mass Public Shooter Explicitly targeted: “areas where CCW are outlawed or prohibited may be good areas of attack” “areas with strict gun laws are also great places of attack,” Another Socialist/Environmentalist​

-----
The El Paso environmentalist/socialist/racist shooter also discussed doing an attack in a place where others wouldn’t be able to stop the attack:

“Remember: it is not cowardly to pick low hanging fruit. AKA Don’t attack heavily guarded areas to fulfill your super soldier COD fantasy. Attack low security targets. Even though you might out gun a security guard or police man, they likely beat you in armor, training and numbers. Do not throw away your life on an unnecessarily dangerous target. If a target seems too hot, live to fight another day.”

New York Mass Public Shooter Explicitly targeted: “areas where CCW are outlawed or prohibited may be good areas of attack” “areas with strict gun laws are also great places of attack,” Another Socialist/Environmentalist


10/26/19

Mass Shootings in Gun-Free Zones - The American Spectator | USA News and PoliticsThe American Spectator | USA News and Politics

According to ABC News, El Paso law enforcement officials advise that, moments before his killing rampage, the shooter cased the Walmart “looking for Mexicans.” While that may be so, it is nevertheless true that, consistent with his “manifesto,” his recon was also calculated to make sure that he would be attacking in a low-security area. In that regard, the Walmart store had no armed security guard, no police presence, and was located in a shopping mall that was a self-proclaimed “gun-free zone.”
Similarly, in the Dayton, Ohio, mass shooting on Sunday, which immediately followed the El Paso murders, the victims were attacked as they exited a nightspot that was a gun-free zone.
And, in the Garlic Festival shootings in Gilroy, California last week, the victims were trapped inside a fenced area after going through metal detectors to make sure that they were disarmed. The shooter avoided the metal detectors by cutting through the fence and then attacking a victim pool that the Gilroy authorities had rendered incapable of defending themselves.
So it is that these most recent massacres share the one common element of almost all mass casualty shootings: gun-free zones.In addition to the El Paso shooter’s “manifesto,” there is abundant anecdotal evidence that mass casualty shooters prefer gun-free zones. For example, in 2016, Dearborn Heights, Michigan, ISIS supporter Khalil Abu Rayyan had an online discussion with an undercover FBI agent in which he discussed his plan for a “martyrdom operation” by attacking a Detroit church. He told the agent that this would be an easy target because “people are not allowed to carry guns in church.” Fortunately, Abu Rayyan was arrested before he could achieve martyrdom.
Similarly, in 2015, Elliot Rodger murdered six people in a Santa Barbara, California, gun-free zone. In his 141-page “manifesto,” he explained that in planning his attack he had decided against launching it in other locations where someone with a gun might be present to cut short his killing spree.
In the 2012 Aurora, Colorado, theater massacre, the killer’s diary showed that he had decided against attacking an airport because of its “substantial security.” And, out of the seven movie theaters within 20 minutes of the shooter’s home, he chose the only one that had posted signs declaring it to be a gun-free zone.
Given this record, anyone concerned with eliminating — or at least substantially reducing — mass public shootings must ask whether or not gun-free zones pose a danger to the public by attracting killers who prefer an unarmed victim pool and should give serious consideration to the following propositions:



3/3-/18

Orlando, Pulse Night club shooter wanted to attack Disney land

Pulse shooter's initial target was Disney site, prosecutors say


Prosecutors say the Orlando nightclub shooter intended to attack Disney World’s shopping and entertainment complex by hiding a gun in a stroller but became spooked by police and chose the gay club as his target.
3/5/18
https://www.nationalreview.com/blog/corner/profile-of-a-school-shooter/

The second thing: The shooter reveals that he thought seriously about whether his target would be a “gun free zone.” I mention this not to endorse any particular policy, but to make it clear that it is by no means rare for those who would do harm to first scope out their destinations and to make sure that they won’t encounter much resistance. The shooter openly explains that he chose the local elementary school, rather than the school he was really angry with (his own), because it lacked an armed guard. He also admits to having researched how long it took cops to respond in the area (15 minutes), and how long it would be before SWAT was on site (45 minutes). This echoes comments made by the shooter at Isla Vista, who considered carrying out his attack on Halloween, but decided against it because there’d be “too many cops walking around during an event like Halloween, and cops are the only ones who can hinder my plans.”

