Plenty of "Good Guys with Guns" But 6 Injured Anyway

[Esmeralda]

No
They are saying that the guy and others like him, picked the place because it is posted as a gun free zone.

I understand that's what they're saying. And as I just said, that's complete speculation. Because we dare not blaspheme Almighty Gun.

No it's not speculation.
It's reports, studies and statistics, along with common sense and logic.

The Facts about Mass Shootings | National Review Online

I believe our Law enforcement.
Gun-free zones have been the most popular response to previous mass killings. But many law-enforcement officials say they are actually counterproductive.


Economists John Lott and William Landes conducted a groundbreaking study in 1999, and found that a common theme of mass shootings is that they occur in places where guns are banned and killers know everyone will be unarmed, such as shopping malls and schools.

I spoke with Lott after the Newtown shooting, and he confirmed that nothing has changed to alter his findings. He noted that the Aurora shooter, who killed twelve people earlier this year, had a choice of seven movie theaters that were showing the Batman movie he was obsessed with. All were within a 20-minute drive of his home. The Cinemark Theater the killer ultimately chose wasn’t the closest, but it was the only one that posted signs saying it banned concealed handguns carried by law-abiding individuals. All of the other theaters allowed the approximately 4 percent of Colorado adults who have a concealed-handgun permit to enter with their weapons.

Interesting, but the logic doesn't add up. It says that since they choose gun free zones, we should all arm ourselves to protect against these mass shootings. The fact is, if there were no guns at all, there would be no mass shootings. The logic of your premise is to use the bandaid method of fixing things rather than fix the problem in its origin.

 

[Brain357]

I understand that's what they're saying. And as I just said, that's complete speculation. Because we dare not blaspheme Almighty Gun.

No it's not speculation.
It's reports, studies and statistics, along with common sense and logic.

The Facts about Mass Shootings | National Review Online

I believe our Law enforcement.
Gun-free zones have been the most popular response to previous mass killings. But many law-enforcement officials say they are actually counterproductive.


Economists John Lott and William Landes conducted a groundbreaking study in 1999, and found that a common theme of mass shootings is that they occur in places where guns are banned and killers know everyone will be unarmed, such as shopping malls and schools.

I spoke with Lott after the Newtown shooting, and he confirmed that nothing has changed to alter his findings. He noted that the Aurora shooter, who killed twelve people earlier this year, had a choice of seven movie theaters that were showing the Batman movie he was obsessed with. All were within a 20-minute drive of his home. The Cinemark Theater the killer ultimately chose wasn’t the closest, but it was the only one that posted signs saying it banned concealed handguns carried by law-abiding individuals. All of the other theaters allowed the approximately 4 percent of Colorado adults who have a concealed-handgun permit to enter with their weapons.

Interesting, but the logic doesn't add up. It says that since they choose gun free zones, we should all arm ourselves to protect against these mass shootings. The fact is, if there were no guns at all, there would be no mass shootings. The logic of your premise is to use the bandaid method of fixing things rather than fix the problem in its origin.

Every time the armed good guy stops the shooter it's after several have already been shot.

 

[DrDoomNGloom]

I understand that's what they're saying. And as I just said, that's complete speculation. Because we dare not blaspheme Almighty Gun.

No it's not speculation.
It's reports, studies and statistics, along with common sense and logic.

The Facts about Mass Shootings | National Review Online

I believe our Law enforcement.
Gun-free zones have been the most popular response to previous mass killings. But many law-enforcement officials say they are actually counterproductive.


Economists John Lott and William Landes conducted a groundbreaking study in 1999, and found that a common theme of mass shootings is that they occur in places where guns are banned and killers know everyone will be unarmed, such as shopping malls and schools.

