Orlando and Gun Control: An Inconvenient Truth

[Clementine]

Do you really think allowing concealed weapons into a nightclub full of drunks is a good idea?

I've worked as a nightclub bouncer, and I'd probably be dead if some of the people I've had to bounce had a gun on them.

If they wanted to kill you, they would have come back with a gun or retrieved one from their vehicle. If the person had a penchant for murdering people, they would bring a gun in anyway. Big difference between a drunk wanting to fight and someone who would murder a person. It's a huge leap, not a small one like the left seems to think. It's the criminals that pose the danger and always will. Laws haven't done shit to stop them and more won't have any effect.

The gun free zone signs serve only one purpose and that is to alert the murderers that it's highly unlikely anyone will shoot back. That is why they choose those places time after time.

 

[2aguy]

You are confused once again Moon Bat.

It didn't limit it in this situation.

The Muslim disobeyed the firearms laws of Florida by taking guns into an establishment expressly prohibited from having firearms.

He also used the firearm in an illegal manner.

What other laws are you proposing that be establish that he would have disobeyed?

He passed a national background check and that just shows you how worthless they are 'to stop crime. If he hadn't passed the background he would have just acquired them illegally like Obama's Muslim terrorist couple in California.

Gun control laws do absolutely nothing to stop crime. It is nothing more than a stupid Libtard's fantasy. You are a dumbass if you think otherwise.

He legally bought a weapon for mass killing. Lack of laws allowed that to happen.

It seems youre profiling now, he was gay, and a Muslim and angry How would've any new laws stopped that? be Specific

Magazine limits. He killed most in minutes while having a shootout with police. Should not have had such a deadly weapon.

Your political correctness has no sense to it... Hollywood and your politically correct politicians have no knowledge of what the facts are. fuck nut
Lol

You deny physics?

I've seen that sad video before. So mass shooters carry around a barrel so they can cleanly grab the next magazine? Ridiculous.

Fuck you moron...you are a troll. brain is a troll, he likes to agitate normal people with stupid posts....

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Do you really think allowing concealed weapons into a nightclub full of drunks is a good idea?

I've worked as a nightclub bouncer, and I'd probably be dead if some of the people I've had to bounce had a gun on them.

If they wanted to kill you, they would have come back with a gun or retrieved one from their vehicle. If the person had a penchant for murdering people, they would bring a gun in anyway. Big difference between a drunk wanting to fight and someone who would murder a person. It's a huge leap, not a small one like the left seems to think. It's the criminals that pose the danger and always will. Laws haven't done shit to stop them and more won't have any effect.

The gun free zone signs serve only one purpose and that is to alert the murderers that it's highly unlikely anyone will shoot back. That is why they choose those places time after time.

You are absolutely wrong.

Most murders are not planned, they're "acts of passion". When someone is drunk, on drugs, and angry, shit happens. I don't think anyone who I had to bounce "really wanted to kill me" - but I also have no doubt that they would have in that moment, had they been able to.

There is no such thing as a "criminal" type of person. Criminals are just regular people who have broken the law.

 

[2aguy]

Do you really think allowing concealed weapons into a nightclub full of drunks is a good idea?

I've worked as a nightclub bouncer, and I'd probably be dead if some of the people I've had to bounce had a gun on them.

If they wanted to kill you, they would have come back with a gun or retrieved one from their vehicle. If the person had a penchant for murdering people, they would bring a gun in anyway. Big difference between a drunk wanting to fight and someone who would murder a person. It's a huge leap, not a small one like the left seems to think. It's the criminals that pose the danger and always will. Laws haven't done shit to stop them and more won't have any effect.

The gun free zone signs serve only one purpose and that is to alert the murderers that it's highly unlikely anyone will shoot back. That is why they choose those places time after time.

You are absolutely wrong.

Most murders are not planned, they're "acts of passion". When someone is drunk, on drugs, and angry, shit happens. I don't think anyone who I had to bounce "really wanted to kill me" - but I also have no doubt that they would have in that moment, had they been able to.

There is no such thing as a "criminal" type of person. Criminals are just regular people who have broken the law.

Wrong...completely wrong......90% of murderers have long, violent histories with multiple felonies...the myth of the average joe passion killer is just that...a myth....and 70-80% of the victims in gun murder....are also felons with long criminals histories....

You should check the actual research.......not the anti gun propaganda.......

 

[2aguy]

Do you really think allowing concealed weapons into a nightclub full of drunks is a good idea?

I've worked as a nightclub bouncer, and I'd probably be dead if some of the people I've had to bounce had a gun on them.

If they wanted to kill you, they would have come back with a gun or retrieved one from their vehicle. If the person had a penchant for murdering people, they would bring a gun in anyway. Big difference between a drunk wanting to fight and someone who would murder a person. It's a huge leap, not a small one like the left seems to think. It's the criminals that pose the danger and always will. Laws haven't done shit to stop them and more won't have any effect.

The gun free zone signs serve only one purpose and that is to alert the murderers that it's highly unlikely anyone will shoot back. That is why they choose those places time after time.

You are absolutely wrong.

Most murders are not planned, they're "acts of passion". When someone is drunk, on drugs, and angry, shit happens. I don't think anyone who I had to bounce "really wanted to kill me" - but I also have no doubt that they would have in that moment, had they been able to.

There is no such thing as a "criminal" type of person. Criminals are just regular people who have broken the law.

breakdown of the 90% of murderers have records..really good...

JURIST - The Criminology of Firearms


In 2004, the National Academy of Sciences reviewed 253 journal articles, 99 books, 43 government publications and some empirical research of its own about guns. The Academy could not identify any gun restriction that had reduced violent crime, suicide or gun accidents.

Why don't gun bans work? Because they rely on voluntary compliance by gun-using criminals. Prohibitionists never see this absurdity because they deceive themselves into thinking that, as Katherine Christoffel has said: "[M]ost shootings are not committed by felons or mentally ill people, but are acts of passion that are committed using a handgun that is owned for home protection."

Christoffel, et al., are utterly wrong. The whole corpus of criminological research dating back to the 1890'sshows murderers "almost uniformly have a long history of involvement in criminal behavior," and that "[v]irtually all" murderers and other gun criminals have prior felony records — generally long ones.

