Gun-Free Zone Pseudo Myths

Status
Not open for further replies.
1. Some of these examples happened in states before carry permits were easy to obtain. Would this not basically make the state a gun free zone?
Click to expand...

Cite specific examples, laws and dates. However, I suspect some of the incidents to which you are referring occurred in homes or private property and hence not part of statewide gun free zones as you claim.

2. Some of these examples are direct attacks on police. While we can't know someones intent in these situation, there is a thing called suicide by cop. I don't think you can include these in mass shooting because the cops are targets.
Click to expand...

Doesn't matter. Mass shootings are defined (paraphrased from memory) as 4 or more people shot by a shooter(s) in a singular incident, not inclusive of the shooter(s). That is the definition. It doesn't have exceptions for the police being attacked, suicide by cop, etc.

3. Many of these examples are of a domestic dispute nature. I don't think you can classify these as mass shootings because it would appear that the killer simply wanted to do away with their family. While it is horrible and normally is mental issue related I don't think these are true mass shootings where normal members of the public at large are targeted.
Click to expand...

Doesn't matter. Mass shootings are defined as 4 or more people shot by a person or persons in a singular incident, not inclusive of the shooter(s). That is the definition. It doesn't have exceptions the situations being domestic or not.

4. Some of these examples have happened beyond a "gun buster" sign. While some states these signs don't have any legal status, here in Tennessee violating them is a class b misdemeanor. Even when there is no force of law behind these signs, many people respect them either thru ignorance or just basic common courtesy. I don't think you can fairly group these in with "non-gun free zones."
Click to expand...

Cite specific examples and your proof of what you claim.

5. Some of these examples are workplace violence. Like the family shootings these are horrible and committed by someone with extreme mental problems. But to group these in with mass shootings I think is a characterization.
Click to expand...

Doesn't matter. Mass shootings are defined as 4 or more people shot by a person or persons in a singular incident, not inclusive of the shooter(s). That is the definition. It doesn't have exceptions for the shooting occurring in the workplace.

If you go back and look up case studies of mass shootings, they are indeed inclusive of police, domestic, and workplace situations.

However, if you are going to rule out domestic, police, and workplace shootings, then you have to rule out most of the school mass shootings as well because the shooters are often suicidal (suicidal by cop), know people being shot, and are workplace shootings in some cases as well with the students in a work environment as subordinates to teaching supervisors. Such disallowances would include incidents such as Columbine and VT.

Pretty much the only sorts of shootings your criteria would allow for would be those situations where the shooter has absolutely no relationship with the location and people being shot and isn't planning on being killed by cops. That is going to lower the number of mass shootings down to an extremely small number of shootings, down to the point of almost being non-issues because of their rarity. The list of mass shootings where the shooter does not know any of the people, isn't an employee or former employee, doesn't have any involvement with the location, etc. is going to be a very short list.

DNS, correct me if I am wrong, but I think what you are trying to say in a nutshell is this: the vast majority of mass shootings, and indeed maybe all of them, do not seem to correlate with gun-free or non-gun-free zones. If we insist on making the argument that shootings ONLY happen in gun-free zones, it is too easy to be proven wrong, and hence that argument damages, and does not help, a pro-gun rights stance. We should stop making the argument and argue instead that the evidence suggests that mass shootings happen just as often in gun-free zones as in non-gun-free zones, and hence gun-free zones do not work. I think that is the more powerful argument anyway. Criminals don't care about laws, if they did they wouldn't be out looking to murder dozens of people in the first place.
Click to expand...

Excellent synopsis for the most part. Gun free zones don't work, but the key point here is that neither do guns allowed zones, especially in light of the argument that keeps getting made how mass shootings only or primarily happen in gun free zones. This claim is a blatant misrepresentation.
 
Last edited:
amused, I don't think you understood my point, or DNS's point. I am not making the antis point at all. What I am saying is that by always claiming that shootings ONLY happen in gun-free zones, we allow the antis to contradict us too easily, which weakens us, since this is absolutely NOT true. Mass shootings happen all over. Can they more easily take place in gun-free zones? That is possibly true, and logically it seems so, and there is evidence that mass shootings have been stopped by people with guns, but it is not a correlation that gun-free zone = mass shooting and non-gun free zone does not equal mass shooting.

It is simple enough to state that gun free zones do not prevent mass shootings, as evidenced by all of the mass shootings that have happened in them. Why must we try to take the argument further and state that no mass shootings happen in non-gun free zones, a statement which is categorically and demonstrably false.
 
Great OP, Double Naught Spy.



2009 - Lakewood, WA, four cops killed in coffee shop by Maurice Clemmons.
Click to expand...

BTW: Maurice Clemmons was released from prison by revered, by some, former governor Mike Huckabee.
 
Last edited:
1993 - Branch Davidians mass murder of numerous members in compound by firearm to prevent flight when building caught on fire. Autopsy records indicate that at least 20 Davidians were shot, including five children under the age of 14.
Click to expand...

Um, no. they were burning alive. I would rather be shot than burned alive.
 
