Mass shooting: At Least 11 Shot At Gilroy Garlic Festival

[Leo123]

Perhaps if the Democrat party would stop demonizing guns (inanimate objects) more people would be comfortable owning, learning to shoot and would carry. We constantly hear how we should wait for law enforcement but, even where cops can get to the perp right away (as with the Garlic Festival) still people had to die and be injured. My contention is that if guns were acceptable for people to open-carry, this little punk would have been put down quickly and efficiently.

The US military is barred from acting on US soil.

And the second was not conceived for the possibility of an attack by a foreign power. It was conceived so the citizenry could not be subjugated by a corrupt , tyrannical government.

So what other rights are you willing to give up to stop criminals from committing crimes>\?

How about your 4th or 5t amendment rights? I mean if you're innocent you shouldn't care if the police search your home whenever they want or if they arrest and innterrogste you for hours on end right?

It was conceived so the citizenry could not be subjugated by a corrupt , tyrannical government.
Maybe they had both reasons on their minds. Considering what they had just been through with the King of England, can you blame them? That is no longer a valid argument either, though, since we would have a snowball's chance in hell of fighting the US military with our personal collections of AR's, AK's and SKS's should a despotic government try to overthrow our democracy.

That may be your opinion

But you underestimate what several million committed people can do and how much of the US military would oppose the government if it really came down to it?

I think it would be more than you do obviously.

And the second amendment even if it doesn't expressly state it is also about the right of an individual to protect his own life. The framers all thought that self preservation was such an obvious and natural right that there was no reason to codify it

Does it take 29 rifles to protect your own life? How many handguns?
LIMITING and strictly registering and vetting owners of firearms would not take away the opportunity for responsible people from bearing arms. The founders lived in a very different world, culturally and technologically. That is why the Constitution was designed to change with the times.

--------------------------------------------------------- in the USA you can own any number of cars , motorcycles or guns that you like . And that being said , only one gun at a time can be used at a time OldLady . And your claim that the Constitution was DESIGNED to change with the times is your OPINION OldLady .

And the opinion of many, many others..in fact..probably a majority of Americans believe that the Constitution is a 'living document". I know you find that view abhorrent..but..as you say..that's your OPINION.

Still only opinion. The Constitution IMO is a moral document for a society. Morals are no good or might as well be absent if one can constantly change them so suit personal desires.

 

[irosie91]

The debate is rather simple. If more guns made us safer we would have the lowest homicide rate in the world. Instead ours is 4-5x higher than countries with strong gun control. We also have regular mass shootings, law enforcement shoots hundreds, law enforcement is shot and killed weekly, hundreds die each year in gun accidents... the effect of too many guns is clear, and not good.

---------------------------------------- its about FREEDOM and not about SAFETY Brian .

Why do you value the freedom to quickly become a mass killer? What about freedom to live?

1.1 million Americans each year live because they have the ability to own and carry guns.

In 2018 there were 12 mass public shootings, 93 killed. Cars killed over 38,000, drowning killed over 3,500....

The numbers don't support you.

You claim as many defenses as we have violent crimes. That is funny. 100% are defended? Too funny.

America has a lot of violent crimes which are never reported, Brain. If some thug comes up to my mum with a knife and she pulls out her handgun, the thug will probably leave in a hurry and not leave a calling card. The crime will never be reported and that will be that.

prince-----even murder and violent rapes are not reported------LOTS . In NYC a mugging is not news unless someone decides to mug something like
------uhm......MADONNA (is she still newsworthy?). In my lifetime I have hosted lots of cases of acute lead poisoning to the brain-------I do not recall any ending up on the news-------don't tell anyone------I am not available

 

[2aguy]

California has banned guns, right?

No, they haven't.

------------------------------------- not BANNED them but lots of restrictions and regulations and laws that are all unsuitable and dreamed up by enemy politicians . Sorta like 'new zealand' CNM .

I'm sure it's easier to get a gun in California than New Zealand.

New Zealand has more guns than Australia and a lower gun murder rate than Australia......culture, not guns.....the real issue, not the "I hate guns" issue.

It will be interesting to watch New Zealand. They are enacting some strict gun laws since the Christchurch shooting.

New Zealand's Plan To Buy Back Illegal Firearms Angers Gun Advocates

They aren't playing around with this mass shooting nonsense.

