Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
You would think so. And it is unconstitutional, and Oregon lawmakers have DETERMINED that it's unconstitutional.Tell us something we don't already know. And America is not alone in being affected by this phenomenon.
Of course, it's just..to use a term the gun grabbers like to use..."common sense". Of COURSE people who want to kill as many people as quickly as possible are going to target groups of people who have advertised their utter vulnerability:
"Since at least 1950, all but two public mass shootings in America have taken place where general citizens are banned from carrying guns. In Europe, there have been no exceptions. Every mass public shooting has occurred in a gun-free zone. And Europe is no stranger to mass shootings. It has been host to three of the six worst K-12 school shootings and by far the worst mass public shooting perpetrated by a single individual."
Read more at Would-be killers target gun-free zones
Outta be good ammo for a legal challenge of gun-free zoning. If lawful gun owners are put at a disadvantage, but criminals coming for a shooting spree don't take much notice of the law, then you would think it's simply an impediment to lawful self-defense and thus unconstitutional.
You would think so. And it is unconstitutional, and Oregon lawmakers have DETERMINED that it's unconstitutional.Tell us something we don't already know. And America is not alone in being affected by this phenomenon.
Of course, it's just..to use a term the gun grabbers like to use..."common sense". Of COURSE people who want to kill as many people as quickly as possible are going to target groups of people who have advertised their utter vulnerability:
"Since at least 1950, all but two public mass shootings in America have taken place where general citizens are banned from carrying guns. In Europe, there have been no exceptions. Every mass public shooting has occurred in a gun-free zone. And Europe is no stranger to mass shootings. It has been host to three of the six worst K-12 school shootings and by far the worst mass public shooting perpetrated by a single individual."
Read more at Would-be killers target gun-free zones
Outta be good ammo for a legal challenge of gun-free zoning. If lawful gun owners are put at a disadvantage, but criminals coming for a shooting spree don't take much notice of the law, then you would think it's simply an impediment to lawful self-defense and thus unconstitutional.
And yet the schools can still put the no-guns ban in place on school grounds, and expel kids and fire teachers for violating it.
Jaywalk or come into some other interaction with the police and they end up searching you and finding a weapon - go to jail. Why would a person subject themselves to that? They would not.You guys ever hear of "suicide by cop"? They intend to die by being shot .If the cops don't do it, they do it themselves. Sure, they are going to kill people in the meantime. I am not convinced that an armed person would make much difference at the scene. In fact, unless the shooter is an idiot, the shooter would target him first if he can identify him. If he can't, then anybody in the crowd may have a gun concealed, whether it is a "no gun zone" or not. How the hell is anyone going to enforce a "no gun zone" against a "good" person carrying a concealed weapon? Your whole argument makes no sense at all.
Tell us something we don't already know. And America is not alone in being affected by this phenomenon.
Of course, it's just..to use a term the gun grabbers like to use..."common sense". Of COURSE people who want to kill as many people as quickly as possible are going to target groups of people who have advertised their utter vulnerability:
"Since at least 1950, all but two public mass shootings in America have taken place where general citizens are banned from carrying guns. In Europe, there have been no exceptions. Every mass public shooting has occurred in a gun-free zone. And Europe is no stranger to mass shootings. It has been host to three of the six worst K-12 school shootings and by far the worst mass public shooting perpetrated by a single individual."
Read more at Would-be killers target gun-free zones
Outta be good ammo for a legal challenge of gun-free zoning. If lawful gun owners are put at a disadvantage, but criminals coming for a shooting spree don't take much notice of the law, then you would think it's simply an impediment to lawful self-defense and thus unconstitutional.
Jaywalk or come into some other interaction with the police and they end up searching you and finding a weapon - go to jail. Why would a person subject themselves to that? They would not.You guys ever hear of "suicide by cop"? They intend to die by being shot .If the cops don't do it, they do it themselves. Sure, they are going to kill people in the meantime. I am not convinced that an armed person would make much difference at the scene. In fact, unless the shooter is an idiot, the shooter would target him first if he can identify him. If he can't, then anybody in the crowd may have a gun concealed, whether it is a "no gun zone" or not. How the hell is anyone going to enforce a "no gun zone" against a "good" person carrying a concealed weapon? Your whole argument makes no sense at all.
There is no grounds for you to believe that there is a real difference in meeting a cop or an armed citizen to the perpetrator. The result is the same. You claim that others arguments make no sense when you are demanding that there are arbitrary differences in an armed citizen stopping a crazy person and an armed cop without any reason behind it.
