Does Gun free zone =target rich environment for crazies?

[thanatos144]

Cause it seems to me the most dangerous place to be now a days is a gun free zone....Why do we keep them if all they see to do is make it easier for the insane to kill? I know progressives love the idea but lets face it 28 dead children and adults show it doesn't work to well.

Maybe instead of banning Guns or high volume clips we should ban demanding that people become easier targets by getting rid of the gun free zones.

 

[George Costanza]

Cause it seems to me the most dangerous place to be now a days is a gun free zone....Why do we keep them if all they see to do is make it easier for the insane to kill? I know progressives love the idea but lets face it 28 dead children and adults show it doesn't work to well.

Maybe instead of banning Guns or high volume clips we should ban demanding that people become easier targets by getting rid of the gun free zones.

So what are you saying here - that you are in favor of arming the population? Sounds like it. That's not a good idea. That would create far more problems than it would solve.

Your average citizen is not armed. It seems to me an unarmed citizen would be safer in a gun free zone than outside of it, because, presumably, there would be fewer potential shooters in a gun free zone than outside of it. Sure, a shooter could invade a gun free zone and have at it, but that could also happen outside of a gun free zone.

Would a shooter be more likely to have at it in a gun free zone than outside of one? I don't think so. Why? Because the vast majority of citizens are unarmed, whether they are in a gun free zone or not.

 

[thanatos144]

Cause it seems to me the most dangerous place to be now a days is a gun free zone....Why do we keep them if all they see to do is make it easier for the insane to kill? I know progressives love the idea but lets face it 28 dead children and adults show it doesn't work to well.

Maybe instead of banning Guns or high volume clips we should ban demanding that people become easier targets by getting rid of the gun free zones.

So what are you saying here - that you are in favor of arming the population? Sounds like it. That's not a good idea. That would create far more problems than it would solve.

Your average citizen is not armed. It seems to me an unarmed citizen would be safer in a gun free zone than outside of it, because, presumably, there would be fewer potential shooters in a gun free zone than outside of it. Sure, a shooter could invade a gun free zone and have at it, but that could also happen outside of a gun free zone.

Would a shooter be more likely to have at it in a gun free zone than outside of one? I don't think so. Why? Because the vast majority of citizens are unarmed, whether they are in a gun free zone or not.

The founding fathers armed the populous. What you dont like is that the freedom to defend oneself ANYWHERE scares you....Why? If you dont wish harm to anyone why would you fear someone who carries a weapon for defense?

Tell me when has Fascism ever worked?

 

[George Costanza]

Cause it seems to me the most dangerous place to be now a days is a gun free zone....Why do we keep them if all they see to do is make it easier for the insane to kill? I know progressives love the idea but lets face it 28 dead children and adults show it doesn't work to well.

Maybe instead of banning Guns or high volume clips we should ban demanding that people become easier targets by getting rid of the gun free zones.

So what are you saying here - that you are in favor of arming the population? Sounds like it. That's not a good idea. That would create far more problems than it would solve.

Your average citizen is not armed. It seems to me an unarmed citizen would be safer in a gun free zone than outside of it, because, presumably, there would be fewer potential shooters in a gun free zone than outside of it. Sure, a shooter could invade a gun free zone and have at it, but that could also happen outside of a gun free zone.

Would a shooter be more likely to have at it in a gun free zone than outside of one? I don't think so. Why? Because the vast majority of citizens are unarmed, whether they are in a gun free zone or not.

The founding fathers armed the populous. What you dont like is that the freedom to defend oneself ANYWHERE scares you....Why? If you dont wish harm to anyone why would you fear someone who carries a weapon for defense?

Tell me when has Fascism ever worked?

People who carry weapons "for defense" start out with God on their side, but circumstances can change, and they can suddenly become the aggressor in spite of all their initial, good intentions when they first set out to carry the gun "for defense only."
We have an awful lot of road rage incidents in this country. How would it be if the folks who get involved in those incidents were all armed? That's what I mean when I say it is not a good idea to arm the population.

I have owned guns all my life - four or five shotguns and several rifles, all of which I have used for hunting and target shooting. I have a shotgun in the corner of the bedroom and if there was an intruder in the house, I would use it against him if I had to.

I think that handguns are quite a different matter. You don't use a handgun for hunting. People do shoot targets with handguns, but not seriously. The only reason most people target shoot handguns is to hone their ability to shoot straight against another human being if the situation arises.

I am personally in favor of banning handguns and assault weapons. Handguns are too easy to conceal. Not so with shotguns and rifles.

I guess what I am saying is that there are legitimate uses for rifles and shotguns that do not involve killing other human beings. In the case of handguns and assault weapons, I don't see so many legitimate uses other than killing other humans.