They didn't have mass shootings before this one.......for the rarest of rare events, they are banning guns....using your logic, since over 1,500 people a year are murdered with knives here in the U.S. we need to ban knives....cars killed over 38,000 people...ban them.....

And here....public shootings in Australia since the ban....
Terror’ gunman was on parole

POLICE are investigating possible terror links to a siege in which officers gunned down one man and found another dead in Melbourne’s southeast.

A senior law enforcement figure said the gunman was on parole for a criminal offence and rated as a low-risk figure of interest to counter-terror authorities.

The Herald Sun has revealed the gunman was Yacqub Khayre, a Somali refugee who was known to counter-terrorism police.

Police shot and killed Khayre, a second man was found dead in the foyer of an apartment building in Brighton and three cops sustained gunshot wounds in the bloody hostage drama.

A male caller to the Channel 7 newsroom in Melbourne said: “This is for IS” and “this is for Al-Qaeda.” The station said a woman could be heard screaming in the background.

A Victoria Police statement confirmed police are investigating whether the incident is terrorism related.


===============

6/2/17 fully automatic weapon used to ambush police..


‘Psycho’ gunman may have set trap

Multiple people confirmed Maddison phoned police on Monday morning, with one person saying the call was made from a public phone box directly to the Tactical Crime Squad office.

Snr Constable Forte was a Tactical Crime Squad officer.

Later that day police spotted Madison in a vehicle in Mary St, Toowoomba, and followed him up to 40km before he pulled over on Wallers Rd near Gatton.

Maddison got out of his vehicle and opened fire on police with an automatic weapon, killing Snr Constable Forte.

-------

Maddison, 40, was last year facing a raft of charges including eight counts of assault occasioning bodily harm, assault occasioning bodily harm while armed, two counts of deprivation of liberty, torture, common assault, unlawfully wounding another and threatening violence.

-------

It has been reported that Senior Constable Forte was trying to save his partner’s life as their car was sprayed with Maddison’s machine gun fire.

===========
1/17/17 shooting in mall parking lot...

Carpark shooting: ‘It was chaos’

A SHOOTING at a Melbourne carpark last night has left a man in his 20s with multiple gunshot wounds.

The shooting happened at a 24-hour shopping mall at Campbellfield in Melbourne’s north near the intersection of Sydney and Mahoney roads about 9.30pm.

A witness told the Herald Sun the man appeared to have wounds to his groin and legs.

A woman was on the phone calling triple-0 and “holding him trying to stop the bleeding”.

The victim was heard to say he was dizzy, and wanted to drink water.

Members of the man’s family arrived at the scene soon after.

The witness said there was a lot of screaming and confusion.

“There were people with kids, and a witness was holding a baby. People were screaming and yelling. It was chaos,” the witness said.


=============

12/28/16

Deadly shooting ‘gang related’

ONE man is dead and another has been critically injured after a shooting in Sydney’s southwest late this afternoon.

A third man has just presented himself to hospital with injuries related to the shooting.

Emergency services were called to Western Sydney Parklands off Cowpasture Road in Wetherill Park late this afternoon.

=========================

No Cookies | Herald Sun

A 28-year-old man accused of gunning down a young cricketer Rahat Khan in Melbourne’s north has made his first court appearance.

Kamil Yucel, of Dallas, appeared at Melbourne Magistrates Court on Saturday charged with murder, following his arrest on Friday night.

Yucel, sporting a beard and grey windcheater, was remanded in custody during the brief hearing and ordered to reappear in the same court for a filing hearing on Wednesday.


Mr Khan, 20, from Dandenong, died of gunshot wounds in Millewa Crescent, Dallas, on Tuesday evening after a friend driving him pulled over to ask for help.
============
http://www.news.com.au/national/crime/horrific-cctv-footage-of-walid-wally-ahmads-final-moments-emerge/news-story/01ba6594b2b17282294810420d458a26

THE final chilling moments of Walid “Wally” Ahmad’s life have been revealed in horrific CCTV footage of the gangland murder.

The footage, revealed by The Daily Telegraph, shows the shooter — who remains unknown and on the loose — approaching Ahmad as he sat with a friend and his bodyguard, Nael Halid, at the Bankstown Central shopping centre.




==============
Shots fired at police impound yard

A POLICE impound yard in Melbourne came under shooting attack late last night.

