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

[Pogo]

That thugs and crazies do not obey the rules. Pretty clearly, that's the case.

So my analysis was accurate.

Just admit it. Won't kill you.

When you have a cogent 'analysis', you let us know. Until then, feel free to tell us how gun free zones do anything to stop thugs and crazies.

The cogent analysis was already posted-- the one you first denied and then in the next post acknowledged.

It's really very simple.

I don't accept your vision of a world of "thugs and crazies" in the first place. No more than I accept your fatalist world of violence-worship or your idea of dousing fires with gasoline.

When you find yourself in a hole, the first thing to do is quit diggin'. We live in the hole of a societal fetishism of guns and violence. That's the hole we need to quit diggin' -- you're calling for more shovels.

 

[Pogo]

Guns are a sacrament now? Why? Because we want to be able to defend ourselves if we find ourselves in the predicament where we have to?

"Why" is the very question I've been raising since I came to this site (and before). Damned if I know but a culture that worships violence is in no way a healthy one.

And yet you're the one asserting that it is. No one else is.

Wha?

What's "it"? "It" is what?
Here's a tip: before posting read through what you wrote and see if it makes any sense as is. If not, fill it in. Try complete sentences for a start.

 

[westwall]

Would somebody like to verify this loose excuse and tell me, besides a police or sheriff's station, WHERE guns are allowed on business property?

Most businesses I know and deal with in Nevada allow their employees to bring guns to work. They are mainly small manufacturers and certainly not corporate, but there are some that allow it.

 

[martybegan]

So my analysis was accurate.

Just admit it. Won't kill you.

When you have a cogent 'analysis', you let us know. Until then, feel free to tell us how gun free zones do anything to stop thugs and crazies.

The cogent analysis was already posted-- the one you first denied and then in the next post acknowledged.

It's really very simple.

I don't accept your vision of a world of "thugs and crazies" in the first place. No more than I accept your fatalist world of violence-worship or your idea of dousing fires with gasoline.

When you find yourself in a hole, the first thing to do is quit diggin'. We live in the hole of a societal fetishism of guns and violence. That's the hole we need to quit diggin' -- you're calling for more shovels.

The "vision" in question went to work with a firearm and shot at unarmed people. he defied the gun free zone, penetrated whatever security they may have in place to prevent this, and broke the law.

The concept of a gun free zone implies that there is a risk of law abiding people suddenly becoming un-law abiding, and thus they cannot be allowed to carry a weapon with them, even with no criminal history or evidence of mental defect. By doing this workplaces think they can prevent random spur of the moment violence when in actuality 99% of the violence that has occurred in work free zones are pre-planned, some meticulously so.

One would think that people break these rules all the time. If so, where are all the cases of people being shot over being bumped into at work, or over their lunches being stolen? if the assumption that a gun in the workplace is an invitation for normal people to go all OK corral why don't we see it happening all the time? Why is in almost every case its someone with an obvious history of issues?

 

[eflatminor]

So my analysis was accurate.

Just admit it. Won't kill you.

When you have a cogent 'analysis', you let us know. Until then, feel free to tell us how gun free zones do anything to stop thugs and crazies.

The cogent analysis was already posted-- the one you first denied and then in the next post acknowledged.

Then we have a very different definition of cogent.

It's really very simple.

I don't accept your vision of a world of "thugs and crazies" in the first place.

Riiiight...because the guy that shot up the Fedex facility today was a peaceful fellow...

No more than I accept your fatalist world of violence-worship or your idea of dousing fires with gasoline.

You're the ONLY one saying that we "worship" violence. Doesn't matter how many times you repeat it, it's simply not true. Being prepared to defend oneself and one's family from those that might do evil out there is not worshiping violence, it's taking common sense precautions, which you are free to ignore. Good luck.

When you find yourself in a hole, the first thing to do is quit diggin'.

You might consider taking your own advice here...

We live in the hole of a societal fetishism of guns and violence. That's the hole we need to quit diggin' -- you're calling for more shovels.

Because YOU say so? Yea, pass.

 

[Avatar4321]

"Why" is the very question I've been raising since I came to this site (and before). Damned if I know but a culture that worships violence is in no way a healthy one.