I spoke with Lott after the Newtown shooting, and he confirmed that nothing has changed to alter his findings. He noted that the Aurora shooter, who killed twelve people earlier this year, had a choice of seven movie theaters that were showing the Batman movie he was obsessed with. All were within a 20-minute drive of his home. The Cinemark Theater the killer ultimately chose wasn’t the closest, but it was the only one that posted signs saying it banned concealed handguns carried by law-abiding individuals. All of the other theaters allowed the approximately 4 percent of Colorado adults who have a concealed-handgun permit to enter with their weapons.

Interesting, but the logic doesn't add up. It says that since they choose gun free zones, we should all arm ourselves to protect against these mass shootings. The fact is, if there were no guns at all, there would be no mass shootings. The logic of your premise is to use the bandaid method of fixing things rather than fix the problem in its origin.

Actually to change societies morals and attitudes would fix the problem.Teach the young it is wrong to kill and give them good morals and self respect.

The thinking behind the arm everyone strategy is that if the armed perp KNOWS that others WILL be armed he is less likely to pull that weapon. It would not be the uniformed cop or the undercover cop in plain clothes I would think you have to fear as much as the little gray haired lady who has the laser sighted .45 auto mag in her hand bag and has been knocking back Margarita's for the last couple of hours ...

Puts a whole new perspective on crime, doesn't it??

 

[peach174]

I understand that's what they're saying. And as I just said, that's complete speculation. Because we dare not blaspheme Almighty Gun.

No it's not speculation.
It's reports, studies and statistics, along with common sense and logic.

The Facts about Mass Shootings | National Review Online

I believe our Law enforcement.
Gun-free zones have been the most popular response to previous mass killings. But many law-enforcement officials say they are actually counterproductive.


Economists John Lott and William Landes conducted a groundbreaking study in 1999, and found that a common theme of mass shootings is that they occur in places where guns are banned and killers know everyone will be unarmed, such as shopping malls and schools.

I spoke with Lott after the Newtown shooting, and he confirmed that nothing has changed to alter his findings. He noted that the Aurora shooter, who killed twelve people earlier this year, had a choice of seven movie theaters that were showing the Batman movie he was obsessed with. All were within a 20-minute drive of his home. The Cinemark Theater the killer ultimately chose wasn’t the closest, but it was the only one that posted signs saying it banned concealed handguns carried by law-abiding individuals. All of the other theaters allowed the approximately 4 percent of Colorado adults who have a concealed-handgun permit to enter with their weapons.

Nope, still speculation. Let me hear it from the shooter's mouth and we'll talk turkey. Third parties speculating about somebody else's motives are still just that.

Why did the guy who shot up the movie theater in Colorado not go to any of the others which was closer but allowed concealed carry?
He went to the only one around there that had the no guns allowed sign.

It pretty ding dang hard to talk to the ones who committed suicide right after those mass shootings.

 

[Pogo]

No it's not speculation.
It's reports, studies and statistics, along with common sense and logic.

The Facts about Mass Shootings | National Review Online

I believe our Law enforcement.
Gun-free zones have been the most popular response to previous mass killings. But many law-enforcement officials say they are actually counterproductive.


Economists John Lott and William Landes conducted a groundbreaking study in 1999, and found that a common theme of mass shootings is that they occur in places where guns are banned and killers know everyone will be unarmed, such as shopping malls and schools.

I spoke with Lott after the Newtown shooting, and he confirmed that nothing has changed to alter his findings. He noted that the Aurora shooter, who killed twelve people earlier this year, had a choice of seven movie theaters that were showing the Batman movie he was obsessed with. All were within a 20-minute drive of his home. The Cinemark Theater the killer ultimately chose wasn’t the closest, but it was the only one that posted signs saying it banned concealed handguns carried by law-abiding individuals. All of the other theaters allowed the approximately 4 percent of Colorado adults who have a concealed-handgun permit to enter with their weapons.

Interesting, but the logic doesn't add up. It says that since they choose gun free zones, we should all arm ourselves to protect against these mass shootings. The fact is, if there were no guns at all, there would be no mass shootings. The logic of your premise is to use the bandaid method of fixing things rather than fix the problem in its origin.

