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

[eflatminor]

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

Right off the bat, a logical fallacy: ad hominem (Attacking your opponent's character or personal traits in an attempt to undermine their argument).

You're not off to a good start...

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.

Oh really? And you're basing this assumption on what?

The person who has decided to start shooting and use surprise as a starting point will always have the advantage.

True. OF COURSE surprise is an advantage. However, that doesn't mean it makes sense to disarm his victims and thereby ensure they have no means to defend themselves.

You as a gun nut should know this shit.

Another logical fallacy. Careful...

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.

If you can stop the lunatic before his shot everyone he intends to shoot, it sure as hell makes a difference. A BIG one. Of course, that's impossible when the good guys are disarmed.

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.

You clearly have no clue as to how easy it is to conceal a firearm, either on a person or under the proverbial counter.

Fail.

Or maybe when its 95 degrees outside, the company should make every employee wear heavy clothes, you know, to hide their weapon.

Way to move the goalposts. NO ONE said employees should be forced to be armed, only that they not be prevented from doing so. Big difference, but you knew that. Try not to head down that path of being a disingenuous shit like so many others around here.

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?

Not hard at all. I never argued differently. I simply support the idea of allowing people to defend themselves. Nothing more. That is allowed you know.

Wow dude, that is one massive fail. Better luck next time!

 

[Brain357]

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.

Elections have consequences...and we are suffering through it right now.

And we suffered more with Bush. Sorry the angry white man vote isn't enough anymore. That means you need more popular policies, not voter suppression.

 

[eflatminor]

eflat, I forgot to address the thing about more guns equaling more polite people.

There are 300 million guns in this country. More guns than ever before. More CCW holders. Just more weapons of all types in general.

Do you believe that we are a "more polite society" as a result of all these people with guns?

No one is discussing politeness. We're pointing out the futility and counter productiveness of ensuring good people are unable to defend themselves against armed criminals that have never obeyed the rules.

Either start your own tread or try to focus on the point at hand.

 

[The T]

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.

Elections have consequences...and we are suffering through it right now.

And we suffered more with Bush. Sorry the angry white man vote isn't enough anymore. That means you need more popular policies, not voter suppression.

Who is angry? Who is suppressing votes? Why the deflection?

 

[martybegan]

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.

Hey who made those workers at FedEx continue to work there? These workers, if in fear for their lives or safety because FedEx doesn't provide birth control pills or abortions under their insurance , 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 use the women's room if you are female identified transgendered, don't go there.
How fucking hard is that?

Then it will only be those opposed to abortion/birth control in insurance or transgender friendly bathrooms. And the pro-BC/abortion/transgendered advocates would not be exposed to the dangers of the work place.

Pro BC/abortion/transgendered advocates, only work for a place where you can get your abortion/BC at work or use whatever bathroom you want.

Fixed it for ya.

 

[DrDoomNGloom]

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.

Elections have consequences...and we are suffering through it right now.

And we suffered more with Bush. Sorry the angry white man vote isn't enough anymore. That means you need more popular policies, not voter suppression.

You are stuck in a time warp you poor fucking moron!!

If that is as far as your intelligence goes, "Bush", "angry white man", "voter suppression"

That type of rhetoric screams "I am just another bigoted ******!!"

Yeah we heard you loud and clear!!

 

[WinterBorn]

Study: 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.

Study: The U.S. has had one mass shooting per month since 2009

And yet, as your post pointed out, these mass shootings count for only 1% of the deaths. The other 99% are largely ignored. Why is that?

 

[Nosmo King]

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?

Really? How about literacy testing? In the old repressive Conservative Jim Crow south, poll workers would ask "how many bubbles in a bar of soap?" or give Blacks a Chinese restaurant menu written in Mandarin and ask them to read from column A.

You want a return of voter suppression?

 

[DrDoomNGloom]

Study: 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.

Study: The U.S. has had one mass shooting per month since 2009

And yet, as your post pointed out, these mass shootings count for only 1% of the deaths. The other 99% are largely ignored. Why is that?