Several shots were fired at the yard in Preston, in the city’s north, hitting windows and the building itself, police said.

Shocked staff called triple-0 from inside, but no one was injured. Detectives later found bullet holes in the exterior of the building the staff had been in, and in the windows.


================
Multiple shots fired into a Melbourne gym

STAFF at a South Melbourne gym were shocked to find bullet holes in their building this morning.

The shots were fired into the side of the building and roller door of the Whiteman St fitness centre before 6.30am.


============
shooting...

Man shot dead in Melbourne may have been moved

A SHOOTING victim was being rushed to hospital by a friend when he died on the way in suburban Melbourne, police believe.

The victim died in Millewa Crescent in Dallas, in Melbourne’s north, after the driver of the car he was in pulled over and called for help.



===========

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

And the opinion of many, many others..in fact..probably a majority of Americans believe that the Constitution is a 'living document". I know you find that view abhorrent..but..as you say..that's your OPINION.

----------------------------------- Not me . There seem to be enough like me to keep thing halfway going my way for my lifetime at least . Lots of fights , money spent but things are ok for my generation I think . Depending on your age its YOU and younger Americans that are fecked as things change 'EEFleegle

Hmm..I'm sure you know that we have had a Supreme Court sitting that believed in the living document point of view..in our lifetimes..I refer you to the Warren Court--and his successor Warren Burger ---it is only in the last 20 years that the constructionists have regained the upper hand. The Living Document point of view was taught as gospel in most schools..in the 60's and 70's.
The wheel turns....

-------------------------------------------- As I said , I think that my generation is cool and good for my generation . Its you younger guys and kids that should be concerned about a whole lot of things as 'the wheel turns' . Course , many of youse guys are DOPERS and unsuitable for Adult Freedom and Responsibility anyway EEFl.

At the age of 65..it's good to be called a younger guy! Of course..i might well be..in comparison..***smiles***

---------------------------------------------- Well , maybe not YOU but you are sure fecking up the next generations America EEFl .

In your opinion...and having read your posts and having an idea of where your head is at....Might be that I'm un-feckin' them! Demographics support my point of view..as you are well aware..yeah...the dino's are going out with a bang..but they ARE going.

 

[NotYourBody]

violence is the issue. not the method they choose to express it. find out why people are violent and work on that, we may get somewhere. keep banning shit, they'll just use something else til we wind up making it illegal to kill people with rocks. well that's already illegal.

Oh we don't do that anymore as a society. That all stopped when Reagan de-funded mental health programs. Oopsie!

Now we just keep making it easier for violent people, including teenagers, to have access to the simplest way to kill a bunch of people quickly. Some people call that winning.

 

[2aguy]

The debate is rather simple. If more guns made us safer we would have the lowest homicide rate in the world. Instead ours is 4-5x higher than countries with strong gun control. We also have regular mass shootings, law enforcement shoots hundreds, law enforcement is shot and killed weekly, hundreds die each year in gun accidents... the effect of too many guns is clear, and not good.

---------------------------------------- its about FREEDOM and not about SAFETY Brian .

Why do you value the freedom to quickly become a mass killer? What about freedom to live?

1.1 million Americans each year live because they have the ability to own and carry guns.

In 2018 there were 12 mass public shootings, 93 killed. Cars killed over 38,000, drowning killed over 3,500....

The numbers don't support you.

7,000 people each year die of melanoma, should America seek to destroy the sun?

No, but you don't see people "protecting" themselves from melanoma by spending MORE time in the sun. What we need is more good guys with guns? No gun free zones?

Mass shooters do not target places where people can carry guns...we know this from actual mass public shooters...that is a fact...

Also, when armed citizens are allowed to have their guns when a mass shooter targets a location, they are 94% effective at stopping them and reducing death and injury......

Armed Citizens Are Successful 94% Of The Time At Active Shooter Events [FBI]

Of all the active shooter events there were 33 at which an armed citizen was present. Of those, Armed Citizens were successful at stopping the Active shooter 75.8% of the time (25 incidents) and were successful in reducing the loss of life in an additional 18.2% (6) of incidents. In only 2 of the 33 incidents (6.1%) was the Armed Citizen(s) not helpful in any way in stopping the active shooter or reducing the loss of life.

Thus the headline of our report that Armed Citizens Are Successful 94% Of The Time At Active Shooter Events.