 

[thanatos144]

So what are you saying here - that you are in favor of arming the population? Sounds like it. That's not a good idea. That would create far more problems than it would solve.

Your average citizen is not armed. It seems to me an unarmed citizen would be safer in a gun free zone than outside of it, because, presumably, there would be fewer potential shooters in a gun free zone than outside of it. Sure, a shooter could invade a gun free zone and have at it, but that could also happen outside of a gun free zone.

Would a shooter be more likely to have at it in a gun free zone than outside of one? I don't think so. Why? Because the vast majority of citizens are unarmed, whether they are in a gun free zone or not.

The founding fathers armed the populous. What you dont like is that the freedom to defend oneself ANYWHERE scares you....Why? If you dont wish harm to anyone why would you fear someone who carries a weapon for defense?

Tell me when has Fascism ever worked?

People who carry weapons "for defense" start out with God on their side, but circumstances can change, and they can suddenly become the aggressor in spite of all their initial, good intentions when they first set out to carry the gun "for defense only."
We have an awful lot of road rage incidents in this country. How would it be if the folks who get involved in those incidents were all armed? That's what I mean when I say it is not a good idea to arm the population.

I have owned guns all my life - four or five shotguns and several rifles, all of which I have used for hunting and target shooting. I have a shotgun in the corner of the bedroom and if there was an intruder in the house, I would use it against him if I had to.

I think that handguns are quite a different matter. You don't use a handgun for hunting. People do shoot targets with handguns, but not seriously. The only reason most people target shoot handguns is to hone their ability to shoot straight against another human being if the situation arises.

I am personally in favor of banning handguns and assault weapons. Handguns are too easy to conceal. Not so with shotguns and rifles.

I guess what I am saying is that there are legitimate uses for rifles and shotguns that do not involve killing other human beings. In the case of handguns and assault weapons, I don't see so many legitimate uses other than killing other humans.

So you think it unfair to the attacker for the victim to have the ability to defend themselves????? Why do I care what happens to the aggressor?

 

[George Costanza]

The founding fathers armed the populous. What you dont like is that the freedom to defend oneself ANYWHERE scares you....Why? If you dont wish harm to anyone why would you fear someone who carries a weapon for defense?

Tell me when has Fascism ever worked?

People who carry weapons "for defense" start out with God on their side, but circumstances can change, and they can suddenly become the aggressor in spite of all their initial, good intentions when they first set out to carry the gun "for defense only."
We have an awful lot of road rage incidents in this country. How would it be if the folks who get involved in those incidents were all armed? That's what I mean when I say it is not a good idea to arm the population.

I have owned guns all my life - four or five shotguns and several rifles, all of which I have used for hunting and target shooting. I have a shotgun in the corner of the bedroom and if there was an intruder in the house, I would use it against him if I had to.

I think that handguns are quite a different matter. You don't use a handgun for hunting. People do shoot targets with handguns, but not seriously. The only reason most people target shoot handguns is to hone their ability to shoot straight against another human being if the situation arises.

I am personally in favor of banning handguns and assault weapons. Handguns are too easy to conceal. Not so with shotguns and rifles.

I guess what I am saying is that there are legitimate uses for rifles and shotguns that do not involve killing other human beings. In the case of handguns and assault weapons, I don't see so many legitimate uses other than killing other humans.

So you think it unfair to the attacker for the victim to have the ability to defend themselves????? Why do I care what happens to the aggressor?

Let me ask you a question: would you be in favor of arming every adult citizen in this country with a handgun?

 

[thanatos144]

People who carry weapons "for defense" start out with God on their side, but circumstances can change, and they can suddenly become the aggressor in spite of all their initial, good intentions when they first set out to carry the gun "for defense only."
We have an awful lot of road rage incidents in this country. How would it be if the folks who get involved in those incidents were all armed? That's what I mean when I say it is not a good idea to arm the population.

I have owned guns all my life - four or five shotguns and several rifles, all of which I have used for hunting and target shooting. I have a shotgun in the corner of the bedroom and if there was an intruder in the house, I would use it against him if I had to.

I think that handguns are quite a different matter. You don't use a handgun for hunting. People do shoot targets with handguns, but not seriously. The only reason most people target shoot handguns is to hone their ability to shoot straight against another human being if the situation arises.

I am personally in favor of banning handguns and assault weapons. Handguns are too easy to conceal. Not so with shotguns and rifles.

I guess what I am saying is that there are legitimate uses for rifles and shotguns that do not involve killing other human beings. In the case of handguns and assault weapons, I don't see so many legitimate uses other than killing other humans.