The actual story linked above...

“I HAVE TO BEAT **** **** . .” he wrote nine days before the Sept. 28, 2016, shooting in a misspelled reference to the Sandy Hook killer,**** ****. “Atleast 40.”

Two days later, he debated whether he should attack his middle school, from which he’d been expelled, or his elementary school, just up the road.

He decided on Townville Elementary because it was closer and had no armed security.


“Itll be like shooting fish in a barrel,” he wrote his friends, whose identities remain unclear, along with whether the FBI has tracked any of them down. The agency declined to comment, citing Jesse’s open case.

In the chat, he said he had researched police response times for the area and found that it would take them 15 minutes to get there, maybe 45 for SWAT. He said he would throw pipe bombs into each classroom before he got in a shootout with police and killed himself with his shotgun. He said he had been planning a massacre for two years.

=========


The Colorado theater shooter evidence...

Did Colorado shooter single out Cinemark theater because it banned guns?

Yet, neither explanation is right. Instead, out of all the movie theaters within 20 minutes of his apartment showing the new Batman movie that night, it was the only one where guns were banned. In Colorado, individuals with permits can carry concealed handgun in most malls, stores, movie theaters, and restaurants. But private businesses can determine whether permit holders can carry guns on their private property.
Most movie theaters allow permit holders carrying guns. But the Cinemark movie theater was the only one with a sign posted at the theater’s entrance.
A simple web search and some telephone calls reveal how easily one can find out how Cinemark compared to other movie theaters. According to mapquest.com and movies.com, there were seven movie theaters showing "The Dark Knight Rises" on July 20th within 20 minutes of the killer’s apartment at 1690 Paris St, Aurora, Colorado. At 4 miles and an 8-minute car ride, the Cinemark’s Century Theater wasn't the closest. Another theater was only 1.2 miles (3 minutes) away.
There was also a theater just slightly further away, 10 minutes. It is the "home of Colorado's largest auditorium," according to their movie hotline greeting message. The potentially huge audience ought to have been attractive to someone trying to kill as many people as possible. Four other theaters were 18 minutes, two at 19 minutes, and 20 minutes away. But all of those theaters allowed permitted concealed handguns.
So why would a mass shooter pick a place that bans guns? The answer should be obvious, though it apparently is not clear to the media – disarming law-abiding citizens leaves them as sitting ducks


FBI: Dearborn Heights ISIS supporter planned to attack Detroit church

In conversation's between Abu-Rayyan and the undercover agent, Abu-Rayyan described his desire to commit a martyrdom operation.

The complaint filed in federal court doesn’t specify which Detroit church he was allegedly planning to attack, only that it was close and could seat 6,000 members.

The complaint quotes Abu-Rayyan saying:

“It's easy, and a lot of people go there. Plus people are not allowed to carry guns in church. Plus it would make the news. Everybody would've heard. Honestly I regret not doing it. If I can't do jihad in the Middle East, I would do my jihad over here."

He had also told the undercover agent that a church would be an easy target because people are not allowed to carry guns there and that it would make the news.

----------------
Minnesota…...

Minnesota teen made bombs, stockpiled guns in prep for school massacre: police

The unhinged teen told cops, after being busted Tuesday, that he planned to shoot his sister, mom and dad with a .22-caliber rifle before he went to a rural field and set a fire to distract cops.
The 11th-grader then said he planned to go to Waseca Junior and Senior High School where he would toss Molotov cocktails and explode pressure-cooker bombs to try and kill “as many students as he could” in the cafeteria during lunchtime.
About 1,000 students, in 7th through 12th grade, attend the school.
LaDue, according to the notebook of his plan, would kill the school resource officer before continuing to kill other students. He was prepared to be gunned down by a SWAT Team, police said.