Actually to change societies morals and attitudes would fix the problem.Teach the young it is wrong to kill and give them good morals and self respect.

The thinking behind the arm everyone strategy is that if the armed perp KNOWS that others WILL be armed he is less likely to pull that weapon. It would not be the uniformed cop or the undercover cop in plain clothes I would think you have to fear as much as the little gray haired lady who has the laser sighted .45 auto mag in her hand bag and has been knocking back Marquita's for the last couple of hours ...

Why that theory doesn't work: the shooter in this incident turned the gun on himself, so it wouldn't matter whether whoever stopped him was a bystander in the area or LE from outside. Same think Lanza did. Same thing Klebold and Harris did, same thing Page did and countless others.

Clearly, self-preservation isn't part of their plan. Inflicting carnage is. Which is also why the tired old "could have used a baseball bat" argument never worked either.

 

[Brain357]

No it's not speculation.
It's reports, studies and statistics, along with common sense and logic.

The Facts about Mass Shootings | National Review Online

I believe our Law enforcement.
Gun-free zones have been the most popular response to previous mass killings. But many law-enforcement officials say they are actually counterproductive.


Economists John Lott and William Landes conducted a groundbreaking study in 1999, and found that a common theme of mass shootings is that they occur in places where guns are banned and killers know everyone will be unarmed, such as shopping malls and schools.

I spoke with Lott after the Newtown shooting, and he confirmed that nothing has changed to alter his findings. He noted that the Aurora shooter, who killed twelve people earlier this year, had a choice of seven movie theaters that were showing the Batman movie he was obsessed with. All were within a 20-minute drive of his home. The Cinemark Theater the killer ultimately chose wasn’t the closest, but it was the only one that posted signs saying it banned concealed handguns carried by law-abiding individuals. All of the other theaters allowed the approximately 4 percent of Colorado adults who have a concealed-handgun permit to enter with their weapons.

Interesting, but the logic doesn't add up. It says that since they choose gun free zones, we should all arm ourselves to protect against these mass shootings. The fact is, if there were no guns at all, there would be no mass shootings. The logic of your premise is to use the bandaid method of fixing things rather than fix the problem in its origin.

Actually to change societies morals and attitudes would fix the problem.Teach the young it is wrong to kill and give them good morals and self respect.

The thinking behind the arm everyone strategy is that if the armed perp KNOWS that others WILL be armed he is less likely to pull that weapon. It would not be the uniformed cop or the undercover cop in plain clothes I would think you have to fear as much as the little gray haired lady who has the laser sighted .45 auto mag in her hand bag and has been knocking back Marquita's for the last couple of hours ...

Puts a whole new perspective on crime, doesn't it??

Most mass shooters commit suicide. Don't think armed victims is a deterrent.

 

[zeke]

A fact that seems to be lost on him. It's as though he's saying "If we all only had happy thoughts, everything would be fine".

No actually it's as though you're saying "this guy violated a gun free zone; therefore all gun free zones are violated". Doesn't work.

No, not at all. Allow me to be clear: I'm saying that armed thugs and crazies do not and have never followed the rules of a gun free zone. Therefore, the idea of preventing good, law abiding citizens from the possibility of effectively defending themselves, which is exactly what a gun free zone does, is ridiculous and should not be imposed. That's not at all saying "all gun free zones are violated", which is clearly not the case.

Ima thinking that gun free work zones are intended to keep normal worker frictions from escalating into something worse than harassment or a fist fight......like shooting.

And possibly companies would like to assure their customers that their workers are not carrying a weapon. Some customers might not be comfortable around guns.

Gun free zones were never intended as advertisement to crazy people to come on in and start shooting.

Be interesting to see if this guy was a former employee. Or had a gripe with an employee of the the company.

There is another reason this guy shot these people other than they worked in a gun free workplace.

Besides that, if there were employees who felt in great danger by not being able to carry their weapon to work, they always had their right to quit working at this place. This is still America and you don't have to work where they don't let you bring your gun to work.