In the 2 incidents at which the armed citizen “failed” to stop or slow the active shooter, one is the previously mentioned incident with hunters. The other is an incident in which the CCWer was shot in the back in a Las Vegas Walmart when he failed to identify that there were 2 Active Shooters involved in the attack. He neglected to identify the one that shot him in the back while he was trying to ambush the other perpetrator.

We also decided to look at the breakdown of events that took place in gun free zones and the relative death toll from events in gun free zones vs non-gun-free zones.

Of the 283 incidents in our data pool, we were unable to identify if the event took place in a gun-free zone in a large number (41%) of the events. Most of the events took place at a business, church, home, or other places at which as a rule of law it is not a gun free zone but potentially could have been declared one by the property owner. Without any information in the FBI study or any indication one way or the other from the news reports, we have indicated that event with a question mark.

If you look at all of the Active Shooter events (pie chart on the top) you see that for those which we have the information, almost twice as many took place in gun free zones than not; but realistically the vast majority of those for which we have no information (indicated as ?) are probably NOT gun free zones.

If you isolate just the events at which 8 or more people were killed the data paints a different picture (pie chart on the bottom). In these incidents, 77.8% took place in a gun-free zone suggesting that gun free zones lead to a higher death rate vs active shooter events in general

=====

One of the final metrics we thought was important to consider is the potential tendency for armed citizens to injure or kill innocent people in their attempt to “save the day.” A common point in political discussions is to point out the lack of training of most armed citizens and the decrease in safety inherent in their presence during violent encounters.

As you can see below, however, at the 33 incidents at which Armed Citizens were present, there were zero situations at which the Armed Citizen injured or killed an innocent person. It never happened.

 

[2aguy]

violence is the issue. not the method they choose to express it. find out why people are violent and work on that, we may get somewhere. keep banning shit, they'll just use something else til we wind up making it illegal to kill people with rocks. well that's already illegal.

Oh we don't do that anymore as a society. That all stopped when Reagan de-funded mental health programs. Oopsie!

Now we just keep making it easier for violent people, including teenagers, to have access to the simplest way to kill a bunch of people quickly. Some people call that winning.

Wrong...Reagan didn't defune mental health programs that started with Carter, the ACLU and the other left wing groups that believe the mentall ill should crap outside and live under bridges instead of getting care.

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

That’s a good question. I’d say by definition classic liberals and conservatives both of whom support individual freedoms support less gun control while big government progressives fight for more gun control. You will find people all over the “Left” that supports gun rights, but Ideologically speaking progressives would be the group pushing for government regulation. Although I’d argue that most people fall all over the spectrum depending on the issue

then in this case i'm speaking to the liberals i have seen that when you try to tell them functionally there is no difference between the AR-15 and a browning longtrac semi-automatic, they refuse to go "wow, i misunderstood that weapon" and instead say "then semi-automatics needs to go also".

i have *never* heard someone go "wow, i was wrong about that rifle" and to a man/woman/child i've discussed this with, the more they learn the less they want to know and the more they want to control. i don't doubt there are those on the left who are NOT like this, i've just not met one in conversation yet.

I think a lot of people are scared, frustrated, and heartbroken from the horrendous gun violence that happens in this country and they just want to do something to try and limit the carnage. Regulating guns is something g that makes sense to them so that’s what they push because guns scare them. Others feel protected by them and want to defend their rights to carry. It’s a very heated and emotional debate which needs more understanding and compassion like most political issues

A disgruntled employee just killed two people in a Walmart in Mississippi. What happened to the days of going on FaceBook and saying filthy things about your ex-supervisor who just fired you? Now they have to take a gun and kill people?

when in ireland last week i heard about a dude who took a knife and went on a rampage.

Knife crime deaths at highest level since WW2

lots of other links on it. violence is the issue. not the method they choose to express it. find out why people are violent and work on that, we may get somewhere. keep banning shit, they'll just use something else til we wind up making it illegal to kill people with rocks. well that's already illegal.

Lots of weapons are dangerous, here is a video of a man killing 3 trained, armed assassins with a pencil.

Cool movie..but it's just a movie..fiction. Not a lot of trained assassins hunting dudes with a pencil--i take your point that everything can be used as a weapon..but I've seldom read about someone coming into a festival and penciling 11 people...LOL!

