Plenty of "Good Guys with Guns" But 6 Injured Anyway

[zeke]

So what is it that you want goforit?
You want to hated government to force private companies to allow their workers to carry their weapons to work?

I know you don't work but if you do get a job with a company that does not allow you to carry, don't go to work for them. See how simple that is?

You right wingers are all about choice. Then don't choose to work for a company where you can't carry a weapon.

 

[Geaux4it]

So what is it that you want goforit?
You want to hated government to force private companies to allow their workers to carry their weapons to work?

I know you don't work but if you do get a job with a company that does not allow you to carry, don't go to work for them. See how simple that is?

You right wingers are all about choice. Then don't choose to work for a company where you can't carry a weapon.

But wait, the left like to put demands on companies like minimum wage, or living wages etc. Its all about business that needs to provide. Yet when it comes to forcing other measures for which you disagree, you call it a bad idea.

Sounds legit to me

-Geaux

 

[TemplarKormac]

Nevermind the fact that the FedEx facility was a "gun free zone."

Ooops...

/thread

I'm not a gun control freak. I just realize that having more guns leads to more deaths. That is a simple fact. I won't deny that in certain instances, someone having a gun may stop a criminal from killing someone. The problem is that people like you are never willing to admit that many more people are killed every year due to accidental shootings or suicide, which is made easier with a gun, because of so many people owning guns, and you want more people to own guns.

I'm not a gun control freak. I just realize that having more guns leads to more deaths. That is a simple fact

More guns does not equal more deaths. Guns do nothing when they sit in the safe, auditor. Citing the Kellerman study does you no good. If you are limiting how many guns a person can have, that is by essence "gun control." No way around it.

The problem is that people like you are never willing to admit that many more people are killed every year due to accidental shootings or suicide, which is made easier with a gun, because of so many people owning guns, and you want more people to own guns.

I am surprised at you. This is by far the faultiest rationale for gun control I've ever read. It can be just as easy to kill someone with a knife, and I bet you have a kitchen full of them.

When literally .009% of the US population dies in gun related accidents, there is no need for "gun control" as you define it. You're overhyping it on purpose. People who sensationalize these issues are nothing more than liars.

 

[zeke]

So what is it that you want goforit?
You want to hated government to force private companies to allow their workers to carry their weapons to work?

I know you don't work but if you do get a job with a company that does not allow you to carry, don't go to work for them. See how simple that is?

You right wingers are all about choice. Then don't choose to work for a company where you can't carry a weapon.

But wait, the left like to put demands on companies like minimum wage, or living wages etc. Its all about business that needs to provide. Yet when it comes to forcing other measures for which you disagree, you call it a bad idea.

Sounds legit to me

-Geaux

Hey dude, you want to talk about guns in the work place or not? You want the hated federal government to FORCE companies to allow employees to carry weapons? Good god.
Don't work for that company. How hard is that?

Now you want to equate what? Wages to guns? What the fuck are you talking about?

 

[Skull Pilot]

So what is it that you want goforit?
You want to hated government to force private companies to allow their workers to carry their weapons to work?

I know you don't work but if you do get a job with a company that does not allow you to carry, don't go to work for them. See how simple that is?

You right wingers are all about choice. Then don't choose to work for a company where you can't carry a weapon.

But wait, the left like to put demands on companies like minimum wage, or living wages etc. Its all about business that needs to provide. Yet when it comes to forcing other measures for which you disagree, you call it a bad idea.

Sounds legit to me

-Geaux

Hey dude, you want to talk about guns in the work place or not? You want the hated federal government to FORCE companies to allow employees to carry weapons? Good god.
Don't work for that company. How hard is that?

Now you want to equate what? Wages to guns? What the fuck are you talking about?

I agree with you Zeke. (GASP)

No one is forcing anyone to work anywhere. if you don't fucking like it then quit.

Can I quote you on that the next time you whine about fairness?

 

[jon_berzerk]

good guy with gun captures would be purse snatchers at gunpoint
---------------------
HOUSTON — A mother out with her two children to go shopping became the victim of would-be purse snatchers, but a good Samaritan armed with a gun came to the rescue.
“It happened so fast,” said Brenda Vasquez, who manages the Family Dollar store in the 3400 block of Orlando Avenue in northeast Houston.
She witnessed the assault.
“This lady opens her car door, grabs the woman’s purse and they reverse. While they’re trying to reverse, the lady is holding on to her purse still, chasing them all the way to the middle.”
That’s when a perfect stranger intervened. He happened to be in his car in the parking lot when it happened.
“And that good Samaritan came out, drew his weapon and scared them. And that’s when he pulled them out of the car.”
Someone snapped a picture of the man holding the two suspects at bay. A few minutes later, police arrived and took the male and female suspects into custody.
The man who first confronted them purchased some candy for his kids and drove away.
“The guy is something else,” said Vasquez. “He’s a hero.”