Statistics on Gun Deaths & Injuries
Posted on November 16, 2012

In 2010, guns took the lives of 31,076 Americans in homicides, suicides and unintentional shootings. This is the equivalent of more than 85 deaths each day and more than three deaths each hour.1

73,505 Americans were treated in hospital emergency departments for non-fatal gunshot wounds in 2010.2

Firearms were the third-leading cause of injury-related deaths nationwide in 2010, following poisoning and motor vehicle accidents.3

Between 1955 and 1975, the Vietnam War killed over 58,000 American soldiers – less than the number of civilians killed with guns in the U.S. in an average two-year period.4

In the first seven years of the U.S.-Iraq War, over 4,400 American soldiers were killed. Almost as many civilians are killed with guns in the U.S., however, every seven weeks.5

Homicide

Guns were used in 11,078 homicides in the U.S. in 2010, comprising almost 35% of all gun deaths, and over 68% of all homicides.6

On average, 33 gun homicides were committed each day for the years 2005-2010.7

Regions and states with higher rates of gun ownership have significantly higher rates of homicide than states with lower rates of gun ownership.8

Where guns are prevalent, there are significantly more homicides, particularly gun homicides.9

Suicide

Firearms were used in 19,392 suicides in the U.S. in 2010, constituting almost 62% of all gun deaths.10

Over 50% of all suicides are committed with a firearm.11

On average, 49 gun suicides were committed each day for the years 2005-2010.12

White males, about 40% of the U.S. population, accounted for over 80% of firearm suicides in 2010.13

A study of California handgun purchasers found that in the first year after the purchase of a handgun, suicide was the leading cause of death among the purchasers.14

Firearms were used in nearly 44% of suicide deaths among persons under age 25 in 2010.15

More than 75% of guns used in suicide attempts and unintentional injuries of 0-19 year-olds were stored in the residence of the victim, a relative, or a friend.16

The risk of suicide increases in homes where guns are kept loaded and/or unlocked.17

Unintentional Deaths and Injuries

In 2010, unintentional firearm injuries caused the deaths of 606 people.18

From 2005-2010, almost 3,800 people in the U.S. died from unintentional shootings.19

Over 1,300 victims of unintentional shootings for the period 2005–2010 were under 25 years of age.20

People of all age groups are significantly more likely to die from unintentional firearm injuries when they live in states with more guns, relative to states with fewer guns. On average, states with the highest gun levels had nine times the rate of unintentional firearms deaths compared to states with the lowest gun levels.21

A federal government study of unintentional shootings found that 8% of such shooting deaths resulted from shots fired by children under the age of six.22

The U.S. General Accounting Office has estimated that 31% of unintentional deaths caused by firearms might be prevented by the addition of two devices: a child-proof safety lock (8%) and a loading indicator (23%).23

Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence ? Gun Law Information Experts

You don't know my work well enough yet, but I usually vet my source material to make sure there are no surprises for me later ...

So I know this is not the supporting data you wanted, but just for shit's and giggles why don't you tell all the other forum members what nefarious creature you thought would jump up ....

 

[WinterBorn]

Study: The U.S. has had one mass shooting per month since 2009

And yet, as your post pointed out, these mass shootings count for only 1% of the deaths. The other 99% are largely ignored. Why is that?

Statistics on Gun Deaths & Injuries
Posted on November 16, 2012

In 2010, guns took the lives of 31,076 Americans in homicides, suicides and unintentional shootings. This is the equivalent of more than 85 deaths each day and more than three deaths each hour.1

73,505 Americans were treated in hospital emergency departments for non-fatal gunshot wounds in 2010.2

Firearms were the third-leading cause of injury-related deaths nationwide in 2010, following poisoning and motor vehicle accidents.3

Between 1955 and 1975, the Vietnam War killed over 58,000 American soldiers – less than the number of civilians killed with guns in the U.S. in an average two-year period.4

In the first seven years of the U.S.-Iraq War, over 4,400 American soldiers were killed. Almost as many civilians are killed with guns in the U.S., however, every seven weeks.5

Homicide

Guns were used in 11,078 homicides in the U.S. in 2010, comprising almost 35% of all gun deaths, and over 68% of all homicides.6

On average, 33 gun homicides were committed each day for the years 2005-2010.7

Regions and states with higher rates of gun ownership have significantly higher rates of homicide than states with lower rates of gun ownership.8