 

[Leo123]

Perhaps if the Democrat party would stop demonizing guns (inanimate objects) more people would be comfortable owning, learning to shoot and would carry. We constantly hear how we should wait for law enforcement but, even where cops can get to the perp right away (as with the Garlic Festival) still people had to die and be injured. My contention is that if guns were acceptable for people to open-carry, this little punk would have been put down quickly and efficiently.

The US military is barred from acting on US soil.

And the second was not conceived for the possibility of an attack by a foreign power. It was conceived so the citizenry could not be subjugated by a corrupt , tyrannical government.

So what other rights are you willing to give up to stop criminals from committing crimes>\?

How about your 4th or 5t amendment rights? I mean if you're innocent you shouldn't care if the police search your home whenever they want or if they arrest and innterrogste you for hours on end right?

It was conceived so the citizenry could not be subjugated by a corrupt , tyrannical government.
Maybe they had both reasons on their minds. Considering what they had just been through with the King of England, can you blame them? That is no longer a valid argument either, though, since we would have a snowball's chance in hell of fighting the US military with our personal collections of AR's, AK's and SKS's should a despotic government try to overthrow our democracy.

That may be your opinion

But you underestimate what several million committed people can do and how much of the US military would oppose the government if it really came down to it?

I think it would be more than you do obviously.

And the second amendment even if it doesn't expressly state it is also about the right of an individual to protect his own life. The framers all thought that self preservation was such an obvious and natural right that there was no reason to codify it

Does it take 29 rifles to protect your own life? How many handguns?
LIMITING and strictly registering and vetting owners of firearms would not take away the opportunity for responsible people from bearing arms. The founders lived in a very different world, culturally and technologically. That is why the Constitution was designed to change with the times.

--------------------------------------------------------- in the USA you can own any number of cars , motorcycles or guns that you like . And that being said , only one gun at a time can be used at a time OldLady . And your claim that the Constitution was DESIGNED to change with the times is your OPINION OldLady .

No, it's not an opinion, Pismoe.
Article 5
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

That doesn't prove your claim that the Constitution was designed to change. Article 5 describes the process of amending the Constitution not completely changing or replacing it. It is only your opinion that the Constitution was designed to change with the times. BTW The Constitution is a WRITTEN document so the correct word is actually EMEND.

"The question of whether to use amend or emend is a vexing one for many people, complicated by the fact that the words sound quite similar and have meanings that overlap to a considerable degree. Both words can be used with the meanings “to improve” or “to correct,” but there are subtle differences. Emend is most often used in connection with changes to some form of written material, such as a text or manuscript; while such documents may also be described as amended, amend can apply to improvements or corrections made to things other than writing, as in “he amended his behavior.” The confusion is compounded by the fact that one of the most frequently encountered uses of amend is in reference to a document: the Constitution of the United States."

Definition of AMEND

 

[NotYourBody]

Why do you value the freedom to quickly become a mass killer? What about freedom to live?

1.1 million Americans each year live because they have the ability to own and carry guns.

In 2018 there were 12 mass public shootings, 93 killed. Cars killed over 38,000, drowning killed over 3,500....

The numbers don't support you.

You claim as many defenses as we have violent crimes. That is funny. 100% are defended? Too funny.

America has a lot of violent crimes which are never reported, Brain. If some thug comes up to my mum with a knife and she pulls out her handgun, the thug will probably leave in a hurry and not leave a calling card. The crime will never be reported and that will be that.

The thug will wait for her to dig it out of her purse?

-------------------------- nowadays many women takes their gun ownership , gun use and defense seriously and there are many new fangled ways for woman to carry their guns so they can be gotten to very quickly 'NYBod .

Perhaps they do. I've never know a woman who carried a gun except my old TX grandma and she could not have hit the state of Oklahoma if she was standing on the border. She was blind as a bat.

I still hope Mum and Meemaw are faster than the thug, who has likely done this many times before.

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

It was conceived so the citizenry could not be subjugated by a corrupt , tyrannical government.
Maybe they had both reasons on their minds. Considering what they had just been through with the King of England, can you blame them? That is no longer a valid argument either, though, since we would have a snowball's chance in hell of fighting the US military with our personal collections of AR's, AK's and SKS's should a despotic government try to overthrow our democracy.

That may be your opinion

But you underestimate what several million committed people can do and how much of the US military would oppose the government if it really came down to it?

