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

[Pogo]

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 ...

As already correct noted, your thread premise fails as a fallacy.

There's no evidence that mass shooters target schools because they're perceived to be 'gun free' zones.

Indeed, there's no evidence that guns in schools would act as a deterrent to school shootings.

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?

 

[kaz]

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 ...

As already correct noted, your thread premise fails as a fallacy.

There's no evidence that mass shooters target schools because they're perceived to be 'gun free' zones.

Indeed, there's no evidence that guns in schools would act as a deterrent to school shootings.

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?

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. Florida raised the record from 13 to 17. If CC holders were allowed to CC, then they wouldn't just be arming up to inflict body counts. There might be a shooting, but with a far smaller dead count.

And seriously, they don't consider mall shootings or Aurora to be gun free zone targets? The bias is so obvious.

And in Florida, he didn't target anyone specifically. There is no reason to believe he would have gone there other than that he knew it was a gun free zone

 

[Pogo]

Of course, and they will aim at other teachers and administrators. The key is that he won't know which ones do and don't have guns. There had to have been at least 100 administrators and teachers for the 2000 students in Florida. Even based on average Florida CC rates, that's 7 or 8 CC's. And he has no idea who has the guns.

Correct. He has no idea who's armed. Therefore he takes out the adult first, ensuring that IF that adult was armed, she's out of the way. And maybe she wasn't. Maybe she just wanted to be an educator and help young minds develop, and your gun nuttery put that target on her back. Nice job thinking it through.

You do understand that those teachers/administrators are going to be spread out, not all in one room, right? And that they are far outnumbered by their students, meaning that in a given section there will be FAR fewer adults to pick off than children, and if the adults are who you have armed.... do the math.

That you think directing a shooter who's going to indiscriminately shoot everyone and make them pick out the most dangerous supports the point, doesn't it? Up until now you've been arguing that he doesn't care it's a gun free zone. You just conceded that he does.

I've "conceded" nothing of the kind. I have no evidence whatsoever, and you've still FAILED to provide any, that "gun free zone" is any part of the shooter's consideration at all.

And aiming will take more time while the other armed people realize he's there and come from any direction

If you're planning a mass shooting, which is by definition a surprise event, and you haven't yet fired your first shot --- then you have all the time in the world to aim and plan that first shot. And if gun nuts have painted that target on the teacher's back --- guess where that shot is going.

 

[Pogo]

As already correct noted, your thread premise fails as a fallacy.

There's no evidence that mass shooters target schools because they're perceived to be 'gun free' zones.

Indeed, there's no evidence that guns in schools would act as a deterrent to school shootings.

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?

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.

 

[kaz]

Of course, and they will aim at other teachers and administrators. The key is that he won't know which ones do and don't have guns. There had to have been at least 100 administrators and teachers for the 2000 students in Florida. Even based on average Florida CC rates, that's 7 or 8 CC's. And he has no idea who has the guns.

Correct. He has no idea who's armed. Therefore he takes out the adult first, ensuring that IF that adult was armed, she's out of the way. And maybe she wasn't. Maybe she just wanted to be an educator and help young minds develop, and your gun nuttery put that target on her back. Nice job thinking it through.

You do understand that those teachers/administrators are going to be spread out, not all in one room, right? And that they are far outnumbered by their students, meaning that in a given section there will be FAR fewer adults to pick off than children, and if the adults are who you have armed.... do the math.

That you think directing a shooter who's going to indiscriminately shoot everyone and make them pick out the most dangerous supports the point, doesn't it? Up until now you've been arguing that he doesn't care it's a gun free zone. You just conceded that he does.

I've "conceded" nothing of the kind. I have no evidence whatsoever, and you've still FAILED to provide any, that "gun free zone" is any part of the shooter's consideration at all.

And aiming will take more time while the other armed people realize he's there and come from any direction

If you're planning a mass shooting, which is by definition a surprise event, and you haven't yet fired your first shot --- then you have all the time in the world to aim and plan that first shot. And if gun nuts have painted that target on the teacher's back --- guess where that shot is going.

So you think if the Florida shooter shot one teacher in one classroom he'd be safe?

Seriously?

I thought I remembered the school had 2K kids, but I just googled and there were 3,000 kids.

There had to be at least 150 staff (admins + teachers). Where do you get there was one?

And why is shooting the teacher first somehow worse than starting to shoot kids? Wouldn't they likely kill the teacher first anyway because they were probably most likely to fight back?

 

[kaz]

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?

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

 

[BlindBoo]

Now you're just reiterating over and over that you CAN'T prove the causation. Nor can you answer the pre-sign shootings that spurred the signs --- without which causation no signs would have existed or ever been contemplated.

We seem to have doubled down on an Association Fallacy with the good ol' reliable Everybody Knows Fallacy on top of it.

Theory is thus dismissed.

Yes, shooters go to gun free zones where they don't run into other guns because the gun free zones are working for honest citizens.

Pogo: WTF causes that? It's a total mystery. Maybe it's ice cream stands?

I don't think most of the students (or former student) mass murderers target their schools because of the gun free zone laws at all.

The shooter shot freely until the timer in his head went off that the cops could be arriving, he ditched his guns and went out with the other students.

But you don't see any connection with it being a gun free zone.

Of course you do, you're just intellectually dishonest like the rest of the leftists. The more stupid a leftist argument is, the more proud you are of believing it

While it may have played a role his his strategy, I don't believe it was the deciding factors in his decision to shoot the place up.

He'd have just as soon gone to somewhere in Florida which wasn't a gun free zone? That wasn't a factor in his choice, just his strategy?

Florida?

Wow, he was lucky then that he picked the gun free zone since he didn't really care.

