One law will actually stop 98.8% of mass shootings...why don't we pass it?

[rightwinger]

I have never entered a facility that says....Gun Free Zone

 

[2aguy]

10 times as many people have died of gun accidents in the last 10 years than have in public, random mass shootings unrelated to other crimes.

I fail to see how the former is related to the latter, in the context of "mass public shootings."

The point is that after you make up all these additional conditions to carve out only the "mass shootings" that fit your narrative, you're left with such a small number of incidents that they're statistically irrelevant.

No....the FBI has a specific definition of mass public shootings....the anti-gunners make up their own in order to increase the numbers......

The FBI defines a "mass shooting" as a shooting with 4 or more victims.

In your OP, you've defined a "mass shooting" as a shooting with 4 or more victims, that takes place in public, is random, and involves no other criminal activity.

The FBI does not include other criminal activity....

 

[2aguy]

I have never entered a facility that says....Gun Free Zone

So you have never renewed your drivers license or gone to church?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

10 times as many people have died of gun accidents in the last 10 years than have in public, random mass shootings unrelated to other crimes.

I fail to see how the former is related to the latter, in the context of "mass public shootings."

The point is that after you make up all these additional conditions to carve out only the "mass shootings" that fit your narrative, you're left with such a small number of incidents that they're statistically irrelevant.

No....the FBI has a specific definition of mass public shootings....the anti-gunners make up their own in order to increase the numbers......

The FBI defines a "mass shooting" as a shooting with 4 or more victims.

In your OP, you've defined a "mass shooting" as a shooting with 4 or more victims, that takes place in public, is random, and involves no other criminal activity.

The FBI does not include other criminal activity....

Yes, they do.

EDIT:

The FBI does not use the term "mass shooting". They define the term "mass murder" as a single person killing 4 or more people at a single location.

If guy shoots and kills 6 people in the middle of a drug deal, the FBI counts that as a "mass murder". Same if 6 people are killed by one guy in a gang fight.

 

[Picaro]

The FBI does not include other criminal activity....

They should, but the reason they don't is because all the gangbanger serial killers look like they could be his son, like Saint Trayvon. They need to keep as many minorities out of the stats as possible as well.

 

[2aguy]

I fail to see how the former is related to the latter, in the context of "mass public shootings."

The point is that after you make up all these additional conditions to carve out only the "mass shootings" that fit your narrative, you're left with such a small number of incidents that they're statistically irrelevant.

No....the FBI has a specific definition of mass public shootings....the anti-gunners make up their own in order to increase the numbers......

The FBI defines a "mass shooting" as a shooting with 4 or more victims.

In your OP, you've defined a "mass shooting" as a shooting with 4 or more victims, that takes place in public, is random, and involves no other criminal activity.

The FBI does not include other criminal activity....

Yes, they do.

If guy shoots and kills 6 people in the middle of a drug deal, the FBI counts that as a "mass shooting". Same if 6 people are killed in a gang fight.

Your OP does not.

The FBI did not give clear guidance to Mother Jones....Mother Jones states this....Mother Jones took out other crimes such as family murder and criminal and gang activity...which makes sense....since the normal person understands a difference between gang members shooting each other over a drug deal or a crap game at a party and an individual entering a public space and shooting unarmed people.......

refusing to acknowledge the difference makes you and idiot........

 

[2aguy]

The Mother Jones criteria...

What Exactly Is a Mass Shooting?

How often do mass shootings occur?
Beginning in July, after the movie theater slaughter in Aurora, Colorado, we documented and analyzed 62 mass shootings from the last 30 years. As we delved into the research, we realized that robust data on this subject was hard to come by, in part due to the lack of clear criteria. We were focused on the question of how many times Aurora-like events had actually happened. We honed our criteria accordingly:

• The attack must have occurred essentially in a single incident, in a public place;
• We excluded crimes of armed robbery, gang violence, or domestic violence in a home, focusing on cases in which the motive appeared to be indiscriminate mass murder;
• The killer, in accordance with the FBI criterion, had to have taken the lives of at least four people.

