Restuarant has "No Guns Allowed" Sign...gun owners don't bring guns...the robber did though...

[BluePhantom]

Whoa! Provide documentation to support your statement. I want to see you provide evidence that states that the majority of gun owners are involved in criminal activity. Or even that the majority of gun owners who have used their gun in self defense are involved in criminal activity. I am willing to accept that it may be the truth but you are going to have to provide evidence instead of simply your say so. So let's have it

I did not say most gun owners. I said defenders. Most defenses are in high crime areas by the same people who are also criminals. Why would you be surprised by that? Lots of armed criminals in high crime areas who of course will defend themselves. Here is a quote from Kleck:
"This is true because DGUs typically involve criminal behavior, such as unlawful gun possession, by the gun-using victim, who therefore is often unwilling to report the incident."

Very well. Provide the link that supports your argument

Isn't it just common sense? I mean where do you think most defenses take place? High crime areas or low? Clearly they take place in high crime areas where there are lots of armed criminals. And these armed criminals are going to defend themselves. Here is a link from where the Kleck quote is taken. He's trying to explain why his numbers have more crimes defended than are committed. I obviously think his survey is very wrong, but he is obviously right that most defenders are involved in criminal activity.
Although we systematically rebut each of Hemenwayls H claims we

I think it is reasonable to suggest that most situations where gunplay occurs will be in high crime areas, sure. But what does that have to do with the average gun owner who has a gun to protect his property and his family? I own a gun...I won't tell you how many or where I keep them. I occasionally go take practice to make sure I am not rusty and my skills are adequate. I have no significant criminal record (aside from some traffic tickets and a some stupid shit I did as a kid smoking weed as a teenager). Why should I lose my ability to protect my family just because some jack ass gang banger wants to rob a liquor store?

What does that have to do with what I'm saying? I'm just pointing out that most defenses are by criminals. If you are involved in criminal activity you are MUCH more likely to need a gun for defense. If you aren't as you say then you are very unlikely to ever need one.

It's your naivety dude. Passing laws doesn't stop people from doing a damned thing. All laws do is punish those who break them. Pass all the laws you want. If someone wants to commit murder they will do so whether they have a gun or not. All this "if we only got rid of guns everything would be so much better" crap I find so incredibly laughable because you assume that criminals will not act like criminals in respect of the law. Fine...take away all guns. Criminals will just use pipe bombs, knives, lead pipes...good Christ man do you really think a criminal will stop being a criminal just because guns are outlawed?

 

[Brain357]

I did not say most gun owners. I said defenders. Most defenses are in high crime areas by the same people who are also criminals. Why would you be surprised by that? Lots of armed criminals in high crime areas who of course will defend themselves. Here is a quote from Kleck:
"This is true because DGUs typically involve criminal behavior, such as unlawful gun possession, by the gun-using victim, who therefore is often unwilling to report the incident."

Very well. Provide the link that supports your argument

Isn't it just common sense? I mean where do you think most defenses take place? High crime areas or low? Clearly they take place in high crime areas where there are lots of armed criminals. And these armed criminals are going to defend themselves. Here is a link from where the Kleck quote is taken. He's trying to explain why his numbers have more crimes defended than are committed. I obviously think his survey is very wrong, but he is obviously right that most defenders are involved in criminal activity.
Although we systematically rebut each of Hemenwayls H claims we

I think it is reasonable to suggest that most situations where gunplay occurs will be in high crime areas, sure. But what does that have to do with the average gun owner who has a gun to protect his property and his family? I own a gun...I won't tell you how many or where I keep them. I occasionally go take practice to make sure I am not rusty and my skills are adequate. I have no significant criminal record (aside from some traffic tickets and a some stupid shit I did as a kid smoking weed as a teenager). Why should I lose my ability to protect my family just because some jack ass gang banger wants to rob a liquor store?

What does that have to do with what I'm saying? I'm just pointing out that most defenses are by criminals. If you are involved in criminal activity you are MUCH more likely to need a gun for defense. If you aren't as you say then you are very unlikely to ever need one.