While only 15 percent of Americans have criminal records, roughly 90 percent of adult murderers have prior adult records — exclusive of their often extensive juvenile records — with crime careers of six or more adult years including four major felonies. Gerald D. Robin, writing for the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences,notes that, unlike ordinary gun owners, "the average murderer turns out to be no less hardened a criminal than the average robber or burglar."

Throughout this essay I highlight dramatic recantations by criminologists who previously endorsed stringent gun control. For example, Professor David Mustard has stated in an article [PDF] for the University of Pennsylvania Law Review:

When I started my research on guns [at the University of Chicago] in 1995, I passionately disliked firearms and fully accepted the conventional wisdom that increasing the gun-ownership rate would necessarily raise violent crime and accidental deaths. My views on this subject were formed primarily by media accounts of firearms, which unknowingly to me systematically emphasized the costs of firearms while virtually ignoring their benefits. I thought it obvious that passing laws that permitted law-abiding citizens to carry concealed weapons would create many problems. It is now over six years since I became convinced otherwise and concluded that shall issue laws — laws that require [gun carry permits] to be granted unless the applicant has a criminal record or a history of significant mental illness — reduce violent crime and have no impact on accidental deaths.Actual research results — as opposed to unsupported opinions — pose a question embarrassed gun prohibitionists invariably try to evade: why ban guns to ordinary owners, i.e., people who never commit gun crimes? (This query does not at all impugn our laws against previously convicted felons having guns).



-------------------------

Zimring has nevertheless remained a firm advocate of gun bans. But actual research has produced an unbroken record of recantations by criminologists who once agreed with Zimring. In the late 1970's the US Department of Justice (DOJ) funded and tasked the University of Massachusetts' Social and Demographic Research Institute to review and evaluate the entire extant literature on gun control in the US and elsewhere. The Institute's resulting report observed: "It is commonly hypothesized that much criminal violence, especially homicide, occurs simply because the means of lethal violence (firearms) are readily at hand, and, thus, that much homicide would not occur were firearms generally less available. There is no persuasive evidence that supports this view." (emphasis added)


That evaluation's authors — Professors James Wright, Peter Rossi and Kathleen Daly — subsequently published a commercial version of their report to which they added their personal recantation:

The progressive's indictment of American firearms policy is well known and is one that both the senior authors of this study once shared. This indictment includes the following particulars: (1) Guns are involved in an astonishing number of crimes in this country. (2) In other countries with stricter firearms laws and fewer guns in private hands, gun crime is rare ... (4) Many families acquire a gun because they feel the need to protect themselves; eventually, they end up shooting one another. (5) If there were fewer guns around, there would obviously be less crime ... The more deeply we explored the empirical implications of this indictment, the less plausible it has become. (emphasis, parentheses added)

 

[Clementine]

Do you really think allowing concealed weapons into a nightclub full of drunks is a good idea?

I've worked as a nightclub bouncer, and I'd probably be dead if some of the people I've had to bounce had a gun on them.

If they wanted to kill you, they would have come back with a gun or retrieved one from their vehicle. If the person had a penchant for murdering people, they would bring a gun in anyway. Big difference between a drunk wanting to fight and someone who would murder a person. It's a huge leap, not a small one like the left seems to think. It's the criminals that pose the danger and always will. Laws haven't done shit to stop them and more won't have any effect.

The gun free zone signs serve only one purpose and that is to alert the murderers that it's highly unlikely anyone will shoot back. That is why they choose those places time after time.

You are absolutely wrong.

Most murders are not planned, they're "acts of passion". When someone is drunk, on drugs, and angry, shit happens. I don't think anyone who I had to bounce "really wanted to kill me" - but I also have no doubt that they would have in that moment, had they been able to.

There is no such thing as a "criminal" type of person. Criminals are just regular people who have broken the law.

breakdown of the 90% of murderers have records..really good...

JURIST - The Criminology of Firearms


In 2004, the National Academy of Sciences reviewed 253 journal articles, 99 books, 43 government publications and some empirical research of its own about guns. The Academy could not identify any gun restriction that had reduced violent crime, suicide or gun accidents.

Why don't gun bans work? Because they rely on voluntary compliance by gun-using criminals. Prohibitionists never see this absurdity because they deceive themselves into thinking that, as Katherine Christoffel has said: "[M]ost shootings are not committed by felons or mentally ill people, but are acts of passion that are committed using a handgun that is owned for home protection."

Christoffel, et al., are utterly wrong. The whole corpus of criminological research dating back to the 1890'sshows murderers "almost uniformly have a long history of involvement in criminal behavior," and that "[v]irtually all" murderers and other gun criminals have prior felony records — generally long ones.

While only 15 percent of Americans have criminal records, roughly 90 percent of adult murderers have prior adult records — exclusive of their often extensive juvenile records — with crime careers of six or more adult years including four major felonies. Gerald D. Robin, writing for the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences,notes that, unlike ordinary gun owners, "the average murderer turns out to be no less hardened a criminal than the average robber or burglar."

Throughout this essay I highlight dramatic recantations by criminologists who previously endorsed stringent gun control. For example, Professor David Mustard has stated in an article [PDF] for the University of Pennsylvania Law Review:

When I started my research on guns [at the University of Chicago] in 1995, I passionately disliked firearms and fully accepted the conventional wisdom that increasing the gun-ownership rate would necessarily raise violent crime and accidental deaths. My views on this subject were formed primarily by media accounts of firearms, which unknowingly to me systematically emphasized the costs of firearms while virtually ignoring their benefits. I thought it obvious that passing laws that permitted law-abiding citizens to carry concealed weapons would create many problems. It is now over six years since I became convinced otherwise and concluded that shall issue laws — laws that require [gun carry permits] to be granted unless the applicant has a criminal record or a history of significant mental illness — reduce violent crime and have no impact on accidental deaths.Actual research results — as opposed to unsupported opinions — pose a question embarrassed gun prohibitionists invariably try to evade: why ban guns to ordinary owners, i.e., people who never commit gun crimes? (This query does not at all impugn our laws against previously convicted felons having guns).