 

[peach174]

No it's not speculation.
It's reports, studies and statistics, along with common sense and logic.

The Facts about Mass Shootings | National Review Online

I believe our Law enforcement.
Gun-free zones have been the most popular response to previous mass killings. But many law-enforcement officials say they are actually counterproductive.


Economists John Lott and William Landes conducted a groundbreaking study in 1999, and found that a common theme of mass shootings is that they occur in places where guns are banned and killers know everyone will be unarmed, such as shopping malls and schools.

I spoke with Lott after the Newtown shooting, and he confirmed that nothing has changed to alter his findings. He noted that the Aurora shooter, who killed twelve people earlier this year, had a choice of seven movie theaters that were showing the Batman movie he was obsessed with. All were within a 20-minute drive of his home. The Cinemark Theater the killer ultimately chose wasn’t the closest, but it was the only one that posted signs saying it banned concealed handguns carried by law-abiding individuals. All of the other theaters allowed the approximately 4 percent of Colorado adults who have a concealed-handgun permit to enter with their weapons.

Interesting, but the logic doesn't add up. It says that since they choose gun free zones, we should all arm ourselves to protect against these mass shootings. The fact is, if there were no guns at all, there would be no mass shootings. The logic of your premise is to use the bandaid method of fixing things rather than fix the problem in its origin.

Actually to change societies morals and attitudes would fix the problem.Teach the young it is wrong to kill and give them good morals and self respect.
The thinking behind the arm everyone strategy is that if the armed perp KNOWS that others WILL be armed he is less likely to pull that weapon. It would not be the uniformed cop or the undercover cop in plain clothes I would think you have to fear as much as the little gray haired lady who has the laser sighted .45 auto mag in her hand bag and has been knocking back Margarita's for the last couple of hours ...

Puts a whole new perspective on crime, doesn't it??

Which is what we had in the 1950's and 1960's
Teenage boys use to take their guns to school and went hunting and target shooting when school let out. They were all taught that life was precious and they all had morals and self respect for themselves as well as others.

 

[DrDoomNGloom]

Interesting, but the logic doesn't add up. It says that since they choose gun free zones, we should all arm ourselves to protect against these mass shootings. The fact is, if there were no guns at all, there would be no mass shootings. The logic of your premise is to use the bandaid method of fixing things rather than fix the problem in its origin.

Actually to change societies morals and attitudes would fix the problem.Teach the young it is wrong to kill and give them good morals and self respect.

The thinking behind the arm everyone strategy is that if the armed perp KNOWS that others WILL be armed he is less likely to pull that weapon. It would not be the uniformed cop or the undercover cop in plain clothes I would think you have to fear as much as the little gray haired lady who has the laser sighted .45 auto mag in her hand bag and has been knocking back Marquita's for the last couple of hours ...

Why that theory doesn't work: the shooter in this incident turned the gun on himself, so it wouldn't matter whether whoever stopped him was a bystander in the area or LE from outside. Same think Lanza did. Same thing Klebold and Harris did, same thing Page did and countless others. Clearly, "survival" isn't part of their plan. Inflicting carnage is.

Which means you still do not understand...

Given this scenario if all the employes and supervisors had been armed, the shooter might have considered that before entering. Had it been a requirement, then he probably would have chosen an easier target or backed out all together.
I guess with your thought's alarm systems on residences do not detour criminals ...
Statistics and criminals that have been caught and convicted will tell you that they do not rob houses with alarms when there are so many without ... too much hassle.

 

[zeke]

Have you ever noticed how in the armed fantasy land, surprise never works. No employee carrying a gun would be shocked if someone came in that they had no reason to fear and started shooting people.

Surprise works for every other violent situation I know of. Ambushes are all about surprise.

But not in fantasy gun land. When that shooter walks in and pulls his gun, no one would freeze, no fear for YOUR life would kick in, no surprise at all. They would all immediately pull their weapons and with laser accuracy and large caliber weapons.............. start shooting at each other.