It's your naivety dude. Passing laws doesn't stop people from doing a damned thing. All laws do is punish those who break them. Pass all the laws you want. If someone wants to commit murder they will do so whether they have a gun or not. All this "if we only got rid of guns everything would be so much better" crap I find so incredibly laughable because you assume that criminals will not act like criminals in respect of the law. Fine...take away all guns. Criminals will just use pipe bombs, knives, lead pipes...good Christ man do you really think a criminal will stop being a criminal just because guns are outlawed?

What does that have to do with most defenses are by criminals? You seem to be arguing about something else. I'll just assume you agree they are. Is there something else you want to discuss then?

 

[BluePhantom]

So let's just toss out a hypothetical RW. I have broken into your house. I have a knife at your wife's throat and I am about to rape her and I am telling her that after I am done I am going to slit her throat. You have a 9mm in your hand. Do you shoot me?

they should have posted the " No sharp knives allowed " sign

to prevent this sort of thing from happening in the first place

Just think of all the criminal activity we could have avoided throughout history by just posting a sign. Julius Caesar could have been saved by a sign that said "No Stabbing the Dictator Zone". Attila the Hun would have benefited from a "No Drowning on Your Own Puke Zone" sign. And Joan of Arc could have been saved by a sign that read "No Throwing Maidens Who Claim to Talk To God on Bonfires Zone". Why didn't we think of this before?

The signs are not to avoid criminal behavior, they are to avoid accidental shootings. You don't get that?

liar

Really? You think that signs are ment to avoid criminal behavior? Don't be so blatant with your stupidity. They are to avoid accidental shootings. If there are no guns there are no accidental shootings obviously.

You apparently seem to think so. After Gabby Giffords got shot do you know how many liberals were screaming that a law should be passed to make it illegal for a person to carry a weapon within a certain distance of an elected official? I sat here on these boards and watched them make that argument and my jaw simply hit the floor. THAT was their solution? Pass a fucking law? You have to be kidding me! Can you liberals be that fucking dumb that you think that if that law was in place it would have stopped that shooting?

 

[Brain357]

they should have posted the " No sharp knives allowed " sign

to prevent this sort of thing from happening in the first place

Just think of all the criminal activity we could have avoided throughout history by just posting a sign. Julius Caesar could have been saved by a sign that said "No Stabbing the Dictator Zone". Attila the Hun would have benefited from a "No Drowning on Your Own Puke Zone" sign. And Joan of Arc could have been saved by a sign that read "No Throwing Maidens Who Claim to Talk To God on Bonfires Zone". Why didn't we think of this before?

The signs are not to avoid criminal behavior, they are to avoid accidental shootings. You don't get that?

liar

Really? You think that signs are ment to avoid criminal behavior? Don't be so blatant with your stupidity. They are to avoid accidental shootings. If there are no guns there are no accidental shootings obviously.

You apparently seem to think so. After Gabby Giffords got shot do you know how many liberals were screaming that a law should be passed to make it illegal for a person to carry a weapon within a certain distance of an elected official? I sat here on these boards and watched them make that argument and my jaw simply hit the floor. THAT was their solution? Pass a fucking law? You have to be kidding me! Can you liberals be that fucking dumb that you think that if that law was in place it would have stopped that shooting?

I'm an independent. I'm not aware of anyone who thinks signs will avoid criminal behavior. They are however effective at avoiding accidental shootings. You almost never hear of an accidental shooting in a gun free zone.

 

[BluePhantom]

Just think of all the criminal activity we could have avoided throughout history by just posting a sign. Julius Caesar could have been saved by a sign that said "No Stabbing the Dictator Zone". Attila the Hun would have benefited from a "No Drowning on Your Own Puke Zone" sign. And Joan of Arc could have been saved by a sign that read "No Throwing Maidens Who Claim to Talk To God on Bonfires Zone". Why didn't we think of this before?

The signs are not to avoid criminal behavior, they are to avoid accidental shootings. You don't get that?

liar

Really? You think that signs are ment to avoid criminal behavior? Don't be so blatant with your stupidity. They are to avoid accidental shootings. If there are no guns there are no accidental shootings obviously.