************************


Vince Vaughn is right about guns (and was brave to be so honest) | Fox News

Last June, Elliot Rodger, who killed six people in Santa Barbara, Calif., explained his own choice. In his 141-page “Manifesto,” Rodger turned down alternate targets because he worried that someone with a gun would cut short his killing spree.

That same month, Justin Bourque shot to death three people in Canada. His Facebook page made fun of gun bans, with pictures of defenseless victims explaining to killers that they weren’t allowed to have guns.

The diary of the Aurora, Colorado, “Batman” movie theater killer, James Holmes, was finally released this past week. It was clear that he was considering both attacking an airport and a movie theater, but he turned down the airport option because he was concerned about their “substantial security.”

Of course, there are numerous other examples such as the Columbine killersopposing the concealed carry law that was then working its way through the state legislature. The bill would have allowed people to carry permitted concealed handguns on school property. The killers timed their attack for the very day that final passage of the law was planned for in the legislature.

If you go to the link for the Colorado theater shooter they have a photo of his journal where he has notes about airports…..he lists one of the items…."Substantial Security"

http://crimeresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/james-holmes-notebook-dragged.pdf
**************

Sandy hook, did not have police resource officer

Building a safer Sandy Hook | News21: Gun Wars

The high school and middle school, which already had armed resource officers, doubled down on security and restricted all visitors that didn’t have prior permission to enter.
Lupica: Morbid find suggests murder-obsessed gunman Adam Lanza plotted Newtown, Conn.'s Sandy Hook massacre for years

They don’t believe this was just a spreadsheet. They believe it was a score sheet,” he continued. “This was the work of a video gamer, and that it was his intent to put his own name at the very top of that list. They believe that he picked an elementary school because he felt it was a point of least resistance, where he could rack up the greatest number of kills. That’s what (the Connecticut police) believe.”

The man paused and said, “They believe that (Lanza) believed that it was the way to pick up the easiest points. It’s why he didn’t want to be killed by law enforcement. In the code of a gamer, even a deranged gamer like this little bastard, if somebody else kills you, they get your points. They believe that’s why he killed himself.
-----

It really was like he was lost in one of his own sick games. That’s what we heard. That he learned something from his game that you learn in (police) school, about how if you’re moving from room to room — the way he was in that school — you have to reload before you get to the next room. Maybe he has a 30-round magazine clip, and he’s only used half of it. But he’s willing to dump 15 rounds and have a new clip before he arrives in the next room.”

*****************

MILLER: Adam Lanza shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown final report

The shooter only stopped when the police arrived. He had plenty of ammunition and was prepared to continue changing magazines and reloading.

 

[Frankeneinstein]

No disregard of the Constitution.

You have nothing but disregard for it, and that is only surpassed by your lack of understanding of it.

The majority ruled both when Prop. 8 was first implemented in CA and again when the SC expanded the definition of marriage nationwide.

The majority voted against same sex marriage in California and the court ruled that the vote was unconstitutional since it is protected from majority opinion by the constitution and thereby handing the majority a constitutional defeat which is what the constitution is supposed to do.

Democracy. Horrors!

A court decision is not democracy, it is where you/white liberals go [or used to go] when you/they do not like the result of democracy.

Your entire response was based on hiding your lack of knowledge and understanding on the matter and hoping that no one would notice or be able to see through it.

 

[saveliberty]

The problem IS guns. Precisely, I have one and you want to take it. Let me know what color coffin you want.

 

[Grumblenuts]

The majority voted against same sex marriage in California

Correct. The majority ruled.
Twenty years later..

The majority, both nationwide and in California favored same sex marriage..