 

[2aguy]

You know...if you have questions about this...you should go to the Crime Prevention Research Center website and e-mail Dr. Lott....he actually responds to email....and would be happy to answer your questions.......

 

[rightwinger]

I have never entered a facility that says....Gun Free Zone

So you have never renewed your drivers license or gone to church?

Never saw signs in either location

What do they look like

 

[2aguy]

Dr. Lott uses mass public shootings.....

UPDATED: More misleading information from Bloomberg's Everytown for Gun Safety on guns: "Analysis of Recent Mass Shootings," Showing how mass public shootings keep occurring in gun-free zones - Crime Prevention Research Center





UPDATE: While the first part of the discussion here goes through each mass public shooting from 2009 to 2014 discussed in the Bloomberg report, further down in this post we have updated cases up through 2015 and the sources of older cases dating back to 1950. At the end of the post we have a response to Everytown’s response to our post. Using the data from 1950 through February 2016 has three mass public shootings in places where general citizens are allowed to have guns — that is just over 1 percent of the shootings over that period.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

The point is that after you make up all these additional conditions to carve out only the "mass shootings" that fit your narrative, you're left with such a small number of incidents that they're statistically irrelevant.

No....the FBI has a specific definition of mass public shootings....the anti-gunners make up their own in order to increase the numbers......

The FBI defines a "mass shooting" as a shooting with 4 or more victims.

In your OP, you've defined a "mass shooting" as a shooting with 4 or more victims, that takes place in public, is random, and involves no other criminal activity.

The FBI does not include other criminal activity....

Yes, they do.

If guy shoots and kills 6 people in the middle of a drug deal, the FBI counts that as a "mass shooting". Same if 6 people are killed in a gang fight.

Your OP does not.

The FBI did not give clear guidance to Mother Jones....Mother Jones states this....Mother Jones took out other crimes such as family murder and criminal and gang activity...which makes sense....since the normal person understands a difference between gang members shooting each other over a drug deal or a crap game at a party and an individual entering a public space and shooting unarmed people.......

refusing to acknowledge the difference makes you and idiot........

I don't care what "Mother Jones" thinks the criteria are, I'm only discussing the FBI definitions.

Using the Mother Jones definition, we're talking about 30 or so events in the last 15 years, with a couple hundred victims. It's statistically irrelevant.

 

[2aguy]

No....the FBI has a specific definition of mass public shootings....the anti-gunners make up their own in order to increase the numbers......

The FBI defines a "mass shooting" as a shooting with 4 or more victims.

In your OP, you've defined a "mass shooting" as a shooting with 4 or more victims, that takes place in public, is random, and involves no other criminal activity.

The FBI does not include other criminal activity....

Yes, they do.

If guy shoots and kills 6 people in the middle of a drug deal, the FBI counts that as a "mass shooting". Same if 6 people are killed in a gang fight.

Your OP does not.

The FBI did not give clear guidance to Mother Jones....Mother Jones states this....Mother Jones took out other crimes such as family murder and criminal and gang activity...which makes sense....since the normal person understands a difference between gang members shooting each other over a drug deal or a crap game at a party and an individual entering a public space and shooting unarmed people.......

refusing to acknowledge the difference makes you and idiot........

I don't care what "Mother Jones" thinks the criteria are, I'm only discussing the FBI definitions.

Using the Mother Jones definition, we're talking about 30 or so events in the last 15 years, with a couple hundred victims. It's statistically irrelevant.

Yes..it is....but anti-gun nuts want to deprive Americans who own 8 million rifles of their right to own their rifles on what you describe as a statistically irrelevant number....and if mass shootings are rare, mass shootings that use AR-15s are even more rare......

And yet that won't stop them.....