You apparently seem to think so. After Gabby Giffords got shot do you know how many liberals were screaming that a law should be passed to make it illegal for a person to carry a weapon within a certain distance of an elected official? I sat here on these boards and watched them make that argument and my jaw simply hit the floor. THAT was their solution? Pass a fucking law? You have to be kidding me! Can you liberals be that fucking dumb that you think that if that law was in place it would have stopped that shooting?

I'm an independent. I'm not aware of anyone who thinks signs will avoid criminal behavior. They are however effective at avoiding accidental shootings. You almost never hear of an accidental shooting in a gun free zone.

Right...just intentional mass shootings

 

[Brain357]

The signs are not to avoid criminal behavior, they are to avoid accidental shootings. You don't get that?

liar

Really? You think that signs are ment to avoid criminal behavior? Don't be so blatant with your stupidity. They are to avoid accidental shootings. If there are no guns there are no accidental shootings obviously.

You apparently seem to think so. After Gabby Giffords got shot do you know how many liberals were screaming that a law should be passed to make it illegal for a person to carry a weapon within a certain distance of an elected official? I sat here on these boards and watched them make that argument and my jaw simply hit the floor. THAT was their solution? Pass a fucking law? You have to be kidding me! Can you liberals be that fucking dumb that you think that if that law was in place it would have stopped that shooting?

I'm an independent. I'm not aware of anyone who thinks signs will avoid criminal behavior. They are however effective at avoiding accidental shootings. You almost never hear of an accidental shooting in a gun free zone.

Right...just intentional mass shootings

Yes but many more people are killed in accidental shootings than they are in mass shootings. There are about 600 people accidentally shot and killed each year. Only 130 or so killed in mass shootings each year. Would you allow guns in to protect people from the 130 a year by opening them up to the 600 per year? That would be silly.

 

[jon_berzerk]

So let's just toss out a hypothetical RW. I have broken into your house. I have a knife at your wife's throat and I am about to rape her and I am telling her that after I am done I am going to slit her throat. You have a 9mm in your hand. Do you shoot me?

they should have posted the " No sharp knives allowed " sign

to prevent this sort of thing from happening in the first place

Just think of all the criminal activity we could have avoided throughout history by just posting a sign. Julius Caesar could have been saved by a sign that said "No Stabbing the Dictator Zone". Attila the Hun would have benefited from a "No Drowning on Your Own Puke Zone" sign. And Joan of Arc could have been saved by a sign that read "No Throwing Maidens Who Claim to Talk To God on Bonfires Zone". Why didn't we think of this before?

The signs are not to avoid criminal behavior, they are to avoid accidental shootings. You don't get that?

liar

Really? You think that signs are ment to avoid criminal behavior? Don't be so blatant with your stupidity. They are to avoid accidental shootings. If there are no guns there are no accidental shootings obviously.

almost all workplace violence not workplace accident policies include a section

on forbidding firearms on the property

example

Workplace Violence Policies and Procedures - 2C6 & 3C5

1. Purpose
   The safety and security of personnel, students and visitors is of vital importance to Southern Illinois University Edwardsville (SIUE). This policy and the companion procedure describe SIUE's position on violence and threats of violence, including sexual assault, domestic violence, dating violence and stalking, in University facilities and on University property and identify University resources and programs to deal with such incidents.
   
   
2. Policy Statement
   It is the policy of this institution to provide a safe environment in order to conduct the mission of the University in the most effective manner possible. A safe environment will be attained by appropriate employee screening, employee education and training, surveillance of the work area, and effective management of situations involving violence or threats of violence on University property. It is the intent of the University through its policy, procedures, and practices to reduce the potential for:
   
   1. Intimidation or threats from occurring.
   2. Violent acts being perpetuated.
   3. Life threatening situations from developing.
3. Definitions:
   
   1. Threat: Words or action that create a reasonable perception of an intent to physically harm persons or property.
   2. Violence: Any act that results in threatened or actual harm to a person or property or which unnecessarily endangers or threatens the health, safety or well-being of another person or threatens the damage or destruction of property.
4. Applicability: This policy and companion procedures apply to all SIUE facilities and property and to all faculty, staff, students, and visitors to the University. All employees are responsible to be familiar with and comply with this policy and companion procedures.
5. Policy Provisions
   