 

[Pogo]

Interesting, but the logic doesn't add up. It says that since they choose gun free zones, we should all arm ourselves to protect against these mass shootings. The fact is, if there were no guns at all, there would be no mass shootings. The logic of your premise is to use the bandaid method of fixing things rather than fix the problem in its origin.

Actually to change societies morals and attitudes would fix the problem.Teach the young it is wrong to kill and give them good morals and self respect.
The thinking behind the arm everyone strategy is that if the armed perp KNOWS that others WILL be armed he is less likely to pull that weapon. It would not be the uniformed cop or the undercover cop in plain clothes I would think you have to fear as much as the little gray haired lady who has the laser sighted .45 auto mag in her hand bag and has been knocking back Margarita's for the last couple of hours ...

Puts a whole new perspective on crime, doesn't it??

Which is what we had in the 1950's and 1960's
Teenage boys use to take their guns to school and went hunting and target shooting when school let out. They were all taught that life was precious and they all had morals and self respect for themselves as well as others.

I think Peach is on the right track here. Now, when I was in school in the '60s there was an incident where some kid came in armed and we had practically a lockdown and much weeping and gnashing of administrative teeth. But school shootings as we have now were unknown then, and we all scratched our heads at what may be common now but then was considered simply bizarre --- why would you bring guns to school? Presumably to settle a score with some other student, but of course that wasn't about to end well if it had happened and hadn't been intercepted. But that's the kind of word the war zone comic book fetishists would have us in with everybody armed.

The point being, shootings in schools and public places didn't used to be commonplace half a century ago. Something evolved, or devolved, and it wasn't gun technology. It was the culture.

 

[WinterBorn]

Gun lovers are the only people on this planet who fail to see a connection between guns and gun violence.

Nothing to see here! Only six wounded! It's tougher to rationalize Sandy Hook, but Kennesaw should be a slam dunk!

Sure, there is a connection. Just as there is a connection between automobiles and drunk driving deaths.

Megyn Kelly said it best....

When asked if she preferred being attacked by one with a gun or one with a knife.....

her answer was....

"I would prefer having a gun to defend myself against either of them"

Automobiles are not designed to kill.

That does not change the fact that the connection between guns and gun violence is the same as the connection between automobiles and drunk driving deaths.


But you have argued against guns on several threads. What is your answer to the problem? What do you want (regardless of whether it is politically feasible) to happen to change things?

 

[Pogo]

Actually to change societies morals and attitudes would fix the problem.Teach the young it is wrong to kill and give them good morals and self respect.

The thinking behind the arm everyone strategy is that if the armed perp KNOWS that others WILL be armed he is less likely to pull that weapon. It would not be the uniformed cop or the undercover cop in plain clothes I would think you have to fear as much as the little gray haired lady who has the laser sighted .45 auto mag in her hand bag and has been knocking back Marquita's for the last couple of hours ...

Why that theory doesn't work: the shooter in this incident turned the gun on himself, so it wouldn't matter whether whoever stopped him was a bystander in the area or LE from outside. Same think Lanza did. Same thing Klebold and Harris did, same thing Page did and countless others. Clearly, "survival" isn't part of their plan. Inflicting carnage is.

Which means you still do not understand...

Given this scenario if all the employes and supervisors had been armed, the shooter might have considered that before entering. Had it been a requirement, then he probably would have chosen an easier target or backed out all together.
I guess with your thought's alarm systems on residences do not detour criminals ...
Statistics and criminals that have been caught and convicted will tell you that they do not rob houses with alarms when there are so many without ... too much hassle.

Ah -- no, it may mean you do not understand...

This guy offed himself. As did others already named. Ergo, whether they're going to get shot back at sooner, or shot back at later, is irrelevant -- they've already chosen their escape route. They're not going to be taken alive, zone sign or no zone sign. And again, you're presuming to analyze the reasoning of a wacko who's wacko enough to start shooting random people, by using logic. If picking off random people with a gun is not rational, then there's no reason to expect his reasoning is either.

