Leftists owe the rest of us an explanation for the Florida shooting

[kaz]

Most workplaces are gun free zones, sport.

The premise of this is that if there was any other reason for the shooting, then they don't consider that it's being a gun free zone shooting, which is of course just plain stupid.

It's not just the location, it's that school shooters knowing that it's gun free are going for the record.

And your task is to *PROVE* that that is even a consideration in the shooter's fucked-up mind. It's been the same task all day and you've come up with ....... nothing.

No, no. I think you're right. The shooter went there because schools have chocolate milk and libraries where they can kill time (yuk yuk) during the slow times during the rampage. I think you're on to something there

The difference between that and what you're saying is, I'm not about to claim a specious causal relationship and then go "yuk yuk look at the ball" when called on to prove it. Whereas you are.

Not grasping why someone who wants to shoot as many people as possible would go to a gun free zone to do it is intentionally dense

Sixty-two documented mass shootings, exactly zero (0) of which demonstrate any causal link at all between a "gun free zone" status and the act.

Need a link to what "zero" means?

Now back to you for a discussion of "dense". Aaaaaand GO.

62 shootings, mostly in gun free zones, but leftists determined not to see a link didn't find one. Again, I couldn't make up the stupid crap you people actually believe

 

[Pogo]

Indeed. Given that many of these shooters are suicidal, and looking to go out in a blaze of glory, the thought of a shootout might actually attract them.

Not if they don't first get to cause a lot of terror and bloodshed.

dblack is actually arguing that shooters go to gun free zones contrary to their wanting to shoot outside gun free zones. He's taking the leftist argument to a whole another level of stupid

Guess we'll just have to bust this same myth all over again....

>> Among the 62 mass shootings over the last 30 years that we studied, not a single case includes evidence that the killer chose to target a place because it banned guns. To the contrary, in many of the cases there was clearly another motive for the choice of location.

For example, 20 were workplace shootings, most of which involved perpetrators who felt wronged by employers and colleagues. Last September, when a troubled man working at a sign manufacturer in Minneapolis was told he would be let go, he pulled out a 9mm Glock and killed six people and injured another before putting a bullet in his own head. Similar tragedies unfolded at a beer distributor in Connecticut in 2010 and at a plastics factory in Kentucky in 2008.

Or consider the 12 school shootings we documented, in which all but one of the killers had personal ties to the school they struck. FBI investigators learned from one witness, for example, that the mass shooter in Newtown had long been fixated on Sandy Hook Elementary School, which he’d once attended.

Proponents of this argument also ignore that the majority of mass shootings are murder-suicides. Thirty-six of the killers we studied took their own lives at or near the crime scene, while seven others died in police shootouts they had no hope of surviving (a.k.a. “suicide by cop”). These were not people whose priority was identifying the safest place to attack. << --- NRA Mythology​

Gee Wally --- could it be that mass shooting is an irrational act committed in an emotional rage? Ya think?

>> No less a fantasy is the idea that gun-free zones prevent armed civilians from saving the day. Not one of the 62 mass shootings we documented was stopped this way.

Veteran FBI, ATF, and police officials say that an armed citizen opening fire against an attacker in a panic-stricken movie theater or shopping mall is very likely to make matters worse. Law enforcement agents train rigorously for stopping active shooters, they say, a task that requires extraordinary skills honed under acute duress. In cases in Washington and Texas in 2005, would-be heroes who tried to take action with licensed firearms were gravely wounded and killed. In the Tucson mass shooting in 2011, an armed citizen admitted to coming within a split second of gunning down the wrong person—one of the bystanders who’d helped tackle and subdue the actual killer. << (ibid)​

Yes, of course. You can't risk someone being accidentally shot to stop someone who's repeatedly aiming and firing intentionally at as many people as they can. That would just be fool hardy. It would turn just an every day shooting into a dangerous situation.

I couldn't make up the stupid crap leftists actually believe. How do you come up with that crap?

Whelp --- in this case they came up with it by analyzing data (and getting zero out of 62), interviewing veteran FBI, ATF, and police, and then adding examples where the comic book heroes given a real life scenario were gravely wounded and/or killed.

All of which buries the trite comic book fantasy back into the stuck-together pages in which it belongs.

Unless of course "that crap" to which you refer is your own strawman, in which case I can't tell you how you come up with it.

 

[kaz]

Not if they don't first get to cause a lot of terror and bloodshed.

dblack is actually arguing that shooters go to gun free zones contrary to their wanting to shoot outside gun free zones. He's taking the leftist argument to a whole another level of stupid

Guess we'll just have to bust this same myth all over again....