Where guns are prevalent, there are significantly more homicides, particularly gun homicides.9

Suicide

Firearms were used in 19,392 suicides in the U.S. in 2010, constituting almost 62% of all gun deaths.10

Over 50% of all suicides are committed with a firearm.11

On average, 49 gun suicides were committed each day for the years 2005-2010.12

White males, about 40% of the U.S. population, accounted for over 80% of firearm suicides in 2010.13

A study of California handgun purchasers found that in the first year after the purchase of a handgun, suicide was the leading cause of death among the purchasers.14

Firearms were used in nearly 44% of suicide deaths among persons under age 25 in 2010.15

More than 75% of guns used in suicide attempts and unintentional injuries of 0-19 year-olds were stored in the residence of the victim, a relative, or a friend.16

The risk of suicide increases in homes where guns are kept loaded and/or unlocked.17

Unintentional Deaths and Injuries

In 2010, unintentional firearm injuries caused the deaths of 606 people.18

From 2005-2010, almost 3,800 people in the U.S. died from unintentional shootings.19

Over 1,300 victims of unintentional shootings for the period 2005–2010 were under 25 years of age.20

People of all age groups are significantly more likely to die from unintentional firearm injuries when they live in states with more guns, relative to states with fewer guns. On average, states with the highest gun levels had nine times the rate of unintentional firearms deaths compared to states with the lowest gun levels.21

A federal government study of unintentional shootings found that 8% of such shooting deaths resulted from shots fired by children under the age of six.22

The U.S. General Accounting Office has estimated that 31% of unintentional deaths caused by firearms might be prevented by the addition of two devices: a child-proof safety lock (8%) and a loading indicator (23%).23

Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence ? Gun Law Information Experts

You don't know my work well enough yet, but I usually vet my source material to make sure there are no surprises for me later ...

So I know this is not the supporting data you wanted, but just for shit's and giggles why don't you tell all the other forum members what nefarious creature you thought would jump up ....

First off, the suicide number doesn't have much bearing. The fact that they used a gun only shows that they seriously wanted to die. If no gun had been available they would have used another method.

I'm not sure what the hell the last line of your post means. I didn't think any nefarious creature would jump up. I simply hoped for a reasonable discussion of the issue at hand.

 

[zeke]

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

Right off the bat, a logical fallacy: ad hominem (Attacking your opponent's character or personal traits in an attempt to undermine their argument).

You're not off to a good start...

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.

Oh really? And you're basing this assumption on what?



True. OF COURSE surprise is an advantage. However, that doesn't mean it makes sense to disarm his victims and thereby ensure they have no means to defend themselves.



Another logical fallacy. Careful...



If you can stop the lunatic before his shot everyone he intends to shoot, it sure as hell makes a difference. A BIG one. Of course, that's impossible when the good guys are disarmed.



You clearly have no clue as to how easy it is to conceal a firearm, either on a person or under the proverbial counter.

Fail.

Or maybe when its 95 degrees outside, the company should make every employee wear heavy clothes, you know, to hide their weapon.

Way to move the goalposts. NO ONE said employees should be forced to be armed, only that they not be prevented from doing so. Big difference, but you knew that. Try not to head down that path of being a disingenuous shit like so many others around here.

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?

Not hard at all. I never argued differently. I simply support the idea of allowing people to defend themselves. Nothing more. That is allowed you know.

Wow dude, that is one massive fail. Better luck next time!

Hey asshole. Fail? What? To make you understand that everybody in America can be armed and when the lunatic walks in and starts firing there ain't jack shit you can do about it. Ok. I failed to successfully argue against your inability to understand. If you say so. Doesn't change the fact that having everybody armed and dangerous is asking for more trouble.

Me thinks that you are one of those dudes who gets all big balled when you're carrying. That sound about right? You get all puffy and shit if some one looks at you weird.
When you're carrying that is? Just curious.

But I think that if you work in an environment that you feel you need to be armed every hour you are at work, I would find a new line of work. Just me though.