 

[WinterBorn]

Have you ever noticed how in the armed fantasy land, surprise never works. No employee carrying a gun would be shocked if someone came in that they had no reason to fear and started shooting people.

Surprise works for every other violent situation I know of. Ambushes are all about surprise.

But not in fantasy gun land. When that shooter walks in and pulls his gun, no one would freeze, no fear for YOUR life would kick in, no surprise at all. They would all immediately pull their weapons and with laser accuracy and large caliber weapons.............. start shooting at each other.

Jeez, you really are stretching the bounds of reality.

No one says that armed good guys would stop all murders. But what would very likely happen is that there would be fewer injured and fewer dead.

Do you think this would be news if one guy shot another guy, then got shot?

 

[WinterBorn]

Why that theory doesn't work: the shooter in this incident turned the gun on himself, so it wouldn't matter whether whoever stopped him was a bystander in the area or LE from outside. Same think Lanza did. Same thing Klebold and Harris did, same thing Page did and countless others. Clearly, "survival" isn't part of their plan. Inflicting carnage is.

Which means you still do not understand...

Given this scenario if all the employes and supervisors had been armed, the shooter might have considered that before entering. Had it been a requirement, then he probably would have chosen an easier target or backed out all together.
I guess with your thought's alarm systems on residences do not detour criminals ...
Statistics and criminals that have been caught and convicted will tell you that they do not rob houses with alarms when there are so many without ... too much hassle.

Ah -- no, it may mean you do not understand...

This guy offed himself. As did others already named. Ergo, whether they're going to get shot back at sooner, or shot back at later, is irrelevant -- they've already chosen their escape route. They're not going to be taken alive, zone sign or no zone sign. And again, you're presuming to analyze the reasoning of a wacko who's wacko enough to start shooting random people, by using logic. If picking off random people with a gun is not rational, then there's no reason to expect his reasoning is either.

So you don't expect rational behavior from an irrational person. But you expect law abiding behavior from criminals?

 

[Pogo]

Sure, there is a connection. Just as there is a connection between automobiles and drunk driving deaths.

Megyn Kelly said it best....

When asked if she preferred being attacked by one with a gun or one with a knife.....

her answer was....

"I would prefer having a gun to defend myself against either of them"

Automobiles are not designed to kill.

That does not change the fact that the connection between guns and gun violence is the same as the connection between automobiles and drunk driving deaths.

No it isn't, not even close. Number one, a drunk driving wreck is an accident; a gunshot is, unless the gun fires by itself which we're told is impossible, a deliberate act. Second, a car is designed for travel, not inflicting harm. That may errantly bring lethal results as a result of an accident doesn't make it a gun -- which is designed for nothing but inflicting gunshot wounds. IOW when the drunk driver wrecks, the car wasn't doing what it's designed to do (and in fact is designed to avoid). But when a sniper starts picking people off, the gun IS doing what it's designed for.

That's why the car analogy doesn't work and never did.

 

[Pogo]

Which means you still do not understand...

Given this scenario if all the employes and supervisors had been armed, the shooter might have considered that before entering. Had it been a requirement, then he probably would have chosen an easier target or backed out all together.
I guess with your thought's alarm systems on residences do not detour criminals ...
Statistics and criminals that have been caught and convicted will tell you that they do not rob houses with alarms when there are so many without ... too much hassle.

Ah -- no, it may mean you do not understand...

This guy offed himself. As did others already named. Ergo, whether they're going to get shot back at sooner, or shot back at later, is irrelevant -- they've already chosen their escape route. They're not going to be taken alive, zone sign or no zone sign. And again, you're presuming to analyze the reasoning of a wacko who's wacko enough to start shooting random people, by using logic. If picking off random people with a gun is not rational, then there's no reason to expect his reasoning is either.

So you don't expect rational behavior from an irrational person. But you expect law abiding behavior from criminals?

Link to where I said anything remotely like that...