I think it would be more than you do obviously.

And the second amendment even if it doesn't expressly state it is also about the right of an individual to protect his own life. The framers all thought that self preservation was such an obvious and natural right that there was no reason to codify it

Does it take 29 rifles to protect your own life? How many handguns?
LIMITING and strictly registering and vetting owners of firearms would not take away the opportunity for responsible people from bearing arms. The founders lived in a very different world, culturally and technologically. That is why the Constitution was designed to change with the times.

--------------------------------------------------------- in the USA you can own any number of cars , motorcycles or guns that you like . And that being said , only one gun at a time can be used at a time OldLady . And your claim that the Constitution was DESIGNED to change with the times is your OPINION OldLady .

And the opinion of many, many others..in fact..probably a majority of Americans believe that the Constitution is a 'living document". I know you find that view abhorrent..but..as you say..that's your OPINION.

Still only opinion. The Constitution IMO is a moral document for a society. Morals are no good or might as well be absent if one can constantly change them so suit personal desires.

Interesting..I'd not refer to the constitution as a 'moral' document...an ethical one..perhaps. Albeit flawed in that respect..after all it codified slavery for the purpose of representation in a govt. that the slaves had no say in--hardly the correct ethical stance.

I'd call the Constitution our bedrock legal framework--and laws change..as cultures do..so do morals and ethics

 

[Dick Foster]

---------------------------------------- its about FREEDOM and not about SAFETY Brian .

Why do you value the freedom to quickly become a mass killer? What about freedom to live?

1.1 million Americans each year live because they have the ability to own and carry guns.

In 2018 there were 12 mass public shootings, 93 killed. Cars killed over 38,000, drowning killed over 3,500....

The numbers don't support you.

7,000 people each year die of melanoma, should America seek to destroy the sun?

No, but you don't see people "protecting" themselves from melanoma by spending MORE time in the sun. What we need is more good guys with guns? No gun free zones?

Mass shooters do not target places where people can carry guns...we know this from actual mass public shooters...that is a fact...

Also, when armed citizens are allowed to have their guns when a mass shooter targets a location, they are 94% effective at stopping them and reducing death and injury......

Armed Citizens Are Successful 94% Of The Time At Active Shooter Events [FBI]

Of all the active shooter events there were 33 at which an armed citizen was present. Of those, Armed Citizens were successful at stopping the Active shooter 75.8% of the time (25 incidents) and were successful in reducing the loss of life in an additional 18.2% (6) of incidents. In only 2 of the 33 incidents (6.1%) was the Armed Citizen(s) not helpful in any way in stopping the active shooter or reducing the loss of life.

Thus the headline of our report that Armed Citizens Are Successful 94% Of The Time At Active Shooter Events.


In the 2 incidents at which the armed citizen “failed” to stop or slow the active shooter, one is the previously mentioned incident with hunters. The other is an incident in which the CCWer was shot in the back in a Las Vegas Walmart when he failed to identify that there were 2 Active Shooters involved in the attack. He neglected to identify the one that shot him in the back while he was trying to ambush the other perpetrator.

We also decided to look at the breakdown of events that took place in gun free zones and the relative death toll from events in gun free zones vs non-gun-free zones.

Of the 283 incidents in our data pool, we were unable to identify if the event took place in a gun-free zone in a large number (41%) of the events. Most of the events took place at a business, church, home, or other places at which as a rule of law it is not a gun free zone but potentially could have been declared one by the property owner. Without any information in the FBI study or any indication one way or the other from the news reports, we have indicated that event with a question mark.

If you look at all of the Active Shooter events (pie chart on the top) you see that for those which we have the information, almost twice as many took place in gun free zones than not; but realistically the vast majority of those for which we have no information (indicated as ?) are probably NOT gun free zones.

If you isolate just the events at which 8 or more people were killed the data paints a different picture (pie chart on the bottom). In these incidents, 77.8% took place in a gun-free zone suggesting that gun free zones lead to a higher death rate vs active shooter events in general

=====

One of the final metrics we thought was important to consider is the potential tendency for armed citizens to injure or kill innocent people in their attempt to “save the day.” A common point in political discussions is to point out the lack of training of most armed citizens and the decrease in safety inherent in their presence during violent encounters.

