Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Unlock unbeatable offers today. Shop here: https://amzn.to/4cEkqYs 🎁
So you lost your original point and are left with outright blathering and references to minute.
You are possibly the most idiotic poster on this forum. I've taken shits with a higher IQ than yours.
That's insulting to some of the turds I've had. Many of them were far more articulate than NoTea, and all of them better informed.
Bathroom humor because you can't answer my question:
What are the legal implications of a business owner allowing guns on his or her property? It's called a big lawsuit, honey, if either an employee or customer is harmed either intentionally or accidentally, doesn't matter. And even though the FedEx facility has a sign posted banning guns, you can bet your sweet ass that FedEx will have a lawsuit with at least....oh six....plaintiffs.
So if you are a good citizen of Kennesaw you are supposed to take your gun and lock it up in your car before going inside the FedEx facility to either work or conduct business. What a great town. It really is the law there:
Southern U.S. town proud of its mandatory gun law | Reuters
That's insulting to some of the turds I've had. Many of them were far more articulate than NoTea, and all of them better informed.
Bathroom humor because you can't answer my question:
What are the legal implications of a business owner allowing guns on his or her property? It's called a big lawsuit, honey, if either an employee or customer is harmed either intentionally or accidentally, doesn't matter. And even though the FedEx facility has a sign posted banning guns, you can bet your sweet ass that FedEx will have a lawsuit with at least....oh six....plaintiffs.
So if you are a good citizen of Kennesaw you are supposed to take your gun and lock it up in your car before going inside the FedEx facility to either work or conduct business. What a great town. It really is the law there:
Southern U.S. town proud of its mandatory gun law | Reuters
So whether they allowed guns or not, they get sued. They were in another gun free zone and someone was shot and those that followed the law were left not to protect themselves. So what you are saying is we need to all carry and ignore the laws. Good points.
Sent from my iPad using an Android.
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.
You people look at it as so simple. Bad guy starts shooting people and good guy stops him. What if bad guy starts shooting people. Several people pull their guns and go to the scene. First guy sees a guy with a gun and shoots him. Did he actually get the bad guy? If he hesitates to make sure it's the bad guy he's gonna be shot if it's the bad guy. The best thing we can do is keep guns from the bad guys. Not get more guns out there. You can't arm children. Companies are never going to let employees walk around with guns.
when you keep guns from bad guys then come talk to us. while your at it, keep drugs from people too
Ok lets register all guns and require universal background checks.
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.
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.
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.
since clintons assault weapons ban expired the number of guns in the usa has doubled, yet every year since the rate of gun homicides have dropped. more guns less murders. how can you say more guns = more deaths?
when you keep guns from bad guys then come talk to us. while your at it, keep drugs from people too
Ok lets register all guns and require universal background checks.
lets do the same for voters. I want to make sure every voter clearly understands the issues and is not just placing a vote based on what he is told to believe
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.
since clintons assault weapons ban expired the number of guns in the usa has doubled, yet every year since the rate of gun homicides have dropped. more guns less murders. how can you say more guns = more deaths?
Gun ownership is going down, it's just the same people buying more guns. Why would that effect the murder rate?
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. Thats 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?
Ok lets register all guns and require universal background checks.
lets do the same for voters. I want to make sure every voter clearly understands the issues and is not just placing a vote based on what he is told to believe
Voters are registered.
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"?
The Cruelty of Gun-Free Zones | National Review OnlineJanuary 31, 2014 12:00 PM
The Cruelty of Gun-Free Zones
Law enforcement recognizes that gun-free zones leave shooting victims defenseless.
By John R. Lott Jr.
Tuesday night, President Obama vowed to help stop more tragedies from visiting innocent Americans in our movie theaters and our shopping malls, or schools like Sandy Hook.
But before he continues pushing his typical gun-control agenda, he should consider what law enforcement in Europe and the United States advise. It might surprise him.
In November, Interpols secretary general, Ron Noble, noted there are two ways to protect people from such mass shootings: One is to say we want an armed citizenry; you can see the reason for that. Another is to say the enclaves [should be] so secure that in order to get into the soft target youre going to have to pass through extraordinary security.
Noble sees a real problem: How do you protect soft targets? Thats really the challenge. You cant have armed police forces everywhere.
It makes citizens question their views on gun control, he noted. You have to ask yourself, Is an armed citizenry more necessary now than it was in the past, with an evolving threat of terrorism?
His comments were made right after the terrorist attack at the Westgate Mall in Nairobi, Kenya, where 68 people were killed. Kenya bans both open and concealed carrying of firearms by civilians. Yet, obviously, those bans didnt stop the terrorists.
The vast majority of mass shootings in the U.S. have been extensively planned beforehand often many months or even years in advance, allowing the perpetrators to find unprotected targets and obtain weapons. Take Adam Lanza, the Sandy Hook Elementary School killer, who spent over two years studying everything about previous mass shootings: the weapons used, the number of people killed, and even how much media coverage each shooting received. Police described the 7-by-4-foot spreadsheet as sickeningly thorough, even likening his careful study to a doctoral dissertation.
James Holmes, the Aurora, Colo., killer, was another careful planner. He started buying items two and a half months in advance. He visited neighboring theaters, and bought his ticket almost two weeks before his attack. To help prepare, he photographed the layout of the theater where hed commit his heinous crimes.
Ironically, President Obama mentioned movie theaters and malls on Tuesday. Holmes appears to have carefully selected the theater he did: Seven theaters within a 20-minute drive of his apartment were showing the premier of The Dark Knight Returns. He chose the only one posting signs banning concealed guns not the theater closest to his apartment or the one prominently advertising the largest auditoriums in Colorado.