Armed good Samaritan comes to the aid of purse-snatching victim | khou.com Houston

Who's life was saved? Were the criminals even armed? For every example like this I can give one like this:

Durham boy kills little brother in accidental shooting :: WRAL.com

who cares if the criminals had weapons

whos life was saved possible the victim

the crime was stopped before it was finalized

 

[jon_berzerk]

good guy with gun captures would be purse snatchers at gunpoint
---------------------
HOUSTON — A mother out with her two children to go shopping became the victim of would-be purse snatchers, but a good Samaritan armed with a gun came to the rescue.
“It happened so fast,” said Brenda Vasquez, who manages the Family Dollar store in the 3400 block of Orlando Avenue in northeast Houston.
She witnessed the assault.
“This lady opens her car door, grabs the woman’s purse and they reverse. While they’re trying to reverse, the lady is holding on to her purse still, chasing them all the way to the middle.”
That’s when a perfect stranger intervened. He happened to be in his car in the parking lot when it happened.
“And that good Samaritan came out, drew his weapon and scared them. And that’s when he pulled them out of the car.”
Someone snapped a picture of the man holding the two suspects at bay. A few minutes later, police arrived and took the male and female suspects into custody.
The man who first confronted them purchased some candy for his kids and drove away.
“The guy is something else,” said Vasquez. “He’s a hero.”

Armed good Samaritan comes to the aid of purse-snatching victim | khou.com Houston

Who's life was saved? Were the criminals even armed? For every example like this I can give one like this:

Durham boy kills little brother in accidental shooting :: WRAL.com

Here is a CCW hero in action:
Instructor pleads not guilty in CCW class shooting

http://www.thenews-messenger.com/ar...structor-pleads-not-guilty-CCW-class-shooting

looks like the correct action has been taken

no one supports carelessness

 

[jon_berzerk]

Ooops....Sorry, 6 injured.

But otherwise so much for Wayne Lapierre's theory about the good guys with guns. Ain't working in his idea of Utopia:

Shooter Injures Six In Georgia Town Where Everyone Is Required To Own A Gun

A gunman opened fire Tuesday morning at a FedEx facility in Kennesaw, Georgia. Six were shot, with their injuries ranging from minor to two in critical condition. Authorities report that the gunman is dead.
The Georgia facility is located in Kennesaw, near Atlanta, a quiet suburb unique in the U.S. for mandating every household own at least one gun. The law is not enforced, so the Kennesaw gun ownership rate hovers around 50 percent, according to its police chief. That’s still higher than the average rate of gun ownership in the U.S., estimated to be about 34 percent. When the law was enacted in 1982, Kennesaw had only 5,000 residents. Today, it has a population of 30,000.""

Shooter Injures Six In Georgia Town Where Everyone Is Required To Own A Gun | ThinkProgress

Oh, and the shooter committed suicide. The good guys with guns were REALLY slow on the draw.

what

fedex is a gun free zone

good guys with guns not allowed

Hey who made those workers at FedEx continue to work there? These workers, if in fear for their lives or safety because they couldn't bring a gun to work, where does it say that they had to continue to work at FedEx?

This is still America. If there are places where you can't carry your weapon, don't go there.
How fucking hard is that?

Then it will only be those opposed to carrying guns to work that could be shot. And the gun nuts would not be exposed to the dangers of the work place.

Gun nuts, only work for a place where you can carry your weapon to work.

you can bet that the employees are wondering about their safety after this


that this gun free zone was not so gun free

 

[jon_berzerk]

what

fedex is a gun free zone

good guys with guns not allowed

Hey who made those workers at FedEx continue to work there? These workers, if in fear for their lives or safety because they couldn't bring a gun to work, where does it say that they had to continue to work at FedEx?

This is still America. If there are places where you can't carry your weapon, don't go there.
How fucking hard is that?

Then it will only be those opposed to carrying guns to work that could be shot. And the gun nuts would not be exposed to the dangers of the work place.

Gun nuts, only work for a place where you can carry your weapon to work.

there should be signs next to gun free signs

showing the carnage that happens in "gun free zones"

 

[Avatar4321]

They love State control when it is doing something they like. When it is doing something they don't like, it's evil.