So the SC ruled in the majority's favor. The majority ruled again.

See my thumb?

 

[dudmuck]

Again that sounds really really bad in a LOT of ways.
Government control over what I eat and when is none of the Government's concern.

Pursuit of Happiness is my discretion...not theirs.

its only a proposed change to what can be called healthy. Right now they can call stuff with alot of added sugar "healthy".

 

[M14 Shooter]

It seems that those who commit mass murders using AR 15's purchased legally, have no prior arrests and conviction of crimes.

And so there's no constitutional way to prevent these people from getting a gun.
Its called living in a free society.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Arrests and/or conviction for crimes are not the only dis qualifier. Certain mental health issues can also apply to being bared purchase of a weapon. The most recent mass shooter withheld information on their mental health problem and acquired their firearm illegally.

The most recent mass shooter was neither involuntarily committed nor adjudicated mentally infirm.
Thus, she was legally able to buy a gun
And the "disclosure" of your "mental issues" on a 4473 is limited to a yes/no question.
Line h.

 

[AZrailwhale]

The most recent mass shooter was neither involuntarily committed nor adjudicated mentally infirm.
Thus, she was legally able to buy a gun
And the "disclosure" of your "mental issues" on a 4473 is limited to a yes/no question.
Line h.

View attachment 776723

Restricting any right is a balancing act and a tricky one at that. For a free society to work, safety must be sacrificed for freedom. Look at the freedom to protest. All too often protests turn into violent riots, but we can’t stifle protests to stop riots. Or speech; if we stifle offensive speech we set up the mechanism and willingness to stifle speech that offends the powerful and rich. We saw that in the last presidential election, speech that offended the powerful people who owned the media and social messaging boards was suppressed. Now we have found that many of the things suppressed as lies were actually truths.

 

[JohnDB]

Why do you agree with the concept of gun free zones? Are they not a magnet for the crazies and the bad people to shoot people without fear of return fire? From what I've read, many of these attacks are planned out in advance, and I might think that an attack in the gun free zone could be a factor. After all, these guys want to make a name for themselves and kill as many as possible to make the evening news, no? All the GFZ does is basically disarm the citizens that might save lives if they take out the shooter early on.

Not even....just the reverse. I think gun free zones are exactly a target for lunatics. That's why they keep shooting up schools....because nobody will shoot back.

So gun free zones are indeed stupid.

Courthouses might be "gun free" inside the courtroom....except for the bailiff and that's only because of everyone going through inspections by armed security police....and the jail underneath is definitely controlled by armed guards.

 

[Frankeneinstein]

Correct. The majority ruled.

No the majority was overruled.

Twenty years later..

that doesn't sound right but if it is even within a century of being correct then you are closer to being right than usual

The majority, both nationwide and in California favored same sex marriage..

again no, California voted down same sex marriage [the rest of the country had nothing to do with prop. 8] the court had to invoke the constitution because the majority performed an unconstitutional act just by voting on the rights of others [the result of the vote had no legal bearing on the decision]

So the SC ruled in the majority's favor. The majority ruled again.

This is just incredibly bad nuts...its not even like you could be making a mistake, you are just making things up now.

See my thumb?

The one in your mouth? or the one you're sitting on? in any case I can only see them when ya switch up.

 

[Grumblenuts]

The majority voted against same sex marriage in California

Correct. The majority ruled.

No the majority was overruled.

No, dummy:

California voters approved Proposition 8, a state ballot initiative, at the November 4, 2008, statewide election. Proposition 8 added a new section to the state Constitution which provides that "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."

again no, California voted down same sex marriage

Yes, the majority ruled out same sex marriage..

Public opinion has undergone a reversal since 2000.
In January 2000, the first time PPIC asked about legalizing same-sex marriage, 39% of Californians were in favor and 55% were opposed. In October 2008, just before the passage of Proposition 8 (which banned same-sex marriage), 44% were in favor of allowing gays and lesbians to marry.

