Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 d-usa wrote:
And just because a shooting happens at a gun-free zone doesn't mean that the shooting happened there because it was a gun free zone, unless you want to argue that any bullet that struck somebody from the opposite race means that the shooter is racist.

You mean like the Zimmerman case?




(It had to be done for Dakka Bingo )

I don't think a gun free zone really does much to prevent mass shootings, but claiming that shooters shoot up a school because its a gun free zone, rather than because they have serious emotional issues about the place, is the kind of silliness that annoys me in the gun debate.

EDIT: There were people shooting malls and schools up before 'gun free zone' was even a phrase.

 LordofHats wrote:
I don't think a gun free zone really does much to prevent mass shootings, but claiming that shooters shoot up a school because its a gun free zone, rather than because they have serious emotional issues about the place, is the kind of silliness that annoys me in the gun debate.

EDIT: There were people shooting malls and schools up before 'gun free zone' was even a phrase.

True.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:


So we should just chalk it up to coincidence that a lot of them keep happening in gun free zones?
- Columbine Was targeted because the kids were in that school and the school contained all the people they wanted to kill.
- AuroraHe was impersonating the Joker and there is really no evidence that the theater was targeted for any other reason than the whole Joker connection
- Sandy Hook They are not really sure why he targeted there, although it appears that it may have been a copycat attack of Columbine.
- Tucson Not a gun-free zone as far as I can recall
- Navy Yard Shooter Looks more like a general workplace violence event than a "I'm going to shoot them because they don't have guns there" event.
- Fort Hood twice 2nd one is still under investigation. 1st one appears to be related more to the fact that his "enemies" were there and not because of lack of weapons.

There really is no evidence that they were targeted because of being gun-free zones, or that the gun-free status even came into consideration.

Here is a list of shootings from 1999-2012

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/mass-shootings-central-american-history-article-1.1457514

Looks like 31 spree shootings, and 8 of them were in gun-free zones.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
(It had to be done for Dakka Bingo )

Like Godwin's law, it doesn't count if you do it deliberately just to cover the square on your card.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Even if we leave aside the notion that active shooters do not use gun free zones as a criteria, many shootings still happen in gun free zones

Are we doing the former? Because if we do, it sure sounds like you're admitting you were in error when you asserted that most active shooters select gun free zones. Are you? It's a common trope, but it's wrong.

So we should just chalk it up to coincidence that a lot of them keep happening in gun free zones?
- Columbine
(snip)
- Navy Yard Shooter

I'm snipping part of that because I have to go to bed and have limited time to research this, but in both the Columbine shooting and the Naval Yard, there were armed law enforcement on the scene right away, in the Columbine case, the armed safety officer, and at the Naval Yard, an armed security guard and former state trooper who was killed and his gun taken. So, not exactly "gun free zones" to begin with. Also, while we're dispensing of things, at least 2 prominent cases where "the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun" was utter nonsense, huh?

 Frazzled wrote:
Fort Hood shooter specifically targeted his location for the large number of people and lack of weapons/response. .

Oh, yeah? He looked up the closest gun free zone, and that was it, so that's why? It had nothing to do with the fact he worked there? And of course, like the other wrong-ass examples above, Fort Hood was not actually gun-free. There was, of course, armed base security, who responded almost immediately; and she got shot up and he continued his rampage. So again, the good guy with a gun trope is nonsense.





Automatically Appended Next Post:

 LordofHats wrote:
I don't think a gun free zone really does much to prevent mass shootings, but claiming that shooters shoot up a school because its a gun free zone, rather than because they have serious emotional issues about the place, is the kind of silliness that annoys me in the gun debate.

Yes. Gun free zones do precisely jack gak to help prevent these sorts of things, and abolishing them will also do precisely jack gak. It's a red herring.

What will prevent them? Hell if I know. The country is awash in guns and there is no political capital or popular desire to change that and even if we did we'd just switch to mass stabbings. Better mental health outreach might be a little more possible to accomplish, but in my opinion we're sort of good with the fact we have these semi-monthly bloodbaths and will do nothing to change it because we don't really care enough.

A gun free zone next door to a gun ok zone is not a gun free zone unless you police the boundary to prevent guns being taken into the gun free zone.

Aside from places like airports I can't think of too many places in america which would count as gun free zones where the boundary is protected to prevent the entrance of guns.

 SilverMK2 wrote:
A gun free zone next door to a gun ok zone is not a gun free zone unless you police the boundary to prevent guns being taken into the gun free zone.

Aside from places like airports I can't think of too many places in america which would count as gun free zones where the boundary is protected to prevent the entrance of guns.