I don't know why but, the film "Prizzi's Honor" popped into my head, and I thought, "I wonder what the stats are with with both husband and wife armed in the household? And why and who was the unlucky spouse"? If I had to guess, I'd assume males are the madmen in these situations, because of track record? Thoughts or links?
 
Um, no. they were burning alive. I would rather be shot than burned alive
Click to expand...
.


http://www.public-action.com/SkyWriter/WacoMuseum/death/map/d_list00.html

Other references
http://articles.latimes.com/1993-05-16/news/mn-36222_1_branch-davidians
https://digital.library.txstate.edu/bitstream/handle/10877/1723/259.pdf?sequence=1
http://news.google.com/newspapers?n...7MeAAAAIBAJ&sjid=Qs8EAAAAIBAJ&pg=4820,3732992

Not only were not all "burning alive" as you noted, but several didn't even test positive for carbon monoxide. However, if you have some solid evidence to the contrary that they were able to leave by their own free will and simply killed themselves, including the children, I would like to see it.
 
To this day, no one has been charged or been blamed for the death of the Branch davidians, except those who are already dead. The Waco massacre was botched then covered up. The ATF also trapped them by destroying the building over the entrance to the bunker. the building then caught fire from the Pyrotechnic CS grenades and the BD's couldn't escape. I know people were shot, but it wasn't to prevent escape.
 
Last edited:
according to the UK report, the gunshot wounds are inconclusive due to the vast quantity of live ammo surrounding the bodies. but I'm not here to argue, I'm just not going to buy into the idea that they were a crazy cult who deserved it. I've done some research on the incident, and am not convinced it played out the way it was said to.
 
according to the UK report, the gunshot wounds are inconclusive due to the vast quantity of live ammo surrounding the bodies.
Click to expand...

When then your source is exceptionally dubious. Live ammo doesn't pose a serious threat by itself. It requires a barrel for the bullets to go ballistic. Otherwise, you have bits of case shrapnel that can fly about, but generally poses no real risk.

Check out the ammo exposed to fire here.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3SlOXowwC4c

The ATF also trapped them by destroying the building over the entrance to the bunker. the building then caught fire from the Pyrotechnic CS grenades and the BD's couldn't escape.
Click to expand...

Not all the deceased were recovered from a bunker. The autopsy study of the victims discusses them by injury type and locations where found. With gunshot wounds, listings are made as to suicide or homicide. Note all the homicides of people NOT recovered a bunker.

You can argue the point that such deaths weren't to prevent escape, and that is fine, but it is a mass shooting based on the number of homicides during a singular event.
http://www.apologeticsindex.org/pdf/Graham.pdf
 
VA Tech took place because the shooter was a student there not because no one would have a weapon.
Click to expand...
And you know that because he personally told you?

You miss the point -- he was able to kill so many because all his victims were helpless.
 
Vern Humphrey said:
And you know that because he personally told you?

You miss the point -- he was able to kill so many because all his victims were helpless.
Click to expand...

Not having a firearm does not make one helpless. At least not somebody who is able bodied, or at least partially so.

Sure, possessing a firearm along with the will, and ability, to use it effectively makes a HUGE difference, but not having a gun does not = helpless.
 
Not having a firearm does not make one helpless. At least not somebody who is able bodied, or at least partially so.

Sure, possessing a firearm along with the will, and ability, to use it effectively makes a HUGE difference, but not having a gun does not = helpless.
Click to expand...
How many times have you, personally, gone up against a man with a gun, who was actively killing people, and been the winner?

How many people do you personally know who accomplished that feat?
 
What might be worse is being armed with a gun and still feeling helpless.

Imagine you are in a movie theater. The movie is an action flick and has your attention. At some point, you hear screaming and realize the last few shots you heard were not consistent with the action on screen. You immediately go into Condition Orange and try to identify the source of the shots. You see two people firing at each other.

Two gang-bangers going at each other? A random shooter and a heroic CCW responder? Which is which? How can you tell? What do you do? Do you go Condition Red and get involved or get the heck outta Dodge?
 
The standard rule, on a range, while hunting, or in a self-defense situation is, "Be sure of your target."

If you are not personally threatened and do not know who is who, take cover and monitor the situation as best you can.
 
JRH6856 said:
^^^I've always taken the "self" part of self-defense very seriously.
Click to expand...

This is kind of like the people who say "it's called concealed carry", when open carry is up for discussion. Much of the time it's only called concealed carry because the person saying (or typing) it chose to call it that. Much of the time it is called self-defense because the person saying (or typing) it chose to call it that. Not because that is all that it is and nothing more.

Know your state laws, of course. Know what your moral compass tells you is best. There are LOTS of factors to consider. And no choice is definitively correct until viewed with the 20/20 vision of hindsight...and even then it probably won't be definitively 'correct'.

If you choose to make it self defense and nothing more, as a private citizens, that's fine. That's your choice, and it is yours to make.

Some choose differently.

See my sig.


Vern Humphrey said:
How many times have you, personally, gone up against a man with a gun, who was actively killing people, and been the winner?