As you can see below, however, at the 33 incidents at which Armed Citizens were present, there were zero situations at which the Armed Citizen injured or killed an innocent person. It never happened.

Have you noticed how futile it is trying to propose intelligent arguments to and reason with brain dead morons?

 

[Olde Europe]

the small population [of Switzerland] in comparison to ours makes the argument invalid..IMO.

What?

Grasping at straws, or what is it? It's municipalities / towns / districts, states, and the federal government sitting atop just like in the U.S. Population size has nothing whatsoever to do with, say, per capita murder rates or per capita gun ownership. And why doesn't China with a bit more by way of population have a murder rate far in excess of that of the U.S.? Really, help me out here, for this doesn't even begin to make sense.

 

[NotYourBody]

Wrong...Reagan didn't defune mental health programs that started with Carter, the ACLU and the other left wing groups that believe the mentall ill should crap outside and live under bridges instead of getting care.

^^Fake News.

The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1980 signed by Reagan repealed President Carter’s Mental Health Systems Act, which was supposed to continue federal funding for mental health programs.

Mental Health Systems Act of 1980 - Wikipedia

 

[Leo123]

Interesting..I'd not refer to the constitution as a 'moral' document...an ethical one..perhaps. Albeit flawed in that respect..after all it codified slavery for the purpose of representation in a govt. that the slaves had no say in--hardly the correct ethical stance.

I'd call the Constitution our bedrock legal framework--and laws change..as cultures do..so do morals and ethics

So you separate ethics from morality? The definition of ethic is:

"Definition of ethic

1 ethics plural in form but singular or plural in construction : the discipline dealing with what is good and bad and with moral duty and obligation

2a : a set of moral principles : a theory or system of moral value"

Definition of ETHIC

You see, language and definitions are part of our language which is how we communicate and connect with each other. When you redefine long held language definitions, morals and ethics progressively or through sheer ignorance, depending on current wants and desires, a society cannot survive.

 

[Dick Foster]

the small population [of Switzerland] in comparison to ours makes the argument invalid..IMO.

What?

Grasping at straws, or what is it? It's municipalities / towns / districts, states, and the federal government sitting atop just like in the U.S. Population size has nothing whatsoever to do with, say, per capita murder rates or per capita gun ownership. And why doesn't China with a bit more by way of population have a murder rate far in excess of that of the U.S.? Really, help me out here, for this doesn't even begin to make sense.

Forget it, he's out of gas and he knows it. Push him aside and move on. Trying to reason with idiots like that is like pissing in the ocean and expecting the sea level to rise.

 

[Slade3200]

Well when do you ever have a conversation with “The Left” that is an arbitrary label that is used as a strawman in political debates. I dont like labels but we are unfortunately defined by them all the time. I’m not a dem or a rep. I actually agree with more republican policies than dems, but I’m a leftard as far as this board is concerned... so whatever

great. so i can understand and be sure - are you saying the stance of the left is NOT coming after guns?

i don't like labels also, but when a trait is far too common to one side, it can and will get referenced. if you need specific examples of the left being full of shit, holler. i can find CNN with animated gifs showing rocket launchers on AR15's and gyrating like giant dildo. i can show you the left in colorado who is after banning high capacity mags and think they are "single use". i can show you people on "the left" who say we're not coming after guns and then their making statements that they are.

while i agree generalities can be and are used in debates far too often, that doesn't mean they're 100% wrong to do or use.

or would you disagree? if so, then fine. i'll just watch out for any stereotypes from you and react accordingly.

That’s a good question. I’d say by definition classic liberals and conservatives both of whom support individual freedoms support less gun control while big government progressives fight for more gun control. You will find people all over the “Left” that supports gun rights, but Ideologically speaking progressives would be the group pushing for government regulation. Although I’d argue that most people fall all over the spectrum depending on the issue

then in this case i'm speaking to the liberals i have seen that when you try to tell them functionally there is no difference between the AR-15 and a browning longtrac semi-automatic, they refuse to go "wow, i misunderstood that weapon" and instead say "then semi-automatics needs to go also".

i have *never* heard someone go "wow, i was wrong about that rifle" and to a man/woman/child i've discussed this with, the more they learn the less they want to know and the more they want to control. i don't doubt there are those on the left who are NOT like this, i've just not met one in conversation yet.