Maybe you and the Edtard can tell me how defending your second amendment rights is forcing people to buy anything.

Trust me, nobody on the right want's you two morons to have guns.

Another typical Right-wing No-Information voter!!!

Our History

The Gun Law

Kennesaw once again was in the news on May 1, 1982, when the city unanimously passed a law requiring "every head of household to maintain a firearm together with ammunition."

Are you seriously going to pretend there isnt a difference between a municipal government exercising such power and the Federal government? Not to mention tons of exceptions in the statute that you conveniently ignore, like being unable to afford it.

How does this change the fact that FedEx is a gun free zone? How does having guns at ones home stop nutjobs and evil people from shooting up gun free work places?

 

[WinterBorn]

Nevermind the fact that the FedEx facility was a "gun free zone."

Ooops...

/thread

I'm not a gun control freak. I just realize that having more guns leads to more deaths. That is a simple fact. I won't deny that in certain instances, someone having a gun may stop a criminal from killing someone. The problem is that people like you are never willing to admit that many more people are killed every year due to accidental shootings or suicide, which is made easier with a gun, because of so many people owning guns, and you want more people to own guns.

I'm not a gun control freak. I just realize that having more guns leads to more deaths. That is a simple fact

More guns does not equal more deaths. Guns do nothing when they sit in the safe, auditor. Citing the Kellerman study does you no good. If you are limiting how many guns a person can have, that is by essence "gun control." No way around it.

The problem is that people like you are never willing to admit that many more people are killed every year due to accidental shootings or suicide, which is made easier with a gun, because of so many people owning guns, and you want more people to own guns.

I am surprised at you. This is by far the faultiest rationale for gun control I've ever read. It can be just as easy to kill someone with a knife, and I bet you have a kitchen full of them.

When literally .009% of the US population dies in gun related accidents, there is no need for "gun control" as you define it. You're overhyping it on purpose. People who sensationalize these issues are nothing more than liars.

I am not sure if they really are liars. I think there is a segment of the population that has been swayed by information fed to them. I believe that there is a concerted effort by some to disarm the American people. This agenda is all about control, not about safety.

 

[Avatar4321]

So what is it that you want goforit?
You want to hated government to force private companies to allow their workers to carry their weapons to work?

I know you don't work but if you do get a job with a company that does not allow you to carry, don't go to work for them. See how simple that is?

You right wingers are all about choice. Then don't choose to work for a company where you can't carry a weapon.

But wait, the left like to put demands on companies like minimum wage, or living wages etc. Its all about business that needs to provide. Yet when it comes to forcing other measures for which you disagree, you call it a bad idea.

Sounds legit to me

-Geaux

Hey dude, you want to talk about guns in the work place or not? You want the hated federal government to FORCE companies to allow employees to carry weapons? Good god.
Don't work for that company. How hard is that?

Now you want to equate what? Wages to guns? What the fuck are you talking about?

Who said anything about the federal government forcing companies to carry weapons?

You do realize that pointing out your hypocrisy in forcing people/companies to do things when you want them doesnt mean any of us want to do the same. Just that we see your position as inconsistant.

 

[martybegan]

It's never been my contention that gun-free zones are designed to keep a lid on simmering violence; actually I've never posted on gun-free zones at all and don't see any relevance in them, no more than "gun control" laws. It's a specious point where your crowd seems to be working on that fallacy -- that the 'good guy w/ gun' needs to be everywhere like some Marvel Comics superhero ever-ready to tangle with Doctor Doom in this week's exciting issue.

Actually it reads like yet another case of blanket generalization based on a biased sample. The fact that this guy used a gun in a gun-free zone doesn't make that the case across the board. Far from it. It's a convenient but fallacious cherrypick.

A person armed COULD stop someone like this, there is no guarantee. But a bunch of unarmed people have a much harder time stopping an armed person intent on doing harm.

Sorry, this logic is like the myth that bigger heavier cars are safer, based on crash tests rather than safety tests -- assuming going in that the worst has already happened, instead of lifting a finger ot prevent it happening in the first place. IOW the same lame game of treating the symptom and ignoring the disease.

MOST of the sprees involving guns have been done in gun free zones, especially the planned ones. its almost as if they expect to meet less resistance....

Yeah yeah, "it is almost as if" gives you away. Speculation/wishful thinking in lieu of causal evidence.

Oh - and your link for "Most"?

There is no logic, only fact. Gun free zones are created by people to create the illusion of safety, and the premise is based on a person bringing their gun to work may go nuts, so no gun, no going nuts with it. The fact is most gun free zone violence is never spur of the moment, but instead planned out.