There were almost 1.4 million valid CC permits in Florida as of the last data two years ago. Double Texas. But he wasn't concerned about that. Sure he wasn't.

Let's go more your speed. Here's a stick, It's a stick! There you go, jump up and down, ok, I'm throwing it ... now! Good boy Boo, Good boy. That was great. OK, sure, I'll throw it again ...

Of course you did. Classic Association Fallacy. Two pieces of circumstance in the same place "must" mean one causes the other. Wellllllllllllll no, it does not.

Doesn't begin to essplain the shootings that led to the signs being put up in the first place, now does it?



It's being logical. You have a causation theory --- prove the causation exists.

Pogo: Why would a shooter go to a gun free zone? I don't get it

Sure you do, Pogo

Now you're just reiterating over and over that you CAN'T prove the causation. Nor can you answer the pre-sign shootings that spurred the signs --- without which causation no signs would have existed or ever been contemplated.

We seem to have doubled down on an Association Fallacy with the good ol' reliable Everybody Knows Fallacy on top of it.

Theory is thus dismissed.

Yes, shooters go to gun free zones where they don't run into other guns because the gun free zones are working for honest citizens.

Pogo: WTF causes that? It's a total mystery. Maybe it's ice cream stands?

I don't think most of the students (or former student) mass murderers target their schools because of the gun free zone laws at all.

So you think they would still go there if they knew they were going to get shot as soon as they pulled out their gun?

I certainly hope so!

 

[Pogo]

So you think if the Florida shooter shot one teacher in one classroom he'd be safe?

Seriously?

Sigh. No. In a shooting rampage there is no "safe". The shooter himself is the first one to know that he's about to put himself in danger, presumably the "suicide by cop" noted above --- and if he can he'll off himself as his last act, as also noted.

What I'm saying that's sailing over your head is that pouring arms into schools with the attitude of "arming teachers" --- automatically makes them the first target to any shooter who's aware of that model, even if a given teacher is NOT armed. And that removes the literal adult in the room who's most likely to coordinate getting the kids to safety, after which point you have CHAOS with the shooter in charge of it.

There had to be at least a hundred teachers and administrators in the building.

I thought I remembered the school had 2K kids, but I just googled and there were 3,000 kids.

There had to be at least 150 staff (admins + teachers). Where do you get there was one?

I did not say "there was one". I presented a scenario, which is what you have to do when you think something through and conclude that maybe it's a stupid idea.

And why is shooting the teacher first somehow worse than starting to shoot kids?

Once AGAIN I made no mention of what was "better" or "worse". You plugged that value judgment in. I analyzed HOW IT WORKS, which is, again, what you have to do when you think something through.

 

[Pogo]

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?

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.

 

[sealybobo]

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

 

[kaz]

So you think if the Florida shooter shot one teacher in one classroom he'd be safe?

Seriously?

Sigh. No. In a shooting rampage there is no "safe". The shooter himself is the first one to know that he's about to put himself in danger, presumably the "suicide by cop" noted above --- and if he can he'll off himself as his last act, as also noted.

What I'm saying that's sailing over your head is that pouring arms into schools with the attitude of "arming teachers" --- automatically makes them the first target to any shooter who's aware of that model, even if a given teacher is NOT armed. And that removes the literal adult in the room who's most likely to coordinate getting the kids to safety, after which point you have CHAOS with the shooter in charge of it.

There had to be at least a hundred teachers and administrators in the building.

I thought I remembered the school had 2K kids, but I just googled and there were 3,000 kids.

There had to be at least 150 staff (admins + teachers). Where do you get there was one?

I did not say "there was one". I presented a scenario, which is what you have to do when you think something through and conclude that maybe it's a stupid idea.

And why is shooting the teacher first somehow worse than starting to shoot kids?

Once AGAIN I made no mention of what was "better" or "worse". You plugged that value judgment in. I analyzed HOW IT WORKS, which is, again, what you have to do when you think something through.

One teacher and 150 teacher/admins with a random dozen of them armed are entirely different scenarios

 

[kaz]

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?

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

 

[Cossack1483]

Jews owe America an explanation for the Florida shooting. There corrected

No , seymour , you're not going to dis arm Whites today.

 

[kaz]

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

Ask your drug dealer about your theory that if guns are illegal that means people wouldn't be able to get them. What does he say about that?

 

[sealybobo]

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

Ask your drug dealer about your theory that if guns are illegal that means people wouldn't be able to get them. What does he say about that?

It's a lot harder to get your hands on cocaine, crack and heroine because they are illegal. Exstacy and Crystal meth too.

 

[kaz]

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

Ask your drug dealer about your theory that if guns are illegal that means people wouldn't be able to get them. What does he say about that?

It's a lot harder to get your hands on cocaine, crack and heroine because they are illegal. Exstacy and Crystal meth too.

The national heroin epidemic doesn't agree with you.

So you're willing to risk the life of someone in your family on that?

You'd rather gamble that they're safe from a shooter if we can keep the 300 million guns in the country than allow trained people with CC permits to have a gun to protect them?

Democrats used to at least be intellectually honest enough to admit that people determined to commit mass murder are damned hard to stop. Now that shred of intellectual honesty is gone

 

[Pogo]

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 ...

As already correct noted, your thread premise fails as a fallacy.

There's no evidence that mass shooters target schools because they're perceived to be 'gun free' zones.

Indeed, there's no evidence that guns in schools would act as a deterrent to school shootings.

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)​

 

[Pogo]

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?

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.

 

[Doc1]

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.

 

[kaz]

As already correct noted, your thread premise fails as a fallacy.

There's no evidence that mass shooters target schools because they're perceived to be 'gun free' zones.

Indeed, there's no evidence that guns in schools would act as a deterrent to school shootings.

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?

Better 9 people be shot on purpose than 1 be shot by accident ...