>> Among the 62 mass shootings over the last 30 years that we studied, not a single case includes evidence that the killer chose to target a place because it banned guns. To the contrary, in many of the cases there was clearly another motive for the choice of location.

For example, 20 were workplace shootings, most of which involved perpetrators who felt wronged by employers and colleagues. Last September, when a troubled man working at a sign manufacturer in Minneapolis was told he would be let go, he pulled out a 9mm Glock and killed six people and injured another before putting a bullet in his own head. Similar tragedies unfolded at a beer distributor in Connecticut in 2010 and at a plastics factory in Kentucky in 2008.

Or consider the 12 school shootings we documented, in which all but one of the killers had personal ties to the school they struck. FBI investigators learned from one witness, for example, that the mass shooter in Newtown had long been fixated on Sandy Hook Elementary School, which he’d once attended.

Proponents of this argument also ignore that the majority of mass shootings are murder-suicides. Thirty-six of the killers we studied took their own lives at or near the crime scene, while seven others died in police shootouts they had no hope of surviving (a.k.a. “suicide by cop”). These were not people whose priority was identifying the safest place to attack. << --- NRA Mythology​

Gee Wally --- could it be that mass shooting is an irrational act committed in an emotional rage? Ya think?

>> No less a fantasy is the idea that gun-free zones prevent armed civilians from saving the day. Not one of the 62 mass shootings we documented was stopped this way.

Veteran FBI, ATF, and police officials say that an armed citizen opening fire against an attacker in a panic-stricken movie theater or shopping mall is very likely to make matters worse. Law enforcement agents train rigorously for stopping active shooters, they say, a task that requires extraordinary skills honed under acute duress. In cases in Washington and Texas in 2005, would-be heroes who tried to take action with licensed firearms were gravely wounded and killed. In the Tucson mass shooting in 2011, an armed citizen admitted to coming within a split second of gunning down the wrong person—one of the bystanders who’d helped tackle and subdue the actual killer. << (ibid)​

Yes, of course. You can't risk someone being accidentally shot to stop someone who's repeatedly aiming and firing intentionally at as many people as they can. That would just be fool hardy. It would turn just an every day shooting into a dangerous situation.

I couldn't make up the stupid crap leftists actually believe. How do you come up with that crap?

Whelp --- in this case they came up with it by analyzing data (and getting zero out of 62), interviewing veteran FBI, ATF, and police, and then adding examples where the comic book heroes given a real life scenario were gravely wounded and/or killed.

All of which buries the trite comic book fantasy back into the stuck-together pages in which it belongs.

Unless of course "that crap" to which you refer is your own strawman, in which case I can't tell you how you come up with it.

They analyzed the data with leftist bigotry. This gun free zone shooting wasn't because it was a gun free zone.

My favorite of your dingbat leftist theories is that shooters got to schools because they have chocolate milk there

 

[Seawytch]

Actual facts tell a mixed story...

Do most mass shootings happen in gun-free zones?

Everytown for Gun Safety found that among 133 mass shootings between January 2009 and July 2015, 70 percent took place in private homes while 13 percent took place in "gun-free zones," where carrying of concealed guns were prohibited. Another 17 percent took place in public areas where the carrying of firearms are allowed.

Daniel Webster, the director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research, who has disagreed with Lott’s findings, pointed to research by Louis Klarevas, a professor at the University of Massachusetts-Boston.

In Klarevas’ book Rampage Nation, he said that Lott has used too loose a concept of gun-free zones.

Klarevas disagrees with gun advocates who define a "gun-free zone" as simply an area that bans private citizens from carrying a gun.

For example, Lott characterized Fort Hood and Washington Navy Yard, military sites attacked by gunmen, as gun-free despite the presence of armed security.

"There’s an obvious logical problem with such a conceptualization: How can a place be a gun-free zone if guns are present?" Klarevas writes. "The implication is that rampage shooters are only deterred by armed civilians, not by armed guards and cops. But that’s an absurd suggestion."

Klarevas uses three definitions: he refers to "gun-free zones" as places where civilians are not allowed to carry guns, and there aren’t armed personnel stationed on the property. He calls "gun-restricting zones" as places where civilians can’t carry guns, yet armed security is routinely present -- such as military facilities or certain college campuses. He refers to places that allow civilians to carry guns as "gun-allowing zones."

Using these categories, Klarevas examined 111 shootings since 1966 in which six or more people had been killed in each incident -- regardless of whether it occurred in a public or private location or if it was in the commission of another crime.