Nonsense. Gun free zones are areas where firearms are prohibited. Thats all it requires.

The country is awash in guns and there is no political capital or popular desire to change that and even if we did we'd just switch to mass stabbings.

I'd like to think our spree killers would adopt some style. China knows how to have a good spree killing. Their spree killers just take some gasoline out and lite a bus on fire with them and every other passanger inside.

 Frazzled wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:
A gun free zone next door to a gun ok zone is not a gun free zone unless you police the boundary to prevent guns being taken into the gun free zone.

Aside from places like airports I can't think of too many places in america which would count as gun free zones where the boundary is protected to prevent the entrance of guns.

Nonsense. Gun free zones are areas where firearms are prohibited. Thats all it requires.

Sure, however you are willfully missing the point. As with any law or protection, it is only as good as the level of enforcement you give it. If you have a 'gun free zone' where no protections are in place to prevent guns being taken into that area, you may as well not have a gun free zone other than to retroactively apply additional penalties to someone who takes a gun into that zone and is found out.

The true value of gun free zones lies in the backing of law when actually enforcing gun free policies. You may have the "right" to carry a gun and have the appropriate permits but in a gun free zone you are not legally able to carry said weapon and that gives strength to the enforcement of maintaining gun free zones.

Those who wish to ban guns would turn the entire USA into such a gun free zone.

 Frazzled wrote:
Those who wish to ban guns would turn the entire USA into such a gun free zone.

Well that's just a blatant lie.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Those who wish to ban guns would turn the entire USA into such a gun free zone.

Well that's just a blatant lie.

You don't think there's powerful organizations who would wish to ban all guns?

gak man, even a former Supreme Court Justice wish he could re-write the 2nd to that effect.

o.O

Switching topic a bit, just for lolz... can you spot the issue with this ad?

 Frazzled wrote:
Those who wish to ban guns would turn the entire USA into such a gun free zone.

There is quite a gap between gun control and banning guns entirely... and as has been mentioned in this and pretty much any other thread dealing with the topic there is almost zero political will to actually ban guns and take them out of circulation.

However, this is diverging from the op slightly.

The point remains that thus proposal would appear to strip the gun free status of schools (and other places) under the law (but apparently not churches unless they elect to allow guns) while still not actually doing anything to protect people who are in/at/using said places fron gun crime.

Again, the point being that proper enforcement of current laws would give significantly greater protection than allow anyone to go wherever they want while packing heat.

Wait, "www.facebook.com/everytownforgunsafety.org"? Yeah, good luck with that...

 whembly wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Those who wish to ban guns would turn the entire USA into such a gun free zone.

Well that's just a blatant lie.

You don't think there's powerful organizations who would wish to ban all guns?

gak man, even a former Supreme Court Justice wish he could re-write the 2nd to that effect.

o.O

Switching topic a bit, just for lolz... can you spot the issue with this ad?

Spoiler:

I was just irritated at the asumption that alll people who want restriction on guns want to ban them completely.

Could than be a portal turret?
“We fire the whole bullet, thats 65% more bullet per bullet."

gak man, even a former Supreme Court Justice wish he could re-write the 2nd to that effect.

Yeah but his rewrite is accurate to the original intent of the 2nd Amendment (good thing RAI never flies eh?)

 LordofHats wrote:

gak man, even a former Supreme Court Justice wish he could re-write the 2nd to that effect.

Yeah but his rewrite is accurate to the original intent of the 2nd Amendment (good thing RAI never flies eh?)

Maybe, maybe not, but the founders would have never dreamed of taking away someone's personal firearms and if they had seen the future they would have made it abundantly clear. It was the status quo for everyone to have a gun of some kind for one reason or another. It was such an obvious thing nobody would have seen the need to make a law about it.

 LordofHats wrote:

gak man, even a former Supreme Court Justice wish he could re-write the 2nd to that effect.

Yeah but his rewrite is accurate to the original intent of the 2nd Amendment (good thing RAI never flies eh?)

Do more research... that's not the original intent.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:

gak man, even a former Supreme Court Justice wish he could re-write the 2nd to that effect.

Yeah but his rewrite is accurate to the original intent of the 2nd Amendment (good thing RAI never flies eh?)

Maybe, but the founders would have never dreamed of taking away someone's personal firearms and if they had seen the future they would have made it abundantly clear. It was the status quo for everyone to have a gun of some kind for one reason or another. It was such an obvious thing nobody would have seen the need to make a law about it.

And it was pretty hard to kill a bunch of people with a gun then as well.
*BLAM!*
"Could you just stay here for a few minutes? I have to reload."

Irrelevant.