How many people do you personally know who accomplished that feat?
Click to expand...

That must mean it is impossible and you are helpless. Your plan, if you are ever caught without a firearm for a situation like that, is to take a knee, bow your head, and wait to be executed, I assume? No use in fighting back in any way because you can never accomplish anything without a gun, right?
 
This is kind of like the people who say "it's called concealed carry", when open carry is up for discussion. Much of the time it's only called concealed carry because the person saying (or typing) it chose to call it that. Much of the time it is called self-defense because the person saying (or typing) it chose to call it that. Not because that is all that it is and nothing more.

Know your state laws, of course. Know what your moral compass tells you is best. There are LOTS of factors to consider. And no choice is definitively correct until viewed with the 20/20 vision of hindsight...and even then it probably won't be definitively 'correct'.

If you choose to make it self defense and nothing more, as a private citizens, that's fine. That's your choice, and it is yours to make.

Some choose differently.

See my sig.
Click to expand...

As I described, it's not that simple. I can defend myself because if I am being attacked, I know who is the agressor and who is not. When other people are involved, it is not that clear cut. I will defend myself and any others whom I know to be dependent upon me for their defense, whenever and however possible. But someone who is unknown to me? That is a completely different story.
 
JRH6856 said:
As I described, it's not that simple. I can defend myself because if I am being attacked, I know who is the agressor and who is not. When other people are involved, it is not that clear cut. I will defend myself and any others whom I know to be dependent upon me for their defense, whenever and however possible. But someone who is unknown to me? That is a completely different story.
Click to expand...

And you are completely free to make that decision however you see fit, which of course includes the way you just said it.
 
Warp said:
And you are completely free to make that decision however you see fit, which of course includes the way you just said it.
Click to expand...
No, Warp, you miss the point. I am not "completely free", I have a responsibility. Whenever we choose to exercise our rights, we have a responsibilty to do so wisely and in a manner that interferes least with the rights of others. Your sig line misses the point as well. All that is necessary for evil to triumph is that good men do the wrong thing. Especially so if they do the wrong thing in the name of doing good.

I am not free to choose whether of not to defend a stranger. My first responsibility is to defend myself and those dependent upon me. And defending oneself also means defending oneself from the consequences of wrong action by trying to avoid such wrong actions. In the case of strangers, if I can act without endangering myself and those dependent upon me to act wisely, it is still my responsibility to act in behalf of the right stranger, not the wrong one. As Vern says, seek a position of safety (which may mean exiting the immediate area) and assess the situation before acting. Sometimes, doing "nothing" is the right thing to do.
 
JRH6856 said:
No, Warp, you miss the point. I am not "completely free", I have a responsibility. Whenever we choose to exercise our rights, we have a responsibilty to do so wisely and in a manner that interferes least with the rights of others. Your sig line misses the point as well. All that is necessary for evil to triumph is that good men do the wrong thing. Especially so if they do the wrong thing in the name of doing good.

I am not free to choose whether of not to defend a stranger. My first responsibility is to defend myself and those dependent upon me. And defending oneself also means defending oneself from the consequences of wrong action by trying to avoid such wrong actions. In the case of strangers, if I can act without endangering myself and those dependent upon me to act wisely, it is still my responsibility to act in behalf of the right stranger, not the wrong one. As Vern says, seek a position of safety (which may mean exiting the immediate area) and assess the situation before acting. Sometimes, doing "nothing" is the right thing to do.
Click to expand...

All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing
 
JRH6856 said:
All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do the wrong thing in the name of doing good.
Click to expand...

I get the feeling you are the exact type of person Burke had in mind, or had experience with, when he said/wrote what he did.

Here's another:

“In any moment of decision, the best thing you can do is the right thing. The worst thing you can do is nothing."
-Theodore Roosevelt

Hell, that's sig material
 
First, there is no evidence, other than common attribution, that Burke actually wrote that. :scrutiny:

Teddy was wrong but that is not surprising given his somewhat impulsive nature. He is wrong because sometimes, nothing may be precisely the right thing to do. But he is right in that at the moment of decision, a decision to act or not must be made and the worst thing is to be indecisive.

I'm not advocating doing nothing. I am advocating trying to do the right thing and if necessary, taking time to determine what the right thing may be. Having time to do that may often mean looking first to ones own protection and defense.

Quite often, "doing something", especially in haste, is the wrong thing to do. After all, after Sandy Hook, the antis insisted we had to "do something" and jumped into action doing precisely the wrong things.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

D
  • Locked
Ban Gun-Free Zones!
Replies
2
Views
393
BBQLS1
B
ol' scratch
  • Locked
Inflating the numbers.
Replies
1
Views
304
MedWheeler
M
O
  • Locked
How about crime free zones?
Replies
5
Views
381
Robert Hairless
R
T
  • Locked
Gun Laws Avert Mass Mall Shooting in Japan
2
Replies
27
Views
2K
Brian Dale
B
P
  • Locked
Most mass shooters got there guns legally
2 3
Replies
50
Views
3K
happygeek
H
Back
Top