He found 13 took place in gun-free zones and five took place in gun-restricting zones. That means that the majority occurred in areas where there was no evidence that private guns were prohibited.

Since Klarevas includes mass shootings in private residences or during the commission of another crime, that means that he counts several additional incidents that aren’t factored in by Lott.

For example, as a mass shooting in a "gun-allowing zone," Klarevas counts a gunfight between two rival biker gangs in Waco,Texas, in 2015 that left nine people dead. So that’s an example of a shooting that wasn’t in a gun-free zone that is omitted from Lott’s calculations.

The two also disagree on how to characterize whether guns were allowed at certain locations. Lott says that the shooting at Umpqua Community College in Oregon was in a gun-free zone and points to a school policy that bans possession of firearms "except as expressly authorized by law or college regulations."

Umpqua Community College spokeswoman Anne Marie Levis previously told PolitiFact Florida the school’s gun-free policy didn’t apply to students with a valid permit. "UCC was never designated as a ‘gun-free zone’ by any signage or policy," she said. "Umpqua Community College does comply with state law by allowing students with concealed carry licenses to bring firearms on campus."

Our ruling

Corcoran said, "Most of these mass shootings take place in arenas where you're not allowed to have a concealed weapons permit."

Corcoran cites research by an advocate for gun rights who used a strict definition to define places where guns were not allowed. In reality, there are places where concealed weapons are permitted, places where police or security officers openly carry weapons, and places where concealed weapons are not permitted. Additionally, there are different ways to define mass shootings.

We found that advocates for more gun control analyzed the data and reached different conclusions.

Our assessment is that it is difficult to draw broad conclusions about the motivations of the perpetrators of mass shootings or whether they are influenced by gun restrictions. We rate Corcoran’s statement Half True.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Actual facts tell a mixed story...

Do most mass shootings happen in gun-free zones?

Everytown for Gun Safety found that among 133 mass shootings between January 2009 and July 2015, 70 percent took place in private homes while 13 percent took place in "gun-free zones," where carrying of concealed guns were prohibited. Another 17 percent took place in public areas where the carrying of firearms are allowed.

Daniel Webster, the director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research, who has disagreed with Lott’s findings, pointed to research by Louis Klarevas, a professor at the University of Massachusetts-Boston.

In Klarevas’ book Rampage Nation, he said that Lott has used too loose a concept of gun-free zones.

Klarevas disagrees with gun advocates who define a "gun-free zone" as simply an area that bans private citizens from carrying a gun.

For example, Lott characterized Fort Hood and Washington Navy Yard, military sites attacked by gunmen, as gun-free despite the presence of armed security.

"There’s an obvious logical problem with such a conceptualization: How can a place be a gun-free zone if guns are present?" Klarevas writes. "The implication is that rampage shooters are only deterred by armed civilians, not by armed guards and cops. But that’s an absurd suggestion."

Klarevas uses three definitions: he refers to "gun-free zones" as places where civilians are not allowed to carry guns, and there aren’t armed personnel stationed on the property. He calls "gun-restricting zones" as places where civilians can’t carry guns, yet armed security is routinely present -- such as military facilities or certain college campuses. He refers to places that allow civilians to carry guns as "gun-allowing zones."

Using these categories, Klarevas examined 111 shootings since 1966 in which six or more people had been killed in each incident -- regardless of whether it occurred in a public or private location or if it was in the commission of another crime.

He found 13 took place in gun-free zones and five took place in gun-restricting zones. That means that the majority occurred in areas where there was no evidence that private guns were prohibited.

Since Klarevas includes mass shootings in private residences or during the commission of another crime, that means that he counts several additional incidents that aren’t factored in by Lott.

For example, as a mass shooting in a "gun-allowing zone," Klarevas counts a gunfight between two rival biker gangs in Waco,Texas, in 2015 that left nine people dead. So that’s an example of a shooting that wasn’t in a gun-free zone that is omitted from Lott’s calculations.

The two also disagree on how to characterize whether guns were allowed at certain locations. Lott says that the shooting at Umpqua Community College in Oregon was in a gun-free zone and points to a school policy that bans possession of firearms "except as expressly authorized by law or college regulations."

Umpqua Community College spokeswoman Anne Marie Levis previously told PolitiFact Florida the school’s gun-free policy didn’t apply to students with a valid permit. "UCC was never designated as a ‘gun-free zone’ by any signage or policy," she said. "Umpqua Community College does comply with state law by allowing students with concealed carry licenses to bring firearms on campus."

Our ruling

Corcoran said, "Most of these mass shootings take place in arenas where you're not allowed to have a concealed weapons permit."