?

 

[zeke]

Sure, there is a connection. Just as there is a connection between automobiles and drunk driving deaths.

Megyn Kelly said it best....

When asked if she preferred being attacked by one with a gun or one with a knife.....

her answer was....

"I would prefer having a gun to defend myself against either of them"

Automobiles are not designed to kill.

That does not change the fact that the connection between guns and gun violence is the same as the connection between automobiles and drunk driving deaths.


But you have argued against guns on several threads. What is your answer to the problem? What do you want (regardless of whether it is politically feasible) to happen to change things?

WTF are you talking about? I bought my guns with the INTENT to be able commits a violent act (shooting someone or something.) That was the intention and purpose of me buying guns.

Did you buy your car or truck with the INTENT of killing someone while you were driving drunk? Hell no.

But you did buy your guns for the same reason I bought mine. And that makes it much different than cars or trucks. Or any other inanimate objects you gun nuts like to trot out to show how those items can kill, you know; hammers, shoes, screwdrivers, golf clubs etc etc.

None of those other items were made expressly to kill. Not one.

 

[Pogo]

Automobiles are not designed to kill.

That does not change the fact that the connection between guns and gun violence is the same as the connection between automobiles and drunk driving deaths.


But you have argued against guns on several threads. What is your answer to the problem? What do you want (regardless of whether it is politically feasible) to happen to change things?

WTF are you talking about? I bought my guns with the INTENT to be able commits a violent act (shooting someone or something.) That was the intention and purpose of me buying guns.

Did you buy your car or truck with the INTENT of killing someone while you were driving drunk? Hell no.

But you did buy your guns for the same reason I bought mine. And that makes it much different than cars or trucks. Or any other inanimate objects you gun nuts like to trot out to show how those items can kill, you know; hammers, shoes, screwdrivers, golf clubs etc etc.

None of those other items were made expressly to kill. Not one.

To take the idea to its logical extent ---- does anyone buy a car with the intent not of killing anyone but rather to be ready to ram another driver who goes berserk and starts hitting people?

Self delusion prevents the holder of an absurd position from seeing just how absurd it is.

 

[Esmeralda]

No it's not speculation.
It's reports, studies and statistics, along with common sense and logic.

The Facts about Mass Shootings | National Review Online

I believe our Law enforcement.
Gun-free zones have been the most popular response to previous mass killings. But many law-enforcement officials say they are actually counterproductive.


Economists John Lott and William Landes conducted a groundbreaking study in 1999, and found that a common theme of mass shootings is that they occur in places where guns are banned and killers know everyone will be unarmed, such as shopping malls and schools.

I spoke with Lott after the Newtown shooting, and he confirmed that nothing has changed to alter his findings. He noted that the Aurora shooter, who killed twelve people earlier this year, had a choice of seven movie theaters that were showing the Batman movie he was obsessed with. All were within a 20-minute drive of his home. The Cinemark Theater the killer ultimately chose wasn’t the closest, but it was the only one that posted signs saying it banned concealed handguns carried by law-abiding individuals. All of the other theaters allowed the approximately 4 percent of Colorado adults who have a concealed-handgun permit to enter with their weapons.

Interesting, but the logic doesn't add up. It says that since they choose gun free zones, we should all arm ourselves to protect against these mass shootings. The fact is, if there were no guns at all, there would be no mass shootings. The logic of your premise is to use the bandaid method of fixing things rather than fix the problem in its origin.

Actually to change societies morals and attitudes would fix the problem.Teach the young it is wrong to kill and give them good morals and self respect.

The thinking behind the arm everyone strategy is that if the armed perp KNOWS that others WILL be armed he is less likely to pull that weapon. It would not be the uniformed cop or the undercover cop in plain clothes I would think you have to fear as much as the little gray haired lady who has the laser sighted .45 auto mag in her hand bag and has been knocking back Margarita's for the last couple of hours ...

Puts a whole new perspective on crime, doesn't it??

No.