I don't need to link it, just go over all the most recent shootings. Colorado theatre, gun free zone, Va Tech, gun free zone. Sandy hook, gun free zone. Both Ft Hood shootings, gun free zone.

 

[The T]

A person armed COULD stop someone like this, there is no guarantee. But a bunch of unarmed people have a much harder time stopping an armed person intent on doing harm.

Sorry, this logic is like the myth that bigger heavier cars are safer, based on crash tests rather than safety tests -- assuming going in that the worst has already happened, instead of lifting a finger ot prevent it happening in the first place. IOW the same lame game of treating the symptom and ignoring the disease.

MOST of the sprees involving guns have been done in gun free zones, especially the planned ones. its almost as if they expect to meet less resistance....

Yeah yeah, "it is almost as if" gives you away. Speculation/wishful thinking in lieu of causal evidence.

Oh - and your link for "Most"?

There is no logic, only fact. Gun free zones are created by people to create the illusion of safety, and the premise is based on a person bringing their gun to work may go nuts, so no gun, no going nuts with it. The fact is most gun free zone violence is never spur of the moment, but instead planned out.

I don't need to link it, just go over all the most recent shootings. Colorado theatre, gun free zone, Va Tech, gun free zone. Sandy hook, gun free zone. Both Ft Hood shootings, gun free zone.

​

 

[Brain357]

A person armed COULD stop someone like this, there is no guarantee. But a bunch of unarmed people have a much harder time stopping an armed person intent on doing harm.

Sorry, this logic is like the myth that bigger heavier cars are safer, based on crash tests rather than safety tests -- assuming going in that the worst has already happened, instead of lifting a finger ot prevent it happening in the first place. IOW the same lame game of treating the symptom and ignoring the disease.

MOST of the sprees involving guns have been done in gun free zones, especially the planned ones. its almost as if they expect to meet less resistance....

Yeah yeah, "it is almost as if" gives you away. Speculation/wishful thinking in lieu of causal evidence.

Oh - and your link for "Most"?

There is no logic, only fact. Gun free zones are created by people to create the illusion of safety, and the premise is based on a person bringing their gun to work may go nuts, so no gun, no going nuts with it. The fact is most gun free zone violence is never spur of the moment, but instead planned out.

I don't need to link it, just go over all the most recent shootings. Colorado theatre, gun free zone, Va Tech, gun free zone. Sandy hook, gun free zone. Both Ft Hood shootings, gun free zone.

Giffords shooting not gun free zone.

 

[eflatminor]

No actually it's as though you're saying "this guy violated a gun free zone; therefore all gun free zones are violated". Doesn't work.

No, not at all. Allow me to be clear: I'm saying that armed thugs and crazies do not and have never followed the rules of a gun free zone. Therefore, the idea of preventing good, law abiding citizens from the possibility of effectively defending themselves, which is exactly what a gun free zone does, is ridiculous and should not be imposed. That's not at all saying "all gun free zones are violated", which is clearly not the case.

Ima thinking that gun free work zones are intended to keep normal worker frictions from escalating into something worse than harassment or a fist fight......like shooting.

Probably true, however ridiculous. There is zero evidence that companies who allow employees to carry experience worker friction that escalates into fist fights or shootings. I strongly suspect exactly the opposite is the case...if employees know their colleagues are armed, I suspect they're far less likely to harass one another. Either way, the "intention" of a gun free zone is not based in reality and leaves good people at the mercy of thugs and crazies, as we saw yet again at Fedex.

And possibly companies would like to assure their customers that their workers are not carrying a weapon. Some customers might not be comfortable around guns.

One, customer wouldn't know if firearms are concealed and two, I suppose it's better to see those customers gunned down by the crazy fuck just like the employees? I don't think so.

Gun free zones were never intended as advertisement to crazy people to come on in and start shooting.

Yet that's the reality as nearly every mass shooting takes place in these areas.

"One of the great mistakes is to judge policies and programs by their intentions rather than their results" Milton Friedman

Be interesting to see if this guy was a former employee. Or had a gripe with an employee of the the company.

I suppose, but either way, it demonstrates the futility of restricting the means of good people to defend themselves against criminals that are not going to obey any laws or rules enforced by a sign at the door.

There is another reason this guy shot these people other than they worked in a gun free workplace.

Clearly. No one is saying that's "why" he shot these people, only that by virtue of it being a gun free zone, good people had no means to defend themselves. That's the real tragedy.