And yet you're the one asserting that it is. No one else is.

Wha?

What's "it"? "It" is what?
Here's a tip: before posting read through what you wrote and see if it makes any sense as is. If not, fill it in. Try complete sentences for a start.

It is the thought that guns are a sacrament. Forgive me for thinking you were intelligent enough to follow the conversation you were participating in. Ill try to dumb it down for you more in the future.

 

[eflatminor]

When you have a cogent 'analysis', you let us know. Until then, feel free to tell us how gun free zones do anything to stop thugs and crazies.

The cogent analysis was already posted-- the one you first denied and then in the next post acknowledged.

It's really very simple.

I don't accept your vision of a world of "thugs and crazies" in the first place. No more than I accept your fatalist world of violence-worship or your idea of dousing fires with gasoline.

When you find yourself in a hole, the first thing to do is quit diggin'. We live in the hole of a societal fetishism of guns and violence. That's the hole we need to quit diggin' -- you're calling for more shovels.

The "vision" in question went to work with a firearm and shot at unarmed people. he defied the gun free zone, penetrated whatever security they may have in place to prevent this, and broke the law.

A fact that seems to be lost on him. It's as though he's saying "If we all only had happy thoughts, everything would be fine".

 

[Pogo]

When you have a cogent 'analysis', you let us know. Until then, feel free to tell us how gun free zones do anything to stop thugs and crazies.

The cogent analysis was already posted-- the one you first denied and then in the next post acknowledged.

It's really very simple.

I don't accept your vision of a world of "thugs and crazies" in the first place. No more than I accept your fatalist world of violence-worship or your idea of dousing fires with gasoline.

When you find yourself in a hole, the first thing to do is quit diggin'. We live in the hole of a societal fetishism of guns and violence. That's the hole we need to quit diggin' -- you're calling for more shovels.

The "vision" in question went to work with a firearm and shot at unarmed people. he defied the gun free zone, penetrated whatever security they may have in place to prevent this, and broke the law.

The concept of a gun free zone implies that there is a risk of law abiding people suddenly becoming un-law abiding, and thus they cannot be allowed to carry a weapon with them, even with no criminal history or evidence of mental defect. By doing this workplaces think they can prevent random spur of the moment violence when in actuality 99% of the violence that has occurred in work free zones are pre-planned, some meticulously so.

One would think that people break these rules all the time. If so, where are all the cases of people being shot over being bumped into at work, or over their lunches being stolen? if the assumption that a gun in the workplace is an invitation for normal people to go all OK corral why don't we see it happening all the time? Why is in almost every case its someone with an obvious history of issues?

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.

 

[OriginalShroom]

Follow the Yellow Arrow..

See that sign??

No Gun Zone.

 

[DriftingSand]

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.

Just injured? Not dead? Cool!

 

[martybegan]

The cogent analysis was already posted-- the one you first denied and then in the next post acknowledged.

It's really very simple.

I don't accept your vision of a world of "thugs and crazies" in the first place. No more than I accept your fatalist world of violence-worship or your idea of dousing fires with gasoline.

When you find yourself in a hole, the first thing to do is quit diggin'. We live in the hole of a societal fetishism of guns and violence. That's the hole we need to quit diggin' -- you're calling for more shovels.

The "vision" in question went to work with a firearm and shot at unarmed people. he defied the gun free zone, penetrated whatever security they may have in place to prevent this, and broke the law.

The concept of a gun free zone implies that there is a risk of law abiding people suddenly becoming un-law abiding, and thus they cannot be allowed to carry a weapon with them, even with no criminal history or evidence of mental defect. By doing this workplaces think they can prevent random spur of the moment violence when in actuality 99% of the violence that has occurred in work free zones are pre-planned, some meticulously so.

One would think that people break these rules all the time. If so, where are all the cases of people being shot over being bumped into at work, or over their lunches being stolen? if the assumption that a gun in the workplace is an invitation for normal people to go all OK corral why don't we see it happening all the time? Why is in almost every case its someone with an obvious history of issues?

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.

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....

 

[Pogo]

And yet you're the one asserting that it is. No one else is.