Jaywalk or come into some other interaction with the police and they end up searching you and finding a weapon - go to jail. Why would a person subject themselves to that? They would not.You guys ever hear of "suicide by cop"? They intend to die by being shot .If the cops don't do it, they do it themselves. Sure, they are going to kill people in the meantime. I am not convinced that an armed person would make much difference at the scene. In fact, unless the shooter is an idiot, the shooter would target him first if he can identify him. If he can't, then anybody in the crowd may have a gun concealed, whether it is a "no gun zone" or not. How the hell is anyone going to enforce a "no gun zone" against a "good" person carrying a concealed weapon? Your whole argument makes no sense at all.
There is no grounds for you to believe that there is a real difference in meeting a cop or an armed citizen to the perpetrator. The result is the same. You claim that others arguments make no sense when you are demanding that there are arbitrary differences in an armed citizen stopping a crazy person and an armed cop without any reason behind it.
They die quicker, so it does change their actions because time = lives.Jaywalk or come into some other interaction with the police and they end up searching you and finding a weapon - go to jail. Why would a person subject themselves to that? They would not.You guys ever hear of "suicide by cop"? They intend to die by being shot .If the cops don't do it, they do it themselves. Sure, they are going to kill people in the meantime. I am not convinced that an armed person would make much difference at the scene. In fact, unless the shooter is an idiot, the shooter would target him first if he can identify him. If he can't, then anybody in the crowd may have a gun concealed, whether it is a "no gun zone" or not. How the hell is anyone going to enforce a "no gun zone" against a "good" person carrying a concealed weapon? Your whole argument makes no sense at all.
There is no grounds for you to believe that there is a real difference in meeting a cop or an armed citizen to the perpetrator. The result is the same. You claim that others arguments make no sense when you are demanding that there are arbitrary differences in an armed citizen stopping a crazy person and an armed cop without any reason behind it.
Only a tiny percent of people carry. Gun free zone or not the criminal is unlikely to run into one. And since they are suicidal it is unlikely it would change their actions.
They die quicker, so it does change their actions because time = lives.Jaywalk or come into some other interaction with the police and they end up searching you and finding a weapon - go to jail. Why would a person subject themselves to that? They would not.You guys ever hear of "suicide by cop"? They intend to die by being shot .If the cops don't do it, they do it themselves. Sure, they are going to kill people in the meantime. I am not convinced that an armed person would make much difference at the scene. In fact, unless the shooter is an idiot, the shooter would target him first if he can identify him. If he can't, then anybody in the crowd may have a gun concealed, whether it is a "no gun zone" or not. How the hell is anyone going to enforce a "no gun zone" against a "good" person carrying a concealed weapon? Your whole argument makes no sense at all.
There is no grounds for you to believe that there is a real difference in meeting a cop or an armed citizen to the perpetrator. The result is the same. You claim that others arguments make no sense when you are demanding that there are arbitrary differences in an armed citizen stopping a crazy person and an armed cop without any reason behind it.
Only a tiny percent of people carry. Gun free zone or not the criminal is unlikely to run into one. And since they are suicidal it is unlikely it would change their actions.
I love how lefties are actively arguing against protecting the innocent.
Good thing there was an armed and trained man at the site of the Oregon shooting.
Now you're just babbling.They die quicker, so it does change their actions because time = lives.Jaywalk or come into some other interaction with the police and they end up searching you and finding a weapon - go to jail. Why would a person subject themselves to that? They would not.You guys ever hear of "suicide by cop"? They intend to die by being shot .If the cops don't do it, they do it themselves. Sure, they are going to kill people in the meantime. I am not convinced that an armed person would make much difference at the scene. In fact, unless the shooter is an idiot, the shooter would target him first if he can identify him. If he can't, then anybody in the crowd may have a gun concealed, whether it is a "no gun zone" or not. How the hell is anyone going to enforce a "no gun zone" against a "good" person carrying a concealed weapon? Your whole argument makes no sense at all.
There is no grounds for you to believe that there is a real difference in meeting a cop or an armed citizen to the perpetrator. The result is the same. You claim that others arguments make no sense when you are demanding that there are arbitrary differences in an armed citizen stopping a crazy person and an armed cop without any reason behind it.
Only a tiny percent of people carry. Gun free zone or not the criminal is unlikely to run into one. And since they are suicidal it is unlikely it would change their actions.
No it doesn't because the chance of dying quicker is very slim.