So you think it unfair to the attacker for the victim to have the ability to defend themselves????? Why do I care what happens to the aggressor?

Let me ask you a question: would you be in favor of arming every adult citizen in this country with a handgun?

Nope....Rifle yes.

 

[martybegan]

Cause it seems to me the most dangerous place to be now a days is a gun free zone....Why do we keep them if all they see to do is make it easier for the insane to kill? I know progressives love the idea but lets face it 28 dead children and adults show it doesn't work to well.

Maybe instead of banning Guns or high volume clips we should ban demanding that people become easier targets by getting rid of the gun free zones.

So what are you saying here - that you are in favor of arming the population? Sounds like it. That's not a good idea. That would create far more problems than it would solve.

Your average citizen is not armed. It seems to me an unarmed citizen would be safer in a gun free zone than outside of it, because, presumably, there would be fewer potential shooters in a gun free zone than outside of it. Sure, a shooter could invade a gun free zone and have at it, but that could also happen outside of a gun free zone.

Would a shooter be more likely to have at it in a gun free zone than outside of one? I don't think so. Why? Because the vast majority of citizens are unarmed, whether they are in a gun free zone or not.

Your assumption is based on concealed carry permit holders being more of a threat than people not carrying. When you create a gun free zone the only firearms you are exlcuding are those that are carried by people who respect the law.

Also, if you are some nutter who wants to shoot as many people as possible before dying, where would you go?

A true gun free zone needs checks at the entrances, as well as an armed prescence to take the place of someone own protection. Think more of a controlled environment like a court, or an airport.

 

[martybegan]

So what are you saying here - that you are in favor of arming the population? Sounds like it. That's not a good idea. That would create far more problems than it would solve.

Your average citizen is not armed. It seems to me an unarmed citizen would be safer in a gun free zone than outside of it, because, presumably, there would be fewer potential shooters in a gun free zone than outside of it. Sure, a shooter could invade a gun free zone and have at it, but that could also happen outside of a gun free zone.

Would a shooter be more likely to have at it in a gun free zone than outside of one? I don't think so. Why? Because the vast majority of citizens are unarmed, whether they are in a gun free zone or not.

The founding fathers armed the populous. What you dont like is that the freedom to defend oneself ANYWHERE scares you....Why? If you dont wish harm to anyone why would you fear someone who carries a weapon for defense?

Tell me when has Fascism ever worked?

People who carry weapons "for defense" start out with God on their side, but circumstances can change, and they can suddenly become the aggressor in spite of all their initial, good intentions when they first set out to carry the gun "for defense only."
We have an awful lot of road rage incidents in this country. How would it be if the folks who get involved in those incidents were all armed? That's what I mean when I say it is not a good idea to arm the population.

I have owned guns all my life - four or five shotguns and several rifles, all of which I have used for hunting and target shooting. I have a shotgun in the corner of the bedroom and if there was an intruder in the house, I would use it against him if I had to.

I think that handguns are quite a different matter. You don't use a handgun for hunting. People do shoot targets with handguns, but not seriously. The only reason most people target shoot handguns is to hone their ability to shoot straight against another human being if the situation arises.

I am personally in favor of banning handguns and assault weapons. Handguns are too easy to conceal. Not so with shotguns and rifles.

I guess what I am saying is that there are legitimate uses for rifles and shotguns that do not involve killing other human beings. In the case of handguns and assault weapons, I don't see so many legitimate uses other than killing other humans.

So basically only the police have the right to defend themselves outside thier homes, the rest of us have to hope and pray someone will save our asses before we die?

 

[konradv]

Cause it seems to me the most dangerous place to be now a days is a gun free zone....Why do we keep them if all they see to do is make it easier for the insane to kill? I know progressives love the idea but lets face it 28 dead children and adults show it doesn't work to well.

Maybe instead of banning Guns or high volume clips we should ban demanding that people become easier targets by getting rid of the gun free zones.

We're always asked, "Do you think criminals will follow the law?", but doesn't that reasoning also apply in this case. "Do you think crazies actually read signs?"

 

[konradv]

Cause it seems to me the most dangerous place to be now a days is a gun free zone....Why do we keep them if all they see to do is make it easier for the insane to kill? I know progressives love the idea but lets face it 28 dead children and adults show it doesn't work to well.

Maybe instead of banning Guns or high volume clips we should ban demanding that people become easier targets by getting rid of the gun free zones.

Apparently it has nothing to do with whether the location is a gun-free zone. Crazies will shoot regardless of whether people are armed, so adding more arms doesn't seem to help.

Stalking suspect dead after overpowering arresting officer, taking gun, wounding 3 | Fox News