-------------------------

Zimring has nevertheless remained a firm advocate of gun bans. But actual research has produced an unbroken record of recantations by criminologists who once agreed with Zimring. In the late 1970's the US Department of Justice (DOJ) funded and tasked the University of Massachusetts' Social and Demographic Research Institute to review and evaluate the entire extant literature on gun control in the US and elsewhere. The Institute's resulting report observed: "It is commonly hypothesized that much criminal violence, especially homicide, occurs simply because the means of lethal violence (firearms) are readily at hand, and, thus, that much homicide would not occur were firearms generally less available. There is no persuasive evidence that supports this view." (emphasis added)


That evaluation's authors — Professors James Wright, Peter Rossi and Kathleen Daly — subsequently published a commercial version of their report to which they added their personal recantation:

The progressive's indictment of American firearms policy is well known and is one that both the senior authors of this study once shared. This indictment includes the following particulars: (1) Guns are involved in an astonishing number of crimes in this country. (2) In other countries with stricter firearms laws and fewer guns in private hands, gun crime is rare ... (4) Many families acquire a gun because they feel the need to protect themselves; eventually, they end up shooting one another. (5) If there were fewer guns around, there would obviously be less crime ... The more deeply we explored the empirical implications of this indictment, the less plausible it has become. (emphasis, parentheses added)

And the odds are that a violent person with a record is probably carrying no matter what the sign says.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Do you really think allowing concealed weapons into a nightclub full of drunks is a good idea?

I've worked as a nightclub bouncer, and I'd probably be dead if some of the people I've had to bounce had a gun on them.

If they wanted to kill you, they would have come back with a gun or retrieved one from their vehicle. If the person had a penchant for murdering people, they would bring a gun in anyway. Big difference between a drunk wanting to fight and someone who would murder a person. It's a huge leap, not a small one like the left seems to think. It's the criminals that pose the danger and always will. Laws haven't done shit to stop them and more won't have any effect.

The gun free zone signs serve only one purpose and that is to alert the murderers that it's highly unlikely anyone will shoot back. That is why they choose those places time after time.

You are absolutely wrong.

Most murders are not planned, they're "acts of passion". When someone is drunk, on drugs, and angry, shit happens. I don't think anyone who I had to bounce "really wanted to kill me" - but I also have no doubt that they would have in that moment, had they been able to.

There is no such thing as a "criminal" type of person. Criminals are just regular people who have broken the law.

Wrong...completely wrong......90% of murderers have long, violent histories with multiple felonies...the myth of the average joe passion killer is just that...a myth....and 70-80% of the victims in gun murder....are also felons with long criminals histories....

You should check the actual research.......not the anti gun propaganda.......

I'll rephrase. Most murders are related to other crime. But that's an insular group - if you're not involved in drugs, it's incredibly unlikely that you'll be killed by a drug dealer.

As a bouncer at a nightclub (who was not involved in the drug trade), I was in much more danger from out of control drunks who were probably decent, ordinary people when not drunk than I was from "criminals".

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Do you really think allowing concealed weapons into a nightclub full of drunks is a good idea?

I've worked as a nightclub bouncer, and I'd probably be dead if some of the people I've had to bounce had a gun on them.

If they wanted to kill you, they would have come back with a gun or retrieved one from their vehicle. If the person had a penchant for murdering people, they would bring a gun in anyway. Big difference between a drunk wanting to fight and someone who would murder a person. It's a huge leap, not a small one like the left seems to think. It's the criminals that pose the danger and always will. Laws haven't done shit to stop them and more won't have any effect.

The gun free zone signs serve only one purpose and that is to alert the murderers that it's highly unlikely anyone will shoot back. That is why they choose those places time after time.

You are absolutely wrong.

Most murders are not planned, they're "acts of passion". When someone is drunk, on drugs, and angry, shit happens. I don't think anyone who I had to bounce "really wanted to kill me" - but I also have no doubt that they would have in that moment, had they been able to.

There is no such thing as a "criminal" type of person. Criminals are just regular people who have broken the law.

breakdown of the 90% of murderers have records..really good...

JURIST - The Criminology of Firearms


In 2004, the National Academy of Sciences reviewed 253 journal articles, 99 books, 43 government publications and some empirical research of its own about guns. The Academy could not identify any gun restriction that had reduced violent crime, suicide or gun accidents.

Why don't gun bans work? Because they rely on voluntary compliance by gun-using criminals. Prohibitionists never see this absurdity because they deceive themselves into thinking that, as Katherine Christoffel has said: "[M]ost shootings are not committed by felons or mentally ill people, but are acts of passion that are committed using a handgun that is owned for home protection."

Christoffel, et al., are utterly wrong. The whole corpus of criminological research dating back to the 1890'sshows murderers "almost uniformly have a long history of involvement in criminal behavior," and that "[v]irtually all" murderers and other gun criminals have prior felony records — generally long ones.

While only 15 percent of Americans have criminal records, roughly 90 percent of adult murderers have prior adult records — exclusive of their often extensive juvenile records — with crime careers of six or more adult years including four major felonies. Gerald D. Robin, writing for the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences,notes that, unlike ordinary gun owners, "the average murderer turns out to be no less hardened a criminal than the average robber or burglar."

Throughout this essay I highlight dramatic recantations by criminologists who previously endorsed stringent gun control. For example, Professor David Mustard has stated in an article [PDF] for the University of Pennsylvania Law Review:

When I started my research on guns [at the University of Chicago] in 1995, I passionately disliked firearms and fully accepted the conventional wisdom that increasing the gun-ownership rate would necessarily raise violent crime and accidental deaths. My views on this subject were formed primarily by media accounts of firearms, which unknowingly to me systematically emphasized the costs of firearms while virtually ignoring their benefits. I thought it obvious that passing laws that permitted law-abiding citizens to carry concealed weapons would create many problems. It is now over six years since I became convinced otherwise and concluded that shall issue laws — laws that require [gun carry permits] to be granted unless the applicant has a criminal record or a history of significant mental illness — reduce violent crime and have no impact on accidental deaths.Actual research results — as opposed to unsupported opinions — pose a question embarrassed gun prohibitionists invariably try to evade: why ban guns to ordinary owners, i.e., people who never commit gun crimes? (This query does not at all impugn our laws against previously convicted felons having guns).