Now you're just babbling.They die quicker, so it does change their actions because time = lives.Jaywalk or come into some other interaction with the police and they end up searching you and finding a weapon - go to jail. Why would a person subject themselves to that? They would not.You guys ever hear of "suicide by cop"? They intend to die by being shot .If the cops don't do it, they do it themselves. Sure, they are going to kill people in the meantime. I am not convinced that an armed person would make much difference at the scene. In fact, unless the shooter is an idiot, the shooter would target him first if he can identify him. If he can't, then anybody in the crowd may have a gun concealed, whether it is a "no gun zone" or not. How the hell is anyone going to enforce a "no gun zone" against a "good" person carrying a concealed weapon? Your whole argument makes no sense at all.
There is no grounds for you to believe that there is a real difference in meeting a cop or an armed citizen to the perpetrator. The result is the same. You claim that others arguments make no sense when you are demanding that there are arbitrary differences in an armed citizen stopping a crazy person and an armed cop without any reason behind it.
Only a tiny percent of people carry. Gun free zone or not the criminal is unlikely to run into one. And since they are suicidal it is unlikely it would change their actions.
No it doesn't because the chance of dying quicker is very slim.
Really?Now you're just babbling.They die quicker, so it does change their actions because time = lives.Jaywalk or come into some other interaction with the police and they end up searching you and finding a weapon - go to jail. Why would a person subject themselves to that? They would not.
There is no grounds for you to believe that there is a real difference in meeting a cop or an armed citizen to the perpetrator. The result is the same. You claim that others arguments make no sense when you are demanding that there are arbitrary differences in an armed citizen stopping a crazy person and an armed cop without any reason behind it.
Only a tiny percent of people carry. Gun free zone or not the criminal is unlikely to run into one. And since they are suicidal it is unlikely it would change their actions.
No it doesn't because the chance of dying quicker is very slim.
No. Only 12 million choose to carry in a country of over 300 million. The criminal is unlikely to run into one. And if he did the criminal has all the advantages.
Really?Now you're just babbling.They die quicker, so it does change their actions because time = lives.Only a tiny percent of people carry. Gun free zone or not the criminal is unlikely to run into one. And since they are suicidal it is unlikely it would change their actions.
No it doesn't because the chance of dying quicker is very slim.
No. Only 12 million choose to carry in a country of over 300 million. The criminal is unlikely to run into one. And if he did the criminal has all the advantages.
Trayvon Martin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Dayton Woman Shoots, Kills Intruder - % stationx.name %] ABC 22 News :: News - Top Stories
Woman who shot intruder in her Newport News home speaks out
Woman shoots, kills intruder in Detroit
Really?Now you're just babbling.They die quicker, so it does change their actions because time = lives.
No it doesn't because the chance of dying quicker is very slim.
No. Only 12 million choose to carry in a country of over 300 million. The criminal is unlikely to run into one. And if he did the criminal has all the advantages.
Trayvon Martin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Dayton Woman Shoots, Kills Intruder - % stationx.name %] ABC 22 News :: News - Top Stories
Woman who shot intruder in her Newport News home speaks out
Woman shoots, kills intruder in Detroit
Trayvon was the victim.
You examples are intruders at homes. Has nothing to do with comcealed carry or mass shootings.
Yeah...each year mass shootings kill less than 75 people...
according to bill clinton and his Department of Justice, Americans use guns 1.5 million times each uear to stop violent criminal attack...
funny how you always over look the times that guns save lives...
let's see...can you tell which number is bigger....
75 victims in a bad year
1.5 million violent crimes stopped.....
keeping in mind that you guys have created the gun free zones that allow these guys to kill those people.
Gee, the lie was "over 2 million times" a few weeks ago.
Were you lying then or lying now? Or lying both times?
Really?Now you're just babbling.They die quicker, so it does change their actions because time = lives.
No it doesn't because the chance of dying quicker is very slim.
No. Only 12 million choose to carry in a country of over 300 million. The criminal is unlikely to run into one. And if he did the criminal has all the advantages.
Trayvon Martin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Dayton Woman Shoots, Kills Intruder - % stationx.name %] ABC 22 News :: News - Top Stories
Woman who shot intruder in her Newport News home speaks out
Woman shoots, kills intruder in Detroit
Trayvon was the victim.
You examples are intruders at homes. Has nothing to do with comcealed carry or mass shootings.
If you have ever been to a military base you would understand exactly how moronic that statement is.Fort Hood was a gun free zone? Who knew?
It essentially is a gun free zone.