Corcoran cites research by an advocate for gun rights who used a strict definition to define places where guns were not allowed. In reality, there are places where concealed weapons are permitted, places where police or security officers openly carry weapons, and places where concealed weapons are not permitted. Additionally, there are different ways to define mass shootings.

We found that advocates for more gun control analyzed the data and reached different conclusions.

Our assessment is that it is difficult to draw broad conclusions about the motivations of the perpetrators of mass shootings or whether they are influenced by gun restrictions. We rate Corcoran’s statement Half True.

I started laughing at your "facts" right around the words "Everytown for Gun Safety". Well, actually, I started right around the time I saw that it was you posting. I just stopped reading at "Everytown for Gun Safety".

Am I supposed to be shocked and motivated to immediately ban guns because some left-wing group with an anti-gun agenda miraculously found - HOSANNAH! - that guns are eeeeeevil? What-the ****-ever.

 

[NoNukes]

We banned guns from schools, just like you wanted. Even people with concealed carry permits trained to use their guns safely didn't have them. And your plan worked. No one had a gun and was able to defend themselves and shoot back. And 17 people died because of it.

You owe us an explanation. What is wrong with your plan? Why isn't it working?

Maybe you can ask your drug dealer why banning guns doesn't work the next time you buy a doobie ...

People in other countries do not need guns to fight back at schools. It is an American epidemic, and guns are not the solution.

Single cause fallacy.

And we didn't have shooters 30 years ago and we had the guns. What you have here is a lot of nothing.

Have you mentioned to your drug dealer your theory that if we make something illegal, that means we can't get it?

But you have the constant massacres today, and probably less guns 39 years ago.

There are MORE gun laws now than 39 years ago.

If we'd followed the law in Florida, there would have been no shooting. The only thing more laws do is disarm honest citizens and restrict our ability to protect ourselves.

Riddle me this, Batman.

Are leftists so dumb that they want more gun laws even though a cursory review of shootings shows they don't restrict shooters, they just increase body counts?

Or do leftists not care about that because they are getting what they actually want, disarmed honest citizens?

Are leftists stupid or evil? What say you?

Why do you think that there are so many attacks in the United States, but not in Canada and Europe? Perhaps some societies should not have guns.

 

[NoNukes]

People in other countries do not need guns to fight back at schools. It is an American epidemic, and guns are not the solution.

Single cause fallacy.

And we didn't have shooters 30 years ago and we had the guns. What you have here is a lot of nothing.

Have you mentioned to your drug dealer your theory that if we make something illegal, that means we can't get it?

We had shooters 30 years ago and we kept adding guns per the orders of the NRA. Now we have more shooters.


If we ban drugs only criminals will have drugs....so let’s give everyone drugs.

There weren't the mass shootings 30 years ago at a high rate, particularly at gun free zone schools. That's a lie.

It's racism, isn't it, dumb ass?

What we have here is a single cause fallacy. You're just guilty over the blood of 17 students on your hands.

Let's pretend that gun laws keep guns out of the hands of shooters and remove the ability of anyone to defend themselves now as if it does. Then when it doesn't work, we blame the NRA and demand more laws.

If one digs into your plan, it's as stupid as the first reading of our plan

Why do you not need similar defence in other countries?

There are a lot of other countries. Actually, in many countries you need the same or more defense. You have to be more specific than a sweeping, shallow question

Speaking of sweeping and shallow.

 

[evenflow1969]

I got shot in the ass with bird shot by an idiot

I said I'm sorry. How many times do I have to apologize for that?

Ya, and i am sorry for all those meals you sucked through straw after! How ya like them titanium plates in jaw buddy!

That actually sounded good to you? Probably did since you're the liar who makes up the stupid shit that anyone is advocating that everyone should be armed

No one cares what you think! Your a ******* idiot. Go blow your self

 

[grainbely]

We banned guns from schools, just like you wanted. Even people with concealed carry permits trained to use their guns safely didn't have them. And your plan worked. No one had a gun and was able to defend themselves and shoot back. And 17 people died because of it.

You owe us an explanation. What is wrong with your plan? Why isn't it working?

Maybe you can ask your drug dealer why banning guns doesn't work the next time you buy a doobie ...

The NRA has been working tirelessly and successfully to De regulate guns and weaken enforcement for 40 years. I think you should be asking yourself this question.

 

[BlindBoo]

We banned guns from schools, just like you wanted. Even people with concealed carry permits trained to use their guns safely didn't have them. And your plan worked. No one had a gun and was able to defend themselves and shoot back. And 17 people died because of it.