-------------------------

Zimring has nevertheless remained a firm advocate of gun bans. But actual research has produced an unbroken record of recantations by criminologists who once agreed with Zimring. In the late 1970's the US Department of Justice (DOJ) funded and tasked the University of Massachusetts' Social and Demographic Research Institute to review and evaluate the entire extant literature on gun control in the US and elsewhere. The Institute's resulting report observed: "It is commonly hypothesized that much criminal violence, especially homicide, occurs simply because the means of lethal violence (firearms) are readily at hand, and, thus, that much homicide would not occur were firearms generally less available. There is no persuasive evidence that supports this view." (emphasis added)


That evaluation's authors — Professors James Wright, Peter Rossi and Kathleen Daly — subsequently published a commercial version of their report to which they added their personal recantation:

The progressive's indictment of American firearms policy is well known and is one that both the senior authors of this study once shared. This indictment includes the following particulars: (1) Guns are involved in an astonishing number of crimes in this country. (2) In other countries with stricter firearms laws and fewer guns in private hands, gun crime is rare ... (4) Many families acquire a gun because they feel the need to protect themselves; eventually, they end up shooting one another. (5) If there were fewer guns around, there would obviously be less crime ... The more deeply we explored the empirical implications of this indictment, the less plausible it has become. (emphasis, parentheses added)

And the odds are that a violent person with a record is probably carrying no matter what the sign says.

I get the impression that a lot of you just don't have the slightest idea how a nightclub works.

No one gets into a club without being patted down and searched, if not run through a metal detectot. The only way someone's going to be carrying a gun on the dance floor is if they shot the door guy on the way in.

 

[Crixus]

That nightclub, you know the one Mateen attacked? It was packed with 300 healthy men/women. And nobody took him down. Nobody. Fifty people died instead. He was outnumbered three-hundred to one. Please, don't bother preaching to me about how much safer the world would be with gun control. Even though that club was a vaunted gun-free zone, people still died. It didn't stop a crazed Muslim "jihadi" from mowing people down with an "AR-15" or whatever weapon he used. This gun free zone lulled these poor people into a false sense of security. They soon found out how nonexistent that security was. That alone proves just how ineffectual gun free zones really are.

What if in fact they had been armed? What would have been better, a sign which gives the illusion of security, or a firearm at your side which gives certain security?

What do you think gun-free zones have accomplished? This isn't Star Trek, you can't just raise a forcefield and block crazed gunmen/terrorists from bringing their weapons into the building. It doesn't work that way. I'm sorry to say gun control liberals are too thickheaded to see that. All a gun free zone is, is three words on a sign. Words are meaningless. Signs are meaningless. Words were not going to stop that terrorist from killing people.

This is truly heartbreaking. Gun control liberals think gun-free zones will stop these atrocities from happening. Gun control liberals think gun control laws will stop these atrocities from happening. Right. This is like trying to stop a bomb blast with a piece of paper. In essence, that's all gun control laws and gun free zone signs are, just words written on a piece of paper.

Typically, bars are a no no when it comes to guns. I think most states (mine does) have laws banning guns from any place alcohol is served and I think that's a good thing. What would have prevented this Haji from shooting the place up would have been the FBI doing its job and getting this dude off the streets. Basically, had the administration been doing its job and not been worried about looking PC this shooting would never have happened.

That makes the bar a prime target. My alcohol intake has never caused my gun to come out of its holster, let alone kill someone.

That makes the bar a prime target. My alcohol intake has never caused my gun to come out of its holster, let alone kill someone.

You drink when your armed? That's scary.

I'm always armed, sometimes I drink. And I'm sure you spend your whole life scared.

I'm always to chicken to go it. They would pull my card here If I was cought.

 

[PredFan]

That nightclub, you know the one Mateen attacked? It was packed with 300 healthy men/women. And nobody took him down. Nobody. Fifty people died instead. He was outnumbered three-hundred to one. Please, don't bother preaching to me about how much safer the world would be with gun control. Even though that club was a vaunted gun-free zone, people still died. It didn't stop a crazed Muslim "jihadi" from mowing people down with an "AR-15" or whatever weapon he used. This gun free zone lulled these poor people into a false sense of security. They soon found out how nonexistent that security was. That alone proves just how ineffectual gun free zones really are.

What if in fact they had been armed? What would have been better, a sign which gives the illusion of security, or a firearm at your side which gives certain security?

What do you think gun-free zones have accomplished? This isn't Star Trek, you can't just raise a forcefield and block crazed gunmen/terrorists from bringing their weapons into the building. It doesn't work that way. I'm sorry to say gun control liberals are too thickheaded to see that. All a gun free zone is, is three words on a sign. Words are meaningless. Signs are meaningless. Words were not going to stop that terrorist from killing people.

This is truly heartbreaking. Gun control liberals think gun-free zones will stop these atrocities from happening. Gun control liberals think gun control laws will stop these atrocities from happening. Right. This is like trying to stop a bomb blast with a piece of paper. In essence, that's all gun control laws and gun free zone signs are, just words written on a piece of paper.

Typically, bars are a no no when it comes to guns. I think most states (mine does) have laws banning guns from any place alcohol is served and I think that's a good thing. What would have prevented this Haji from shooting the place up would have been the FBI doing its job and getting this dude off the streets. Basically, had the administration been doing its job and not been worried about looking PC this shooting would never have happened.

That makes the bar a prime target. My alcohol intake has never caused my gun to come out of its holster, let alone kill someone.

That makes the bar a prime target. My alcohol intake has never caused my gun to come out of its holster, let alone kill someone.

You drink when your armed? That's scary.

I'm always armed, sometimes I drink. And I'm sure you spend your whole life scared.

I'm always to chicken to go it. They would pull my card here If I was cought.

Yeah they would here too but why would you get caught unless you drew it? And if you drew it to save someone's life it might be worth it.

You mean you have never been to a restaurant while carrying? I carry all the time and most restaurants I go to also serve alcohol. Sometimes I have a margarita, somethimes iced tea.

 

[2aguy]

Do you really think allowing concealed weapons into a nightclub full of drunks is a good idea?

I've worked as a nightclub bouncer, and I'd probably be dead if some of the people I've had to bounce had a gun on them.

If they wanted to kill you, they would have come back with a gun or retrieved one from their vehicle. If the person had a penchant for murdering people, they would bring a gun in anyway. Big difference between a drunk wanting to fight and someone who would murder a person. It's a huge leap, not a small one like the left seems to think. It's the criminals that pose the danger and always will. Laws haven't done shit to stop them and more won't have any effect.

The gun free zone signs serve only one purpose and that is to alert the murderers that it's highly unlikely anyone will shoot back. That is why they choose those places time after time.