   1. It is a violation of law to touch another person in an unwelcome way with the intent to harm, or to threaten to do so if one has the present ability to perform the act threatened. Threats, threatening behavior, or acts of violence against employees, faculty, staff, students, customers, consumers, visitors, guests, or other individuals on SIUE property will not be tolerated and may subject individuals to discipline, up to and including termination from employment or dismissal from the University pursuant to the applicable University, Civil Service or collective bargaining procedures. Any individual engaging in prohibited conduct under this policy is also subject to legal action.
   2. SIUE will not tolerate the following conduct or behavior:
      
      1. Threats, direct or implied;
      2. Physical conduct that results in harm to people or property;
      3. weapons on University property. It is a violation of Illinois law to possess or store weapons on University property without prior written permission from the University Police Chief or in accordance with the SIUE Firearms Policy;

 

[Brain357]

they should have posted the " No sharp knives allowed " sign

to prevent this sort of thing from happening in the first place

Just think of all the criminal activity we could have avoided throughout history by just posting a sign. Julius Caesar could have been saved by a sign that said "No Stabbing the Dictator Zone". Attila the Hun would have benefited from a "No Drowning on Your Own Puke Zone" sign. And Joan of Arc could have been saved by a sign that read "No Throwing Maidens Who Claim to Talk To God on Bonfires Zone". Why didn't we think of this before?

The signs are not to avoid criminal behavior, they are to avoid accidental shootings. You don't get that?

liar

Really? You think that signs are ment to avoid criminal behavior? Don't be so blatant with your stupidity. They are to avoid accidental shootings. If there are no guns there are no accidental shootings obviously.

almost all workplace violence not workplace accident policies include a section

on forbidding firearms on the property

example

Workplace Violence Policies and Procedures - 2C6 & 3C5

1. Purpose
   The safety and security of personnel, students and visitors is of vital importance to Southern Illinois University Edwardsville (SIUE). This policy and the companion procedure describe SIUE's position on violence and threats of violence, including sexual assault, domestic violence, dating violence and stalking, in University facilities and on University property and identify University resources and programs to deal with such incidents.
   
   
2. Policy Statement
   It is the policy of this institution to provide a safe environment in order to conduct the mission of the University in the most effective manner possible. A safe environment will be attained by appropriate employee screening, employee education and training, surveillance of the work area, and effective management of situations involving violence or threats of violence on University property. It is the intent of the University through its policy, procedures, and practices to reduce the potential for:
   1. Intimidation or threats from occurring.
   2. Violent acts being perpetuated.
   3. Life threatening situations from developing.
3. Definitions:
   1. Threat: Words or action that create a reasonable perception of an intent to physically harm persons or property.
   2. Violence: Any act that results in threatened or actual harm to a person or property or which unnecessarily endangers or threatens the health, safety or well-being of another person or threatens the damage or destruction of property.
4. Applicability: This policy and companion procedures apply to all SIUE facilities and property and to all faculty, staff, students, and visitors to the University. All employees are responsible to be familiar with and comply with this policy and companion procedures.
5. Policy Provisions
   1. It is a violation of law to touch another person in an unwelcome way with the intent to harm, or to threaten to do so if one has the present ability to perform the act threatened. Threats, threatening behavior, or acts of violence against employees, faculty, staff, students, customers, consumers, visitors, guests, or other individuals on SIUE property will not be tolerated and may subject individuals to discipline, up to and including termination from employment or dismissal from the University pursuant to the applicable University, Civil Service or collective bargaining procedures. Any individual engaging in prohibited conduct under this policy is also subject to legal action.
   2. SIUE will not tolerate the following conduct or behavior:
      1. Threats, direct or implied;
      2. Physical conduct that results in harm to people or property;
      3. weapons on University property. It is a violation of Illinois law to possess or store weapons on University property without prior written permission from the University Police Chief or in accordance with the SIUE Firearms Policy;

It is for safety. If there are no guns everyone is safe from accidental shootings.

 

[Papageorgio]

Yes brain.....one exception....and disarm over 90 million gun owners......that is quite the calculation......

One example, just like you gave. There are many. How many restaurants without no gun signs are robbed? Your post was dumb.

Do you really think that sign had nothing to do with the place being robbed? You're just a special kind of stupid, aren't you?