You owe us an explanation. What is wrong with your plan? Why isn't it working?

Maybe you can ask your drug dealer why banning guns doesn't work the next time you buy a doobie ...

How did that nut get his hands on that gun?

You can't spin this one dummy

Seven in 10 favor tighter gun laws in wake of Parkland shooting

So what, we don't do things by the tyranny of the majority.

Except Supreme Court nominees. The majority in the Senate can now block the President from appointing a new Justice without limit. They simple don't have to have confirmation hearings.

 

[BlindBoo]

I give up. The gun lobby wins. There are too many weapons out there already not to mention the fact that these loonie shooters prove that buying weapons is a piece of cake. We need to keep the kids safe. The Feds need to start paying billions upon billions for Classroom safety. There needs to be huge fees on new gun purchases and even bigger ones for ammunition to pay for the security concerns all these weapons represent.

Don't think you reloaders are going to get off easy either. Huge fees on gunpowder too.

Do it for the children




</sarcasm>

 

[P@triot]

The Feds need to start paying billions upon billions for Classroom safety.

Oh look...once again and uniformed, uneducated progressive expects the federal government to unconstitutionally fund something.

 

[P@triot]

Perhaps some societies should not have guns.

Perhaps nobody is fit to decide for others what they should or should not have, what they should or should not do, what they should or should not think.

In the immortal words of Ronald Reagan...

“If no one among us is fit to govern themselves, who among us is fit to govern others” - Ronald Reagan (January 20, 1981)

 

[P@triot]

Why do you think that there are so many attacks in the United States, but not in Canada and Europe?

Why do you think that every progressive spends all day, every day pointing out how “wonderful” other countries are - but yet never renounce their U.S. citizenships to go live in those other countries?

A. Progressives just hate the U.S.
B. They realize they won’t have conservatives to mooch off of in other nations
C. Progressives don’t want “better” - they just want control
D. All of the above

 

[P@triot]

The truth is so important. The facts are absolutely critical. We, as a society, cannot allow uninformed, emotional, irrational progressives set policy or build their false narratives.

School shootings are down. Way down. And yet the left is in a full on panic-mode tizzy demanding that firearms be banned and the 2nd Amendment torn up. If we didn’t ban firearms in the 1990’s, we sure as hell shouldn’t ban them now.

Schools Safer Now Than They Were in 1990s, According to New Study

 

[NoNukes]

Why do you think that there are so many attacks in the United States, but not in Canada and Europe?

Why do you think that every progressive spends all day, every day pointing out how “wonderful” other countries are - but yet never renounce their U.S. citizenships to go live in those other countries?

A. Progressives just hate the U.S.
B. They realize they won’t have conservatives to mooch off of in other nations
C. Progressives don’t want “better” - they just want control
D. All of the above

I live in one of those other countries, and I am a citizen there. Next!!!

 

[BlindBoo]

The Feds need to start paying billions upon billions for Classroom safety.

Oh look...once again and uniformed, uneducated progressive expects the federal government to unconstitutionally fund something.

Hahahahahaha. Once upon a time they needed a Constitutional Amendment to outlaw Alcohol nation wide. But under the super-hyped-up war on Drugs, they (Feds) granted themselves the authority. Just declare a war on Gun Violence. It's not like I want to ban guns. We just need to own up to the consequences of what we've done by allowing rapid fire assault weapons with large magazines in the hands of nearly every Tom, Dick and Harriet . Come on man, think of the Children.......It's for the Children.......

</sarcasm>

 

[Cecilie1200]

Why do you think that there are so many attacks in the United States, but not in Canada and Europe?

Why do you think that every progressive spends all day, every day pointing out how “wonderful” other countries are - but yet never renounce their U.S. citizenships to go live in those other countries?

A. Progressives just hate the U.S.
B. They realize they won’t have conservatives to mooch off of in other nations
C. Progressives don’t want “better” - they just want control
D. All of the above

I live in one of those other countries, and I am a citizen there. Next!!!

Great. Why the hell are you meddling around, trying to tell us how to run a country you're not even in, then? And why in the hell should we listen to you or care what you have to say? Go bother the people in the country you're actually in. Tell THEM how to run their nation and their lives.

 

[P@triot]

I live in one of those other countries, and I am a citizen there. Next!!!

Which means you have absolutely no business being in a U.S. messageboard, snowflake. Move along now junior. Next!!!

 

[P@triot]

But under the super-hyped-up war on Drugs, they (Feds) granted themselves the authority.

And you do recognize that was highly illegal, don’t you?