You are absolutely wrong.

Most murders are not planned, they're "acts of passion". When someone is drunk, on drugs, and angry, shit happens. I don't think anyone who I had to bounce "really wanted to kill me" - but I also have no doubt that they would have in that moment, had they been able to.

There is no such thing as a "criminal" type of person. Criminals are just regular people who have broken the law.

Wrong...completely wrong......90% of murderers have long, violent histories with multiple felonies...the myth of the average joe passion killer is just that...a myth....and 70-80% of the victims in gun murder....are also felons with long criminals histories....

You should check the actual research.......not the anti gun propaganda.......

I'll rephrase. Most murders are related to other crime. But that's an insular group - if you're not involved in drugs, it's incredibly unlikely that you'll be killed by a drug dealer.

As a bouncer at a nightclub (who was not involved in the drug trade), I was in much more danger from out of control drunks who were probably decent, ordinary people when not drunk than I was from "criminals".

Did you know their background and previous arrest records? if not....they most likely had long histories of violence and stupid behavior and likely criminal convictions...

 

[2aguy]

Do you really think allowing concealed weapons into a nightclub full of drunks is a good idea?

I've worked as a nightclub bouncer, and I'd probably be dead if some of the people I've had to bounce had a gun on them.

If they wanted to kill you, they would have come back with a gun or retrieved one from their vehicle. If the person had a penchant for murdering people, they would bring a gun in anyway. Big difference between a drunk wanting to fight and someone who would murder a person. It's a huge leap, not a small one like the left seems to think. It's the criminals that pose the danger and always will. Laws haven't done shit to stop them and more won't have any effect.

The gun free zone signs serve only one purpose and that is to alert the murderers that it's highly unlikely anyone will shoot back. That is why they choose those places time after time.

You are absolutely wrong.

Most murders are not planned, they're "acts of passion". When someone is drunk, on drugs, and angry, shit happens. I don't think anyone who I had to bounce "really wanted to kill me" - but I also have no doubt that they would have in that moment, had they been able to.

There is no such thing as a "criminal" type of person. Criminals are just regular people who have broken the law.

breakdown of the 90% of murderers have records..really good...

JURIST - The Criminology of Firearms


In 2004, the National Academy of Sciences reviewed 253 journal articles, 99 books, 43 government publications and some empirical research of its own about guns. The Academy could not identify any gun restriction that had reduced violent crime, suicide or gun accidents.

Why don't gun bans work? Because they rely on voluntary compliance by gun-using criminals. Prohibitionists never see this absurdity because they deceive themselves into thinking that, as Katherine Christoffel has said: "[M]ost shootings are not committed by felons or mentally ill people, but are acts of passion that are committed using a handgun that is owned for home protection."

Christoffel, et al., are utterly wrong. The whole corpus of criminological research dating back to the 1890'sshows murderers "almost uniformly have a long history of involvement in criminal behavior," and that "[v]irtually all" murderers and other gun criminals have prior felony records — generally long ones.

While only 15 percent of Americans have criminal records, roughly 90 percent of adult murderers have prior adult records — exclusive of their often extensive juvenile records — with crime careers of six or more adult years including four major felonies. Gerald D. Robin, writing for the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences,notes that, unlike ordinary gun owners, "the average murderer turns out to be no less hardened a criminal than the average robber or burglar."

Throughout this essay I highlight dramatic recantations by criminologists who previously endorsed stringent gun control. For example, Professor David Mustard has stated in an article [PDF] for the University of Pennsylvania Law Review:

When I started my research on guns [at the University of Chicago] in 1995, I passionately disliked firearms and fully accepted the conventional wisdom that increasing the gun-ownership rate would necessarily raise violent crime and accidental deaths. My views on this subject were formed primarily by media accounts of firearms, which unknowingly to me systematically emphasized the costs of firearms while virtually ignoring their benefits. I thought it obvious that passing laws that permitted law-abiding citizens to carry concealed weapons would create many problems. It is now over six years since I became convinced otherwise and concluded that shall issue laws — laws that require [gun carry permits] to be granted unless the applicant has a criminal record or a history of significant mental illness — reduce violent crime and have no impact on accidental deaths.Actual research results — as opposed to unsupported opinions — pose a question embarrassed gun prohibitionists invariably try to evade: why ban guns to ordinary owners, i.e., people who never commit gun crimes? (This query does not at all impugn our laws against previously convicted felons having guns).



-------------------------

Zimring has nevertheless remained a firm advocate of gun bans. But actual research has produced an unbroken record of recantations by criminologists who once agreed with Zimring. In the late 1970's the US Department of Justice (DOJ) funded and tasked the University of Massachusetts' Social and Demographic Research Institute to review and evaluate the entire extant literature on gun control in the US and elsewhere. The Institute's resulting report observed: "It is commonly hypothesized that much criminal violence, especially homicide, occurs simply because the means of lethal violence (firearms) are readily at hand, and, thus, that much homicide would not occur were firearms generally less available. There is no persuasive evidence that supports this view." (emphasis added)


That evaluation's authors — Professors James Wright, Peter Rossi and Kathleen Daly — subsequently published a commercial version of their report to which they added their personal recantation:

The progressive's indictment of American firearms policy is well known and is one that both the senior authors of this study once shared. This indictment includes the following particulars: (1) Guns are involved in an astonishing number of crimes in this country. (2) In other countries with stricter firearms laws and fewer guns in private hands, gun crime is rare ... (4) Many families acquire a gun because they feel the need to protect themselves; eventually, they end up shooting one another. (5) If there were fewer guns around, there would obviously be less crime ... The more deeply we explored the empirical implications of this indictment, the less plausible it has become. (emphasis, parentheses added)

And the odds are that a violent person with a record is probably carrying no matter what the sign says.

I get the impression that a lot of you just don't have the slightest idea how a nightclub works.

No one gets into a club without being patted down and searched, if not run through a metal detectot. The only way someone's going to be carrying a gun on the dance floor is if they shot the door guy on the way in.

And yet guns get in all the time...I posted the video of the rapper shooting a few weeks ago...

 

[theDoctorisIn]

If they wanted to kill you, they would have come back with a gun or retrieved one from their vehicle. If the person had a penchant for murdering people, they would bring a gun in anyway. Big difference between a drunk wanting to fight and someone who would murder a person. It's a huge leap, not a small one like the left seems to think. It's the criminals that pose the danger and always will. Laws haven't done shit to stop them and more won't have any effect.