PPIC’s September 2013 statewide survey found that a record high 61% of Californians and 64% of likely voters favor allowing gay and lesbian couples to legally marry (34% of adults and 32% of likely voters oppose). Solid majorities of Californians (59%) and likely voters (63%) approve of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to let stand a lower court ruling on Proposition 8 that allows gay marriage in California.

Governor Newsom Statement on Constitutional Amendment to Repeal Prop. 8 | California Governor

SACRAMENTO – Governor Gavin Newsom issued the below statement today regarding the constitutional amendment introduced by Assemblymember Evan Low (D-Campbell) to rescind Proposition 8…

www.gov.ca.gov

Done yet? If not, I'll just keep rubbing the irrefutable evidence into your fat Frankenface.. Same goes for your idiotic buddies, 2aguy and Stryder50..

 

[Frankeneinstein]

Done yet?

Just one more nail for your coffin, from your link:

SACRAMENTO – Governor Gavin Newsom issued the below statement today regarding the constitutional amendment introduced by Assemblymember Evan Low (D-Campbell) to rescind Proposition 8, the discriminatory ban on same-sex marriage that was struck down in federal district court in 2010.

Your link is proof the majority was struck down by the court

If not, I'll just keep rubbing the irrefutable evidence into your fat Frankenface..

Yes you ARE providing irrefutable evidence, and I greatly appreciate it nuts.

Same goes for your idiotic buddies, 2aguy and Stryder50..

What do they have to do with this? [Other than proving my point is in the majority].

Yes, the majority ruled out same sex marriage..

and yes the court overruled it as your link spells out for you [or at least it does for the rest of us]

Nuts, you are grasping at straws here and it is obvious...got anymore digits ya can't find?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Restricting any right is a balancing act and a tricky one at that. For a free society to work, safety must be sacrificed for freedom.

The right to keep and bear arms, under the 2nd, is not subject to a means-end test, per the USSC in v Bruen.
So... No.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Just one more nail for your coffin, from your link:

Yes, "your coffin" and my links. You've provided nothing but gaseous distraction from the actual topic, apparently nursing some old wound or something. Enjoy your fantasies. Back to ignore you go.. Bubbye

 

[Frankeneinstein]

Yes, "your coffin" and my links.

now if ya could just find your thumb

You've provided nothing but gaseous distraction from the actual topic,

lol...c'mon nuts, don't be blaming the "gas" on me.

apparently nursing some old wound or something.

I'm not nursing it, just schooling it

Enjoy your fantasies. Back to ignore you go.. Bubbye

No sweeter nectar than white liberals censoring themselves.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Wow could you imagine if any of that were true?

Uvalde shooter had 1,600 rounds, few laws in Texas limit bullet purchases

The ease in which 18-year-old Salvador Ramos purchased two semiautomatic rifles and more than 1,600 bullets before killing 19 children and two adults in an Uvalde elementary school Tuesday has high…

www.kxan.com

1,600 round purchase. No questions asked.

That's not a large purchase. Heck, I know people who regularly bought ammo by the PALLET.

 

[M14 Shooter]

That's not a large purchase. Heck, I know people who regularly bought ammo by the PALLET.

Sometimes, the ignorance of the anti-gun left is understandable.
That they choose to hang on to that ignorance is unforgivable.

 

[jbrownson0831]

Again, it’s pointless.

Even if a large majority of Americans demand restricting access to assault weapons, and overwhelmingly elect candidates to office reflecting that demand, the conservative courts will strike down any such firearm regulatory measures – ultimately the Supreme Court; it’s a manifestation of the tyranny of Republican minority rule.

Actually, its the Dims who have eliminated police and put the same criminals back on the street over and over again to commit the violent crimes.
Nice try though.

 

[jbrownson0831]

This is a lie.

No one is advocating any such thing.

Sure you are you just talked about your dream world of eliminating everyone's right to own guns.