You seem to be especially dumb. Obviously it had nothing to do with the restaurant being robbed. Might be why nobody was killed however. If you are going to make the claim it did then show me how restaurants with a sign are robbed more often. I can post lots of restaurants without the sign that have been robbed. I've also posted gun shops who have been robbed. Clearly the sign has nothing to do with it.

So if you were a robber and you are going to rob a restaurant and one restaurant has no guns allowed sign and the other restaurant has no sign, are you going to seriously tell me you would rob the one with no sign?

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

I'm not willing to bet my life that the robber will be satisfied with taking the money and leaving witnesses. Now you're life I would bet any day of the week and twice on Sunday.

I know....every confrontation is better with guns

So let's just toss out a hypothetical RW. I have broken into your house. I have a knife at your wife's throat and I am about to rape her and I am telling her that after I am done I am going to slit her throat. You have a 9mm in your hand. Do you shoot me?

they should have posted the " No sharp knives allowed " sign

to prevent this sort of thing from happening in the first place

Just think of all the criminal activity we could have avoided throughout history by just posting a sign. Julius Caesar could have been saved by a sign that said "No Stabbing the Dictator Zone". Attila the Hun would have benefited from a "No Drowning on Your Own Puke Zone" sign. And Joan of Arc could have been saved by a sign that read "No Throwing Maidens Who Claim to Talk To God on Bonfires Zone". Why didn't we think of this before?

The signs are not to avoid criminal behavior, they are to avoid accidental shootings. You don't get that?

Besides the very rare incident where a professional football player shoots himself by accident in a club, when does this ever happen?

 

[Brain357]

Yes brain.....one exception....and disarm over 90 million gun owners......that is quite the calculation......

One example, just like you gave. There are many. How many restaurants without no gun signs are robbed? Your post was dumb.

Do you really think that sign had nothing to do with the place being robbed? You're just a special kind of stupid, aren't you?

You seem to be especially dumb. Obviously it had nothing to do with the restaurant being robbed. Might be why nobody was killed however. If you are going to make the claim it did then show me how restaurants with a sign are robbed more often. I can post lots of restaurants without the sign that have been robbed. I've also posted gun shops who have been robbed. Clearly the sign has nothing to do with it.

So if you were a robber and you are going to rob a restaurant and one restaurant has no guns allowed sign and the other restaurant has no sign, are you going to seriously tell me you would rob the one with no sign?

I have shown that gun shops have been robbed. Are you telling me the robbers didn't know there were armed people in the store?

 

[jon_berzerk]

The signs are not to avoid criminal behavior, they are to avoid accidental shootings. You don't get that?

liar

Really? You think that signs are ment to avoid criminal behavior? Don't be so blatant with your stupidity. They are to avoid accidental shootings. If there are no guns there are no accidental shootings obviously.

You apparently seem to think so. After Gabby Giffords got shot do you know how many liberals were screaming that a law should be passed to make it illegal for a person to carry a weapon within a certain distance of an elected official? I sat here on these boards and watched them make that argument and my jaw simply hit the floor. THAT was their solution? Pass a fucking law? You have to be kidding me! Can you liberals be that fucking dumb that you think that if that law was in place it would have stopped that shooting?

I'm an independent. I'm not aware of anyone who thinks signs will avoid criminal behavior. They are however effective at avoiding accidental shootings. You almost never hear of an accidental shooting in a gun free zone.

Right...just intentional mass shootings

--LOL

no matter what the anti gun dude says

the gun free zone act of 1990

was part of the larger Crime Control Act of 1990

it was meant to control criminal behavior not curb accidental shooting

 

[BluePhantom]

liar

Really? You think that signs are ment to avoid criminal behavior? Don't be so blatant with your stupidity. They are to avoid accidental shootings. If there are no guns there are no accidental shootings obviously.

You apparently seem to think so. After Gabby Giffords got shot do you know how many liberals were screaming that a law should be passed to make it illegal for a person to carry a weapon within a certain distance of an elected official? I sat here on these boards and watched them make that argument and my jaw simply hit the floor. THAT was their solution? Pass a fucking law? You have to be kidding me! Can you liberals be that fucking dumb that you think that if that law was in place it would have stopped that shooting?