The gun free zone signs serve only one purpose and that is to alert the murderers that it's highly unlikely anyone will shoot back. That is why they choose those places time after time.

You are absolutely wrong.

Most murders are not planned, they're "acts of passion". When someone is drunk, on drugs, and angry, shit happens. I don't think anyone who I had to bounce "really wanted to kill me" - but I also have no doubt that they would have in that moment, had they been able to.

There is no such thing as a "criminal" type of person. Criminals are just regular people who have broken the law.

breakdown of the 90% of murderers have records..really good...

JURIST - The Criminology of Firearms


In 2004, the National Academy of Sciences reviewed 253 journal articles, 99 books, 43 government publications and some empirical research of its own about guns. The Academy could not identify any gun restriction that had reduced violent crime, suicide or gun accidents.

Why don't gun bans work? Because they rely on voluntary compliance by gun-using criminals. Prohibitionists never see this absurdity because they deceive themselves into thinking that, as Katherine Christoffel has said: "[M]ost shootings are not committed by felons or mentally ill people, but are acts of passion that are committed using a handgun that is owned for home protection."

Christoffel, et al., are utterly wrong. The whole corpus of criminological research dating back to the 1890'sshows murderers "almost uniformly have a long history of involvement in criminal behavior," and that "[v]irtually all" murderers and other gun criminals have prior felony records — generally long ones.

While only 15 percent of Americans have criminal records, roughly 90 percent of adult murderers have prior adult records — exclusive of their often extensive juvenile records — with crime careers of six or more adult years including four major felonies. Gerald D. Robin, writing for the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences,notes that, unlike ordinary gun owners, "the average murderer turns out to be no less hardened a criminal than the average robber or burglar."

Throughout this essay I highlight dramatic recantations by criminologists who previously endorsed stringent gun control. For example, Professor David Mustard has stated in an article [PDF] for the University of Pennsylvania Law Review:

When I started my research on guns [at the University of Chicago] in 1995, I passionately disliked firearms and fully accepted the conventional wisdom that increasing the gun-ownership rate would necessarily raise violent crime and accidental deaths. My views on this subject were formed primarily by media accounts of firearms, which unknowingly to me systematically emphasized the costs of firearms while virtually ignoring their benefits. I thought it obvious that passing laws that permitted law-abiding citizens to carry concealed weapons would create many problems. It is now over six years since I became convinced otherwise and concluded that shall issue laws — laws that require [gun carry permits] to be granted unless the applicant has a criminal record or a history of significant mental illness — reduce violent crime and have no impact on accidental deaths.Actual research results — as opposed to unsupported opinions — pose a question embarrassed gun prohibitionists invariably try to evade: why ban guns to ordinary owners, i.e., people who never commit gun crimes? (This query does not at all impugn our laws against previously convicted felons having guns).



-------------------------

Zimring has nevertheless remained a firm advocate of gun bans. But actual research has produced an unbroken record of recantations by criminologists who once agreed with Zimring. In the late 1970's the US Department of Justice (DOJ) funded and tasked the University of Massachusetts' Social and Demographic Research Institute to review and evaluate the entire extant literature on gun control in the US and elsewhere. The Institute's resulting report observed: "It is commonly hypothesized that much criminal violence, especially homicide, occurs simply because the means of lethal violence (firearms) are readily at hand, and, thus, that much homicide would not occur were firearms generally less available. There is no persuasive evidence that supports this view." (emphasis added)


That evaluation's authors — Professors James Wright, Peter Rossi and Kathleen Daly — subsequently published a commercial version of their report to which they added their personal recantation:

The progressive's indictment of American firearms policy is well known and is one that both the senior authors of this study once shared. This indictment includes the following particulars: (1) Guns are involved in an astonishing number of crimes in this country. (2) In other countries with stricter firearms laws and fewer guns in private hands, gun crime is rare ... (4) Many families acquire a gun because they feel the need to protect themselves; eventually, they end up shooting one another. (5) If there were fewer guns around, there would obviously be less crime ... The more deeply we explored the empirical implications of this indictment, the less plausible it has become. (emphasis, parentheses added)

And the odds are that a violent person with a record is probably carrying no matter what the sign says.

I get the impression that a lot of you just don't have the slightest idea how a nightclub works.

No one gets into a club without being patted down and searched, if not run through a metal detectot. The only way someone's going to be carrying a gun on the dance floor is if they shot the door guy on the way in.

And yet guns get in all the time...I posted the video of the rapper shooting a few weeks ago...

Not through the front door.

If you're talking about the shooting at the TI show at Irving Plaza in NYC, the shooter was performing that night, and not a member of the audience.

That shooting also happened backstage, surrounded by armed security. More guns didn't stop it.

 

[Brain357]

More guns less crime... Fact

This is provably false.

The city with the highest murder rate in the country also has some of the most lax gun laws in the country.

Rural states have many, many times the number of fire arms as compared to people and yet have the lowest crime rates. dumbass

So places with few people have low crime rates...

Have you no reading comprehension, I said they have many, many times the number of firearms as compared to people. Want me to spell it out for you. You anti-gun nutters insist on more firearms means more crime. That is not true there's many, many times the firearms as compared to population...
In western South Dakota more people drown than are killed by firearms, and the state is awash in firearms.
Several times more firearms than there are people…

Those Morons have no idea what per capita means.

I know that crime is low where there are few people. Has nothing to do with guns.

 

[2aguy]

You are absolutely wrong.

Most murders are not planned, they're "acts of passion". When someone is drunk, on drugs, and angry, shit happens. I don't think anyone who I had to bounce "really wanted to kill me" - but I also have no doubt that they would have in that moment, had they been able to.

There is no such thing as a "criminal" type of person. Criminals are just regular people who have broken the law.

breakdown of the 90% of murderers have records..really good...

JURIST - The Criminology of Firearms


In 2004, the National Academy of Sciences reviewed 253 journal articles, 99 books, 43 government publications and some empirical research of its own about guns. The Academy could not identify any gun restriction that had reduced violent crime, suicide or gun accidents.