Besides that, if there were employees who felt in great danger by not being able to carry their weapon to work, they always had their right to quit working at this place. This is still America and you don't have to work where they don't let you bring your gun to work.

That's a red herring. Of course there is employment at will, but that doesn't mean it makes sense to prevent good people from having the ability to defend themselves against criminals and crazies.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

Ooops....Sorry, 6 injured.

But otherwise so much for Wayne Lapierre's theory about the good guys with guns. Ain't working in his idea of Utopia:

Shooter Injures Six In Georgia Town Where Everyone Is Required To Own A Gun

A gunman opened fire Tuesday morning at a FedEx facility in Kennesaw, Georgia. Six were shot, with their injuries ranging from minor to two in critical condition. Authorities report that the gunman is dead.
The Georgia facility is located in Kennesaw, near Atlanta, a quiet suburb unique in the U.S. for mandating every household own at least one gun. The law is not enforced, so the Kennesaw gun ownership rate hovers around 50 percent, according to its police chief. That’s still higher than the average rate of gun ownership in the U.S., estimated to be about 34 percent. When the law was enacted in 1982, Kennesaw had only 5,000 residents. Today, it has a population of 30,000.""

Shooter Injures Six In Georgia Town Where Everyone Is Required To Own A Gun | ThinkProgress

Oh, and the shooter committed suicide. The good guys with guns were REALLY slow on the draw.

what

fedex is a gun free zone

good guys with guns not allowed

What's amazing is these people saying guns are bad and should be illegal. But you look at that picture and not one person in it decided to arrive at the scene disarmed. I wonder why that is?

 

[eflatminor]

Giffords shooting not gun free zone.

Thanks for making our point!

That you use of the one and only example of a mass shooting that wasn't in a gun free zone not only demonstrates your inability to avoid the logical fallacy anecdotal (using an isolated example instead of a valid argument, especially to dismiss statistics), but shows how those who choose to assault innocents overwhelmingly choose a place where law abiding citizens are disarmed.

Again, thanks!

Of course, the fact that there were no armed citizens gathered around 'ol Gabby to hear her speak is just, well, shocking, isn't it?!

 

[TemplarKormac]

I'm not a gun control freak. I just realize that having more guns leads to more deaths. That is a simple fact. I won't deny that in certain instances, someone having a gun may stop a criminal from killing someone. The problem is that people like you are never willing to admit that many more people are killed every year due to accidental shootings or suicide, which is made easier with a gun, because of so many people owning guns, and you want more people to own guns.

More guns does not equal more deaths. Guns do nothing when they sit in the safe, auditor. Citing the Kellerman study does you no good. If you are limiting how many guns a person can have, that is by essence "gun control." No way around it.

The problem is that people like you are never willing to admit that many more people are killed every year due to accidental shootings or suicide, which is made easier with a gun, because of so many people owning guns, and you want more people to own guns.

I am surprised at you. This is by far the faultiest rationale for gun control I've ever read. It can be just as easy to kill someone with a knife, and I bet you have a kitchen full of them.

When literally .009% of the US population dies in gun related accidents, there is no need for "gun control" as you define it. You're overhyping it on purpose. People who sensationalize these issues are nothing more than liars.

I am not sure if they really are liars. I think there is a segment of the population that has been swayed by information fed to them. I believe that there is a concerted effort by some to disarm the American people. This agenda is all about control, not about safety.

That is agreeable.

 

[zeke]

eflat minor. You live in the fantasy world where surprise doesn't work I see.

When this guy came in with the intent to shoot people, every single fucking employee in the company could have been carrying two weapons and it wouldn't have changed a fucking thing.

The person who has decided to start shooting and use surprise as a starting point will always have the advantage. You as a gun nut should know this shit.

And when the shooter has already decided to kill himself when done shooting, it makes no fucking difference to the shooter whether you are armed or not.

I liked the part about customers not knowing that someone is carrying a weapon. You mean that with all your supposed gun knowledge and experience, you can't spot when someone has a weapon on their hip. Maybe you should pay closer attention. Or maybe when its 95 degrees outside, the company should make every employee wear heavy clothes, you know, to hide their weapon.

And no red herring about where you decide to work. You find out if you can carry on the job, if you can't you don't work there. How is that so hard to figure out.

It is no different than what you right wing wack jobs say about anyone complaining about their wages. You don't like the money an employer is paying you, go get another job. I see that written all the time.
But you don't like that logic when applied to you eh?

You don't have an employer that allows you to carry at work, go get another job where you can carry.
How hard is that?