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

I agree with the general concept of getting rid of gun free zones by opening up businesses to liability for requiring their customers or employees to be unarmed, but I just don't know how much difference it would make against people who are willing to die anyway. Not to long ago, someone committed a brazen assault on a police station, far from gun free. Then you have Major Assad who selected a gun free zone but had every intention of killing until he was stopped, like many Muslims. The only difference is how many they kill before being stopped and that's a good reason for an armed population, but the number of shootings won't decrease.

 

[2aguy]

I agree with the general concept of getting rid of gun free zones by opening up businesses to liability for requiring their customers or employees to be unarmed, but I just don't know how much difference it would make against people who are willing to die anyway. Not to long ago, someone committed a brazen assault on a police station, far from gun free. Then you have Major Assad who selected a gun free zone but had every intention of killing until he was stopped, like many Muslims. The only difference is how many they kill before being stopped and that's a good reason for an armed population, but the number of shootings won't decrease.

When you look at these guys...they pick gun free zones.....so limiting the number of gun free zones will limit their targets of choice...as the anti-gunners say, it won't end all mass shootings....but it will give innocent people caught in one a chance to end the attack faster, and save more lives....that is what the research shows....the more immediate armed resistance is encountered, the more likely they will be stopped....

muslim terrorists are different from nut jobs....muslims will fight against police and armed civilians.....nut jobs will as a general rule commit suicide or surrender.....

So in either case.....armed civilians will save lives......

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

I agree with the general concept of getting rid of gun free zones by opening up businesses to liability for requiring their customers or employees to be unarmed, but I just don't know how much difference it would make against people who are willing to die anyway. Not to long ago, someone committed a brazen assault on a police station, far from gun free. Then you have Major Assad who selected a gun free zone but had every intention of killing until he was stopped, like many Muslims. The only difference is how many they kill before being stopped and that's a good reason for an armed population, but the number of shootings won't decrease.

When you look at these guys...they pick gun free zones.....so limiting the number of gun free zones will limit their targets of choice...as the anti-gunners say, it won't end all mass shootings....but it will give innocent people caught in one a chance to end the attack faster, and save more lives....that is what the research shows....the more immediate armed resistance is encountered, the more likely they will be stopped....

muslim terrorists are different from nut jobs....muslims will fight against police and armed civilians.....nut jobs will as a general rule commit suicide or surrender.....

So in either case.....armed civilians will save lives......

Which was my point. The only way to actually reduce the number of shootings is to ban Islam by Constitutional amendment. Unfortunately many more Americans must die on American soil before we muster the political will to do what must be done.

 

[rightwinger]

Locations with large amounts of people in small areas tend to restrict guns
They also seem most desirable as targets

 

[2aguy]

Locations with large amounts of people in small areas tend to restrict guns
They also seem most desirable as targets

Except the NRA convention.....and the Texas Republican convention.....worked out there......

 

[rightwinger]

Locations with large amounts of people in small areas tend to restrict guns
They also seem most desirable as targets

Except the NRA convention.....and the Texas Republican convention.....worked out there......

How about the GOP convention?

 

[2aguy]

Locations with large amounts of people in small areas tend to restrict guns
They also seem most desirable as targets

Except the NRA convention.....and the Texas Republican convention.....worked out there......

How about the GOP convention?

The Secret Service has jurisdiction......they are not allowing guns.....

Again....NRA convention...allowed guns to be carried....The Texas Republican Convention....allowed guns.........did you hear about the blood baths at either one?

 

[Bob Blaylock]

This one law will stop almost all mass shootings......why won't we pass it?

Just One Gun Law Might Stop 98.8% Of Mass Shootings, So Why Do Democrats Oppose It?

·
·
·​

It’s time to get rid of these tragically misnamed “gun free zones” and give American citizens a fighting chance.

We already have such a law. It was enacted in 1791, and ratified as part of our Constitution, making it part of the highest law in the nation.

The entirety of the problem is the absolute refusal, on the part of our corrupt public servants, to obey this law; and their relentless attempts to override it by invalid lower laws and other government actions.