Why don't gun bans work? Because they rely on voluntary compliance by gun-using criminals. Prohibitionists never see this absurdity because they deceive themselves into thinking that, as Katherine Christoffel has said: "[M]ost shootings are not committed by felons or mentally ill people, but are acts of passion that are committed using a handgun that is owned for home protection."

Christoffel, et al., are utterly wrong. The whole corpus of criminological research dating back to the 1890'sshows murderers "almost uniformly have a long history of involvement in criminal behavior," and that "[v]irtually all" murderers and other gun criminals have prior felony records — generally long ones.

While only 15 percent of Americans have criminal records, roughly 90 percent of adult murderers have prior adult records — exclusive of their often extensive juvenile records — with crime careers of six or more adult years including four major felonies. Gerald D. Robin, writing for the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences,notes that, unlike ordinary gun owners, "the average murderer turns out to be no less hardened a criminal than the average robber or burglar."

Throughout this essay I highlight dramatic recantations by criminologists who previously endorsed stringent gun control. For example, Professor David Mustard has stated in an article [PDF] for the University of Pennsylvania Law Review:

When I started my research on guns [at the University of Chicago] in 1995, I passionately disliked firearms and fully accepted the conventional wisdom that increasing the gun-ownership rate would necessarily raise violent crime and accidental deaths. My views on this subject were formed primarily by media accounts of firearms, which unknowingly to me systematically emphasized the costs of firearms while virtually ignoring their benefits. I thought it obvious that passing laws that permitted law-abiding citizens to carry concealed weapons would create many problems. It is now over six years since I became convinced otherwise and concluded that shall issue laws — laws that require [gun carry permits] to be granted unless the applicant has a criminal record or a history of significant mental illness — reduce violent crime and have no impact on accidental deaths.Actual research results — as opposed to unsupported opinions — pose a question embarrassed gun prohibitionists invariably try to evade: why ban guns to ordinary owners, i.e., people who never commit gun crimes? (This query does not at all impugn our laws against previously convicted felons having guns).



-------------------------

Zimring has nevertheless remained a firm advocate of gun bans. But actual research has produced an unbroken record of recantations by criminologists who once agreed with Zimring. In the late 1970's the US Department of Justice (DOJ) funded and tasked the University of Massachusetts' Social and Demographic Research Institute to review and evaluate the entire extant literature on gun control in the US and elsewhere. The Institute's resulting report observed: "It is commonly hypothesized that much criminal violence, especially homicide, occurs simply because the means of lethal violence (firearms) are readily at hand, and, thus, that much homicide would not occur were firearms generally less available. There is no persuasive evidence that supports this view." (emphasis added)


That evaluation's authors — Professors James Wright, Peter Rossi and Kathleen Daly — subsequently published a commercial version of their report to which they added their personal recantation:

The progressive's indictment of American firearms policy is well known and is one that both the senior authors of this study once shared. This indictment includes the following particulars: (1) Guns are involved in an astonishing number of crimes in this country. (2) In other countries with stricter firearms laws and fewer guns in private hands, gun crime is rare ... (4) Many families acquire a gun because they feel the need to protect themselves; eventually, they end up shooting one another. (5) If there were fewer guns around, there would obviously be less crime ... The more deeply we explored the empirical implications of this indictment, the less plausible it has become. (emphasis, parentheses added)

And the odds are that a violent person with a record is probably carrying no matter what the sign says.

I get the impression that a lot of you just don't have the slightest idea how a nightclub works.

No one gets into a club without being patted down and searched, if not run through a metal detectot. The only way someone's going to be carrying a gun on the dance floor is if they shot the door guy on the way in.

And yet guns get in all the time...I posted the video of the rapper shooting a few weeks ago...

Not through the front door.

If you're talking about the shooting at the TI show at Irving Plaza in NYC, the shooter was performing that night, and not a member of the audience.

That shooting also happened backstage, surrounded by armed security. More guns didn't stop it.

And had you been a victim waiting to be murdered....I suppose you wouldn't want a gun to stop it.

 

[2aguy]

This is provably false.

The city with the highest murder rate in the country also has some of the most lax gun laws in the country.

Rural states have many, many times the number of fire arms as compared to people and yet have the lowest crime rates. dumbass

So places with few people have low crime rates...

Have you no reading comprehension, I said they have many, many times the number of firearms as compared to people. Want me to spell it out for you. You anti-gun nutters insist on more firearms means more crime. That is not true there's many, many times the firearms as compared to population...
In western South Dakota more people drown than are killed by firearms, and the state is awash in firearms.
Several times more firearms than there are people…

Those Morons have no idea what per capita means.

I know that crime is low where there are few people. Has nothing to do with guns.

no troll....

As more Americans now own and carry guns since the 1990s, the gun murder rate has gone down, not up...that is a fact, that is the truth and the reality....more guns did not increase the gun crime rate, the gun murder rate or the violent crime rate....

 

[Brain357]

[Q

If you really believe magazine limits don't slow shooters then you have no reason to oppose them.

You are confused. How come you are always confused about everything?

There are 100s of millions of high capacity magazines in this country and if there was a demand then many more would come over illegally across the Mexican border.

If anybody needed a high capacity magazine to commit a crime then it wouldn't take much to get one.

California has a ban on high capacity magazines and that didn't do anything to stop Obama's Muslim couple from killing Christians, did it?

The only people that wouldn't have them are the law abiding citizen that never would have used them in a crime in the first place.

Gun control laws do nothing to stop gun crimes. All the gun control laws do is restrict Constitutional liberties.

Gun control stopped this guy before people were killed.

FBI thwarts mass shooting at Milwaukee Masonic center

You are obviously very wrong.

I cannot believe how confused you are.

Detective work involving an informant prevented the terrorist attack, not a gun control law. Do you understand the difference or are you simply confused?

It has been illegal to have a machine gun not taxed as a Class III since 1934 but that didn't stop the terrorist from planning to use one, did it?

Another example of how stupid gun control laws don't deter crime.

He was trying to illegally buy a machine gun moron. It was illegal due to gun control.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

breakdown of the 90% of murderers have records..really good...

JURIST - The Criminology of Firearms


In 2004, the National Academy of Sciences reviewed 253 journal articles, 99 books, 43 government publications and some empirical research of its own about guns. The Academy could not identify any gun restriction that had reduced violent crime, suicide or gun accidents.