But I liked how you qualified whether all employees should be armed. Of course not you say. Just the ones that want to be. How great to have an employee who's an asshole to other employees and he's the one carrying the gun. No you will say. That would never happen. Us gun carrying folks are just about damn near perfect. No, I don't think your idea of just selectively allowing whoever to carry their gun will work. How about the low level employee mad at his boss. You want him armed and maybe the boss don't like guns. Uttoh. As well as it not being much deterrent. You want the lunatic to know that EVERYBODY inside that business is carrying a gun. Either everybody's armed or nobody. Then you don't have to be the gun carrying guy that was in the bathroom when the lunatic came in and he missed his chance to stop the shooter. Cause he was in the men's room. Then everybody would be pissed you for not doing what you were supposed to when you decided to carry a gun for the purpose of protecting the work place. You would have failed dude.

Fail. LMAO.

 

[Pogo]

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.

Yeah, you do. Because all you have is circumstantial evidence. You fail to establish a causal relationship beyond wishful thinking.

 

[Pogo]

From the link posted earlier, on the "zone" mythology (thanks to Brain357):

>> Among the 62 mass shootings over the last 30 years that we studied, not a single case includes evidence that the killer chose to target a place because it banned guns. To the contrary, in many of the cases there was clearly another motive for the choice of location. For example, 20 were workplace shootings, most of which involved perpetrators who felt wronged by employers and colleagues. Last September, when a troubled man working at a sign manufacturer in Minneapolis was told he would be let go, he pulled out a 9mm Glock and killed six people and injured another before putting a bullet in his own head. Similar tragedies unfolded at a beer distributor in Connecticut in 2010 and at a plastics factory in Kentucky in 2008.

Or consider the 12 school shootings we documented, in which all but one of the killers had personal ties to the school they struck. FBI investigators learned from one witness, for example, that the mass shooter in Newtown had long been fixated on Sandy Hook Elementary School, which he'd once attended.

Or take the man who opened fire in suburban Milwaukee last August: Are we to believe that a white supremacist targeted the Sikh temple there not because it was filled with members of a religious minority he despised, but because it was a place that allegedly* banned firearms?

Proponents of this argument also ignore that the majority of mass shootings are murder-suicides. Thirty-six of the killers we studied took their own lives at or near the crime scene, while seven others died in police shootouts they had no hope of surviving (a.k.a. "suicide by cop"). These were not people whose priority was identifying the safest place to attack. <<​

Made this point yesterday.

Clearly whether a shooting site happens to fall in a "gun free zone" or not is, no pun intended, luck of the draw. We see no such pattern in the examples above.

What do we see? People who snap and manifest their snappage by........... wait for it........... pulling a gun. And that is exactly what we mean when we say we live in a "gun culture". It's our go-to remedy for angst expression. And that is the root problem, the disease itself.

>> No less a fantasy is the idea that gun-free zones prevent armed civilians from saving the day. Not one of the 62 mass shootings we documented was stopped this way. Veteran FBI, ATF, and police officials say that an armed citizen opening fire against an attacker in a panic-stricken movie theater or shopping mall is very likely to make matters worse. Law enforcement agents train rigorously for stopping active shooters, they say, a task that requires extraordinary skills honed under acute duress.

In cases in Washington and Texas in 2005, would-be heroes who tried to take action with licensed firearms were gravely wounded and killed. In the Tucson mass shooting in 2011, an armed citizen admitted to coming within a split second of gunning down the wrong person&#8212;one of the bystanders who'd helped tackle and subdue the actual killer. <<​

Again --- this is why we don't fight fires by dousing them with gasoline. Duh.

As always, there's the world of stark reality where real things happen and cannot be undone .... and there's the world of comic book fantasies.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Did you notice that FedEx has a "No guns allowed" sign on their front door?

Didn't think so.

 

[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.

Hey who made those workers at FedEx continue to work there? These workers, if in fear for their lives or safety because FedEx doesn't provide birth control pills or abortions under their insurance , 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 use the women's room if you are female identified transgendered, don't go there.
How fucking hard is that?

Then it will only be those opposed to abortion/birth control in insurance or transgender friendly bathrooms. And the pro-BC/abortion/transgendered advocates would not be exposed to the dangers of the work place.