And you could actually load a gun pretty dang fast with a little practice. Under 15 seconds. It wasn't a slow process like you think.

Injuries from those weapons were also much more horrific and difficult to treat.

It was a joke.

 whembly wrote:
Do more research... that's not the original intent.

Then you were taught history incorrectly. The Bill of Rights was pushed by anti-Federalists because of specific concerns they had about a Federal government. One was that a national army would be built and used to suppress the states (in a time when the States were viewed as being far more important, and as separate countries from one another) and they felt the need to put into the Consitution law of the land that the states could protect themselves from a tyranical Federal government that might use its own army to subjugate the states. <- Which is pretty much what happened in 1865, so good call Anti-Federalists.

None of the Federalists wanted that either of course, they just put it in writing to appease their opponents.

Paranoia of government. An American tradition since 1776

Maybe, but the founders would have never dreamed of taking away someone's personal firearms and if they had seen the future they would have made it abundantly clear.

You're talking to the guy who regularly mentions that the Founding Father's couldn't possibly have imagined the modern world and that their 'original intent' is about as meaningful to us as poop on the side of the road

 whembly wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:

gak man, even a former Supreme Court Justice wish he could re-write the 2nd to that effect.

Yeah but his rewrite is accurate to the original intent of the 2nd Amendment (good thing RAI never flies eh?)

Do more research... that's not the original intent.

It very well might have even. The only reason it's not now is because 5 people said it wasn't while 4 people said it was.

That is why they wrote the document to be flexible, but also to last. Just because the world is different doesn't mean we can just ignore their original intent. Otherwise there would be no point in a fixed set of laws ever, just draw up a new set every ten years or so.

That path leads to madness.

 LordofHats wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Do more research... that's not the original intent.

Then you were taught history incorrectly. The Bill of Rights was pushed by anti-Federalists because of specific concerns they had about a Federal government. One was that a national army would be built and used to suppress the states (in a time when the States were viewed as being far more important, and as separate countries from one another) and they felt the need to put into the Consitution law of the land that the states could protect themselves from a tyranical Federal government that might use its own army to subjugate the states.

None of the Federalists wanted that either of course, they just put it in writing to appease their opponents.

This is just one founder's explanation. (there's more).
http://www.madisonbrigade.com/t_coxe.htm
To wit:

"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American.... [T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people." (Tench Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.)

Who are the militia's? For all practical purposes, the entire citizenry that has come of age and is not disqualified.

That is the explicit intent of the phrase was simply barring all federal government interference, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

The times of the founders do tend to be plain spoken at times.

 Grey Templar wrote:
That is why they wrote the document to be flexible, but also to last. Just because the world is different doesn't mean we can just ignore their original intent. Otherwise there would be no point in a fixed set of laws ever, just draw up a new set every ten years or so.

That path leads to madness.

Most countries get by just fine with far less frigid legal framworks than the US Constitution, not that I'm arguing against the Constitution right now, just saying that adhering stricting to the intent of the Founders is never something we've really done and we're not any worse off for it..

 d-usa wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:

gak man, even a former Supreme Court Justice wish he could re-write the 2nd to that effect.

Yeah but his rewrite is accurate to the original intent of the 2nd Amendment (good thing RAI never flies eh?)

Do more research... that's not the original intent.

It very well might have even. The only reason it's not now is because 5 people said it wasn't while 4 people said it was.

ain't that the truth.

Thought the Sandy Hook nutso mom worked there?

Think the average time RoF back in those days was three rounds a min and speed shooting was 4-5 rounds a min. Let's not forget dueling with pistols. If I remember I think we had a couple POTUS do that.

"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American.... [T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people." (Tench Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.)

Funny you mention Tench Coxe (he was a weird dude with a weird name). Coxe played a minor but important role in the Second Amendment and Third Amendments when the Bill of Rights was just being proposed. He was a Federalist by nature, but he was one of the first to jump ship over to the Bill of Rights side of things and was an important bridge between the two sides

But get some context Whembly That's my point. The ideal of the 2nd was to ensure the Federal government couldn't go Parliment on the colonies by enabling the states to maintain an armed populace that could form a militia.

Obviously, following the Civil War that issue became moot as the Federal government won the doomsday war of 'tyranny' anyway which left the role of the 2nd Amendment in limbo for decades until the Supreme Court finally said "it's not just about militia, but personal defense in general."

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Those who wish to ban guns would turn the entire USA into such a gun free zone.

Well that's just a blatant lie.

Its a logical statement. If they want to ban guns then by definition the US is a gun free zone (except criminals and the polizei) . Your calling me a liar is an interesting response.