Why don't gun bans work? Because they rely on voluntary compliance by gun-using criminals. Prohibitionists never see this absurdity because they deceive themselves into thinking that, as Katherine Christoffel has said: "[M]ost shootings are not committed by felons or mentally ill people, but are acts of passion that are committed using a handgun that is owned for home protection."

Christoffel, et al., are utterly wrong. The whole corpus of criminological research dating back to the 1890'sshows murderers "almost uniformly have a long history of involvement in criminal behavior," and that "[v]irtually all" murderers and other gun criminals have prior felony records — generally long ones.

While only 15 percent of Americans have criminal records, roughly 90 percent of adult murderers have prior adult records — exclusive of their often extensive juvenile records — with crime careers of six or more adult years including four major felonies. Gerald D. Robin, writing for the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences,notes that, unlike ordinary gun owners, "the average murderer turns out to be no less hardened a criminal than the average robber or burglar."

Throughout this essay I highlight dramatic recantations by criminologists who previously endorsed stringent gun control. For example, Professor David Mustard has stated in an article [PDF] for the University of Pennsylvania Law Review:

When I started my research on guns [at the University of Chicago] in 1995, I passionately disliked firearms and fully accepted the conventional wisdom that increasing the gun-ownership rate would necessarily raise violent crime and accidental deaths. My views on this subject were formed primarily by media accounts of firearms, which unknowingly to me systematically emphasized the costs of firearms while virtually ignoring their benefits. I thought it obvious that passing laws that permitted law-abiding citizens to carry concealed weapons would create many problems. It is now over six years since I became convinced otherwise and concluded that shall issue laws — laws that require [gun carry permits] to be granted unless the applicant has a criminal record or a history of significant mental illness — reduce violent crime and have no impact on accidental deaths.Actual research results — as opposed to unsupported opinions — pose a question embarrassed gun prohibitionists invariably try to evade: why ban guns to ordinary owners, i.e., people who never commit gun crimes? (This query does not at all impugn our laws against previously convicted felons having guns).



-------------------------

Zimring has nevertheless remained a firm advocate of gun bans. But actual research has produced an unbroken record of recantations by criminologists who once agreed with Zimring. In the late 1970's the US Department of Justice (DOJ) funded and tasked the University of Massachusetts' Social and Demographic Research Institute to review and evaluate the entire extant literature on gun control in the US and elsewhere. The Institute's resulting report observed: "It is commonly hypothesized that much criminal violence, especially homicide, occurs simply because the means of lethal violence (firearms) are readily at hand, and, thus, that much homicide would not occur were firearms generally less available. There is no persuasive evidence that supports this view." (emphasis added)


That evaluation's authors — Professors James Wright, Peter Rossi and Kathleen Daly — subsequently published a commercial version of their report to which they added their personal recantation:

The progressive's indictment of American firearms policy is well known and is one that both the senior authors of this study once shared. This indictment includes the following particulars: (1) Guns are involved in an astonishing number of crimes in this country. (2) In other countries with stricter firearms laws and fewer guns in private hands, gun crime is rare ... (4) Many families acquire a gun because they feel the need to protect themselves; eventually, they end up shooting one another. (5) If there were fewer guns around, there would obviously be less crime ... The more deeply we explored the empirical implications of this indictment, the less plausible it has become. (emphasis, parentheses added)

And the odds are that a violent person with a record is probably carrying no matter what the sign says.

I get the impression that a lot of you just don't have the slightest idea how a nightclub works.

No one gets into a club without being patted down and searched, if not run through a metal detectot. The only way someone's going to be carrying a gun on the dance floor is if they shot the door guy on the way in.

And yet guns get in all the time...I posted the video of the rapper shooting a few weeks ago...

Not through the front door.

If you're talking about the shooting at the TI show at Irving Plaza in NYC, the shooter was performing that night, and not a member of the audience.

That shooting also happened backstage, surrounded by armed security. More guns didn't stop it.

And had you been a victim waiting to be murdered....I suppose you wouldn't want a gun to stop it.

I explained earlier in the thread why bouncers don't carry guns.

 

[2aguy]

[Q

If you really believe magazine limits don't slow shooters then you have no reason to oppose them.

You are confused. How come you are always confused about everything?

There are 100s of millions of high capacity magazines in this country and if there was a demand then many more would come over illegally across the Mexican border.

If anybody needed a high capacity magazine to commit a crime then it wouldn't take much to get one.

California has a ban on high capacity magazines and that didn't do anything to stop Obama's Muslim couple from killing Christians, did it?

The only people that wouldn't have them are the law abiding citizen that never would have used them in a crime in the first place.

Gun control laws do nothing to stop gun crimes. All the gun control laws do is restrict Constitutional liberties.

Gun control stopped this guy before people were killed.

FBI thwarts mass shooting at Milwaukee Masonic center

You are obviously very wrong.

I cannot believe how confused you are.

Detective work involving an informant prevented the terrorist attack, not a gun control law. Do you understand the difference or are you simply confused?

It has been illegal to have a machine gun not taxed as a Class III since 1934 but that didn't stop the terrorist from planning to use one, did it?

Another example of how stupid gun control laws don't deter crime.

He was trying to illegally buy a machine gun moron. It was illegal due to gun control.

He was caught, troll....because of a snitch...you can buy a machine gun asshole but he couldn't and got snitched out...moron...no universal background check stopped it...no current federally mandated background check stopped it...no license required for the purchase of a machine gun stopped it....

They caught him the old fashioned way......they used a snitch.......

No universal background check needed for that.

No gun registration needed for that.

No licensing gun owners needed for that.

 

[2aguy]

And the odds are that a violent person with a record is probably carrying no matter what the sign says.

I get the impression that a lot of you just don't have the slightest idea how a nightclub works.

No one gets into a club without being patted down and searched, if not run through a metal detectot. The only way someone's going to be carrying a gun on the dance floor is if they shot the door guy on the way in.

And yet guns get in all the time...I posted the video of the rapper shooting a few weeks ago...

Not through the front door.

If you're talking about the shooting at the TI show at Irving Plaza in NYC, the shooter was performing that night, and not a member of the audience.

That shooting also happened backstage, surrounded by armed security. More guns didn't stop it.

And had you been a victim waiting to be murdered....I suppose you wouldn't want a gun to stop it.

I explained earlier in the thread why bouncers don't carry guns.

you didn't answer the question...had you been one of the victims in that club...would you want to have had a gun?