I think a lot of people are scared, frustrated, and heartbroken from the horrendous gun violence that happens in this country and they just want to do something to try and limit the carnage. Regulating guns is something g that makes sense to them so that’s what they push because guns scare them. Others feel protected by them and want to defend their rights to carry. It’s a very heated and emotional debate which needs more understanding and compassion like most political issues

but this is also why you're not likely to get that debate or discussion from gun owners. they've met far too many who won't listen to the mechanics behind their fears and simply expand their fears instead.

when you can think of a good way to rationalize with someone who is willing to keep their views alive despite learning to the contrary, let me know and i'll help get this discussion going.

To be honest the only problems I’ve encountered is in the media and in message boards like this. I know many adamant gun owners and anti gun people and have never had a bad discussion. When you get real people one on one and can talk with mutual respect I think there is much more common ground than is presented in the media.

 

[Defiant1]

1.1 million Americans each year live because they have the ability to own and carry guns.

In 2018 there were 12 mass public shootings, 93 killed. Cars killed over 38,000, drowning killed over 3,500....

The numbers don't support you.

You claim as many defenses as we have violent crimes. That is funny. 100% are defended? Too funny.

America has a lot of violent crimes which are never reported, Brain. If some thug comes up to my mum with a knife and she pulls out her handgun, the thug will probably leave in a hurry and not leave a calling card. The crime will never be reported and that will be that.

The thug will wait for her to dig it out of her purse?

-------------------------- nowadays many women takes their gun ownership , gun use and defense seriously and there are many new fangled ways for woman to carry their guns so they can be gotten to very quickly 'NYBod .

Perhaps they do. I've never know a woman who carried a gun except my old TX grandma and she could not have hit the state of Oklahoma if she was standing on the border. She was blind as a bat.

I still hope Mum and Meemaw are faster than the thug, who has likely done this many times before.

So what is your advice to women when faced with a thug who wants to rape them?

Pee themselves?
Or, don't resist, after they leave go to the pharmacy for the morning after pill?

 

[Slade3200]

He told three American citizens to go back to the shitty broken countries they came from. That’s not the same as go home. Home is the USA. Come on Ice. I’m not spinning this, dont equivocate the two statements. You don’t find it racist. Fine. But don’t equivocate, you know it was a different and more pointed attack than “if you don’t like it leave” or “go back home”

Obviously I don't believe it to be different at the core. Please refrain from telling me what I know and we can stop having stupid arguments.

Well we have different thresholds for what we find to be appropriate or not. Just stop accusing me of lying about it via assumptions. I’m expressing my view of his comments. And to me that tweet was racist and inappropriate. It’s the first time I’ve accused him of such

dude - i am not the only one to say you have a very bad habit of making 2+2=whatever and you make large assumptions off limited information. i'm not telling you what to say - say whatever you want. but what i am telling you is if i see you or *anyone* make false assumptions based off non-existent logic, i will say so.

you made a lot of jumps to get to "Racist" and several people made that comment. you don't want people to say these things, don't do it. but again, not telling you NOT to, just telling you what happens when you do.

Trumps buddy, the mooch who is on TV non stop defending the Prez, called the comments racist. Was he making assumptions as well? What motivation does he have to be dishonest? Perhaps he, like I, truly read these comments as racist and unacceptable

Anthony Scaramucci Calls Trump Attack On 4 Democrats 'Racist And Unacceptable' | HuffPost

there are a lot of people who called it racist. there are a lot of people who call him eating a tub of chicken racist.

like i said - the word has been so devalued and de-sensitized, no one really cares about having that "on them" like they used to.

Ok, but what about my question. Why would his buddy the mooch lie about it? Is it possible that he is just being honest?

 

[Leo123]

violence is the issue. not the method they choose to express it. find out why people are violent and work on that, we may get somewhere. keep banning shit, they'll just use something else til we wind up making it illegal to kill people with rocks. well that's already illegal.

Oh we don't do that anymore as a society. That all stopped when Reagan de-funded mental health programs. Oopsie!

Now we just keep making it easier for violent people, including teenagers, to have access to the simplest way to kill a bunch of people quickly. Some people call that winning.

So it's not the fault of the shooter himself? OH NO!!!! According to you and the left-loonies It MUST be the 'evil' gun or the 'evil' Reagan......I'm surprised you and the loonie Democrats haven't found a way to blame Trump yet!!!