Study: The U.S. has had one mass shooting per month since 2009Study: The U.S. has had one mass shooting per month since 2009
By Brad Plumer
February 2, 2013 at 10:00 am
Congress is in the midst of a heated debate over gun control and how best to tamp down on gun violence. And mass shootings like the one that tore through Sandy Hook Elementary School last December are a huge part of that discussion.
So how much do we actually know about mass shootings and the people who commit them? A new study (pdf) commissioned by Mayors Against Illegal Guns* tries to add some much-needed detail.
The researchers pored through the FBI database and recent media reports for every mass shooting since January 2009 — that is, incidents in which at least four people were murdered by guns. Here are their key takeaways, some of them surprising:
1) Mass shootings have occurred at an average rate of about one per month since 2009. The report concludes that there have been 43 mass shootings in 25 states over the past four years — or nearly one per month.
2) Yet mass shootings are still a tiny portion of overall gun deaths. For all the attention they receive, mass shootings are not the main source of gun violence. In 2010, according to the FBI, around 8,775 people were murdered with firearms in the United States. Less than 1 percent of those victims were killed in mass shootings.
3) Assault weapons are used in a minority of mass shootings — but those incidents were much deadlier. Just 12 of the mass-shooting incidents, or 28 percent, involved assault weapons or high-capacity magazines — the very same guns that some members of Congress are now trying to ban. At the same time, mass shootings were a lot deadlier when assault weapons and high-capacity magazines were used, with an average of 8.3 deaths, compared with 5.4 deaths on average for the rest.
4) Few mental-health red flags came up before most of the shootings. In just four of the 43 shootings was there evidence that someone had raised concerns about the mental health of the killer to authorities beforehand. Likewise, the report notes, there was no evidence that any of the shooters had been prohibited from owning firearms because of mental-health concerns.
5) Domestic violence played a role in 40 percent of mass shootings. From the report: "In at least 17 of the cases (40%), the shooter killed a current or former spouse or intimate partner, and at least 6 of those shooters had a prior domestic violence charge."
6) At least 11 of the shooters were prohibited from owning guns. Under federal law, felons, certain domestic abusers and people deemed mentally ill are barred from owning guns. The report found that at least 11 of the shooters fell into this category — although there was no good data one way or the other for about one-third of the cases.
7) About one-third of the shootings took place in gun-free zones. Some additional stats: "Nineteen of the 43 incidents (44%) took place in private residences. Of the 23 incidents in public spaces, at least 9 took place where concealed guns could be lawfully carried. All told, no more than 14 of the shootings (33%) took place in public spaces that were so-called “gun-free zones.”
* It's worth noting that Mayors Against Illegal Guns, founded by New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, is a group that strongly supports stricter gun-control laws. But for those who want to double-check their claims, the group lists every single mass shooting incident — as well as the relevant details — in the report.
Do we believe that GOVERNMENT has no right to disarm you, but that BUSINESSES DO have that right?!
Yes or no..does any business have the right to keep you off their property if you are legally carrying a gun?
Apparently that's the way the laws work in most states.
I'd like to hear from you gunrights advocates about this.
Do YOU have the right to tell legally armed gun owners NOT to bring their guns into your business?
Do you have the right to tell your employees to keep their guns at home?
lets do the same for voters. I want to make sure every voter clearly understands the issues and is not just placing a vote based on what he is told to believe
Voters are registered.
i want an id and a background check. libs tell me that is uncostitutional and violate theri rights. how can that be?
Voters are registered.
i want an id and a background check. libs tell me that is uncostitutional and violate theri rights. how can that be?
When was the last time someone was killed voting? Your trying to suppress voting. Look at the numbers, it's suppressed enough. Now let's register guns.
Elections have consequences...and we are suffering through it right now.i want an id and a background check. libs tell me that is uncostitutional and violate theri rights. how can that be?
When was the last time someone was killed voting? Your trying to suppress voting. Look at the numbers, it's suppressed enough. Now let's register guns.
a vote does more harm than a gun. poor leadership has destroyed a nation. government would not be able to behave in the manner it dies if low information voters were eliminated.
Call me up when gangs start a demolition derby instead of a drive by shooting. Send me a PM when someone conceals a car to rob a liquor store. Let me know when 20 first graders are run down in their classroom. Should Adam Lanza's mother left her keys on the counter?Fair enough. I understand.
But guns purchased and owned by responsible gun owners are not for killing. They are for sport and/or self defense.
It is a whacko that uses it for unnecessary killing just as it is a sick dude that drinks and drives.
The issue is within the gun/car user. A car can cause as much carnage as a gun if not used properly.
What it is designed for is irrelevant. How it is used and by whom is the issue.you are better than that.
But I can play the same diversion game....
Call me up when a drunk driver decides to take a gun and shoot his victims instead of hitting them. Send me a PM when a victim of a drunk driver wrote in a note before hand that he preferred dying by a gun shot. Let me know when the last 20 toddlers killed by drunk drivers had friends shot by a crazed gun man..
And Lastly.....
Should the wife of a drunk driver have left a gun on the counter?
Come on.....you know me...you know the point I am making....debate responsibly my friend.[/QUOTE [MENTION=45739]Jughead[/MENTION] Fair enough. But guns are used in crimes all too often with deadly results. The design of the gun is what makes this possible. they are concealable, powerful and unstoppable once discharged.
Now, guns with large capacity magazines are NOT for self defense. Once you go beyond ten rounds, you are not holding a defensive weapon, but an offensive weapon. Self defense implies that one is looking to extradite himself from a deadly confrontation. Would someone need 40., 60, 120 shots to do this? But such magazines would come in handy for an assailant at a theater or school or workplace. There is no justification for high capacity magazines other than a killing spree.