Wha?

What's "it"? "It" is what?
Here's a tip: before posting read through what you wrote and see if it makes any sense as is. If not, fill it in. Try complete sentences for a start.

It is the thought that guns are a sacrament. Forgive me for thinking you were intelligent enough to follow the conversation you were participating in. Ill try to dumb it down for you more in the future.

Maybe just learn to break a sweat and write without vague pronouns that could point anywhere.

I'm certainly not the first to float that idea. Remember Bob Costas?

 

[Pogo]

The cogent analysis was already posted-- the one you first denied and then in the next post acknowledged.

It's really very simple.

I don't accept your vision of a world of "thugs and crazies" in the first place. No more than I accept your fatalist world of violence-worship or your idea of dousing fires with gasoline.

When you find yourself in a hole, the first thing to do is quit diggin'. We live in the hole of a societal fetishism of guns and violence. That's the hole we need to quit diggin' -- you're calling for more shovels.

The "vision" in question went to work with a firearm and shot at unarmed people. he defied the gun free zone, penetrated whatever security they may have in place to prevent this, and broke the law.

A fact that seems to be lost on him. It's as though he's saying "If we all only had happy thoughts, everything would be fine".

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.

 

[Pogo]

The "vision" in question went to work with a firearm and shot at unarmed people. he defied the gun free zone, penetrated whatever security they may have in place to prevent this, and broke the law.

The concept of a gun free zone implies that there is a risk of law abiding people suddenly becoming un-law abiding, and thus they cannot be allowed to carry a weapon with them, even with no criminal history or evidence of mental defect. By doing this workplaces think they can prevent random spur of the moment violence when in actuality 99% of the violence that has occurred in work free zones are pre-planned, some meticulously so.

One would think that people break these rules all the time. If so, where are all the cases of people being shot over being bumped into at work, or over their lunches being stolen? if the assumption that a gun in the workplace is an invitation for normal people to go all OK corral why don't we see it happening all the time? Why is in almost every case its someone with an obvious history of issues?

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"?

 

[eflatminor]

The "vision" in question went to work with a firearm and shot at unarmed people. he defied the gun free zone, penetrated whatever security they may have in place to prevent this, and broke the law.

A fact that seems to be lost on him. It's as though he's saying "If we all only had happy thoughts, everything would be fine".

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.

 

[peach174]

The "vision" in question went to work with a firearm and shot at unarmed people. he defied the gun free zone, penetrated whatever security they may have in place to prevent this, and broke the law.

A fact that seems to be lost on him. It's as though he's saying "If we all only had happy thoughts, everything would be fine".

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
They are saying that the guy and others like him, picked the place because it is posted as a gun free zone.

 

[Pogo]

A fact that seems to be lost on him. It's as though he's saying "If we all only had happy thoughts, everything would be fine".

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.

No, actually you don't know that. You'd have to have personal knowledge of all the times armed thugs/crazies DID follow the rules. I don't think you have that.

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.

That's what I said. I don't even know why y'all keep shunting off to this tangent of "gun free zones" in the first place. I understand it's a deflection, but it's weak. You don't think it actually works as argument do you?

 

[eflatminor]

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.

Your analogies make no sense at all. Talk about lame! How about addressing the point specifically without attempting to relate it to cars...or gasoline fires? Any chance of that???

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"?

Here:

“With just one single exception, the attack on congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords in Tucson in 2011, every public shooting since at least 1950 in the U.S. in which more than three people have been killed has taken place where citizens are not allowed to carry guns.”

The Facts about Mass Shootings | National Review Online

 

[Pogo]

A fact that seems to be lost on him. It's as though he's saying "If we all only had happy thoughts, everything would be fine".

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
They are saying that the guy and others like him, picked the place because it is posted as a gun free zone.

I understand that's what they're saying. And as I just said, that's complete speculation. Becuase we dare not blaspheme Almighty Gun.

 

[hunarcy]

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.

Wow, that's a very ignorant statement. As FedEx even forbids tasers and pepper spray and has a "gun free" workplace, there was no one with a firearm except the criminal was armed; so, this whole thread's a waste of time.