Pro BC/abortion/transgendered advocates, only work for a place where you can get your abortion/BC at work or use whatever bathroom you want.

Fixed it for ya.

Hey who made those workers at FedEx continue to work there?

no one

These workers, if in fear for their lives or safety

why would they be

fedex promised their safety

 

[The T]

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.

Hey who made those workers at FedEx continue to work there? These workers, if in fear for their lives or safety because FedEx doesn't provide birth control pills or abortions under their insurance , 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 use the women's room if you are female identified transgendered, don't go there.
How fucking hard is that?

Then it will only be those opposed to abortion/birth control in insurance or transgender friendly bathrooms. And the pro-BC/abortion/transgendered advocates would not be exposed to the dangers of the work place.

Pro BC/abortion/transgendered advocates, only work for a place where you can get your abortion/BC at work or use whatever bathroom you want.

Fixed it for ya.

Hey who made those workers at FedEx continue to work there?

no one

These workers, if in fear for their lives or safety

why would they be

fedex promised their safety

I can tell you this... In my Workcenter? WE are NOT a 'Gun-Free Zone'.

 

[jon_berzerk]

Hey who made those workers at FedEx continue to work there? These workers, if in fear for their lives or safety because FedEx doesn't provide birth control pills or abortions under their insurance , 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 use the women's room if you are female identified transgendered, don't go there.
How fucking hard is that?

Then it will only be those opposed to abortion/birth control in insurance or transgender friendly bathrooms. And the pro-BC/abortion/transgendered advocates would not be exposed to the dangers of the work place.

Pro BC/abortion/transgendered advocates, only work for a place where you can get your abortion/BC at work or use whatever bathroom you want.

Fixed it for ya.

Hey who made those workers at FedEx continue to work there?

no one

These workers, if in fear for their lives or safety

why would they be

fedex promised their safety

I can tell you this... In my Workcenter? WE are NOT a 'Gun-Free Zone'.

oh i agree

the gun free zone is one of the most dangerous places to be

fedex offered up a false sense of security to its employees

which they ought to be sued for

 

[Pogo]

Hey who made those workers at FedEx continue to work there?

no one

These workers, if in fear for their lives or safety

why would they be

fedex promised their safety

I can tell you this... In my Workcenter? WE are NOT a 'Gun-Free Zone'.

oh i agree

the gun free zone is one of the most dangerous places to be

fedex offered up a false sense of security to its employees

which they ought to be sued for

A theory that continues to flail itself without any evidential basis. But who needs basis; fantasy has more colors and shiny objects.

Yeah, you take that case to court. That's an argument I'd pay to hear.

 

[Pogo]

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.

Hey who made those workers at FedEx continue to work there? These workers, if in fear for their lives or safety because FedEx doesn't provide birth control pills or abortions under their insurance , 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 use the women's room if you are female identified transgendered, don't go there.
How fucking hard is that?

Then it will only be those opposed to abortion/birth control in insurance or transgender friendly bathrooms. And the pro-BC/abortion/transgendered advocates would not be exposed to the dangers of the work place.

Pro BC/abortion/transgendered advocates, only work for a place where you can get your abortion/BC at work or use whatever bathroom you want.

Fixed it for ya.

Hey who made those workers at FedEx continue to work there?

no one

These workers, if in fear for their lives or safety

why would they be

fedex promised their safety

Did they really. Where?

 

[Brain357]

Hey who made those workers at FedEx continue to work there? These workers, if in fear for their lives or safety because FedEx doesn't provide birth control pills or abortions under their insurance , 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 use the women's room if you are female identified transgendered, don't go there.
How fucking hard is that?

Then it will only be those opposed to abortion/birth control in insurance or transgender friendly bathrooms. And the pro-BC/abortion/transgendered advocates would not be exposed to the dangers of the work place.

Pro BC/abortion/transgendered advocates, only work for a place where you can get your abortion/BC at work or use whatever bathroom you want.

Fixed it for ya.

Hey who made those workers at FedEx continue to work there?

no one

These workers, if in fear for their lives or safety

why would they be

fedex promised their safety

I can tell you this... In my Workcenter? WE are NOT a 'Gun-Free Zone'.

What big company do you work for?