I'm an independent. I'm not aware of anyone who thinks signs will avoid criminal behavior. They are however effective at avoiding accidental shootings. You almost never hear of an accidental shooting in a gun free zone.

Right...just intentional mass shootings

Yes but many more people are killed in accidental shootings than they are in mass shootings. There are about 600 people accidentally shot and killed each year. Only 130 or so killed in mass shootings each year.

Ok dude. Let me put it like this. I was a professor at a university for about 10 years and right after the Virginia Tech shooting there was a big meeting held to determine how to deal with possible shootings. One idea was to make the school a gun free zone. I laughed my ass off and asked "how are we going to enforce that?" The suggestion was made that we would put metal detectors at all entrances to the campus. My response was "well if I am a shooter I want to thank you, because those metal detectors are going to create a big, long, bunched up line which just became a perfect target for me. Hell I don't even have to aim like I would if I was randomly walking around campus. You guys have gathered the students up in a nice beautiful tight pack and all I have to do is shoot into it and toss out a pipe bomb. Thanks for increasing my kill rate."

Look man....accidents are going to happen. It happens with guns, cars, swimming pools, boomerangs, and silly putty. Gun free zones simply create a happy hunting ground for psychopaths

 

[Brain357]

I know....every confrontation is better with guns

So let's just toss out a hypothetical RW. I have broken into your house. I have a knife at your wife's throat and I am about to rape her and I am telling her that after I am done I am going to slit her throat. You have a 9mm in your hand. Do you shoot me?

they should have posted the " No sharp knives allowed " sign

to prevent this sort of thing from happening in the first place

Just think of all the criminal activity we could have avoided throughout history by just posting a sign. Julius Caesar could have been saved by a sign that said "No Stabbing the Dictator Zone". Attila the Hun would have benefited from a "No Drowning on Your Own Puke Zone" sign. And Joan of Arc could have been saved by a sign that read "No Throwing Maidens Who Claim to Talk To God on Bonfires Zone". Why didn't we think of this before?

The signs are not to avoid criminal behavior, they are to avoid accidental shootings. You don't get that?

Besides the very rare incident where a professional football player shoots himself by accident in a club, when does this ever happen?

I've already posted several examples of accidental shootings in restaurants. There are 17,000 accidental shootings each year. You are much more likely to be accidently shot than purposely shot and killed by a criminal.

 

[jon_berzerk]

I know....every confrontation is better with guns

So let's just toss out a hypothetical RW. I have broken into your house. I have a knife at your wife's throat and I am about to rape her and I am telling her that after I am done I am going to slit her throat. You have a 9mm in your hand. Do you shoot me?

they should have posted the " No sharp knives allowed " sign

to prevent this sort of thing from happening in the first place

Just think of all the criminal activity we could have avoided throughout history by just posting a sign. Julius Caesar could have been saved by a sign that said "No Stabbing the Dictator Zone". Attila the Hun would have benefited from a "No Drowning on Your Own Puke Zone" sign. And Joan of Arc could have been saved by a sign that read "No Throwing Maidens Who Claim to Talk To God on Bonfires Zone". Why didn't we think of this before?

The signs are not to avoid criminal behavior, they are to avoid accidental shootings. You don't get that?

Besides the very rare incident where a professional football player shoots himself by accident in a club, when does this ever happen?

they are to avoid accidental shootings.= complete bs

the GFZ is part of the crime control act of 1990

not the accidental shooting act of 1990

 

[Brain357]

Really? You think that signs are ment to avoid criminal behavior? Don't be so blatant with your stupidity. They are to avoid accidental shootings. If there are no guns there are no accidental shootings obviously.

You apparently seem to think so. After Gabby Giffords got shot do you know how many liberals were screaming that a law should be passed to make it illegal for a person to carry a weapon within a certain distance of an elected official? I sat here on these boards and watched them make that argument and my jaw simply hit the floor. THAT was their solution? Pass a fucking law? You have to be kidding me! Can you liberals be that fucking dumb that you think that if that law was in place it would have stopped that shooting?

I'm an independent. I'm not aware of anyone who thinks signs will avoid criminal behavior. They are however effective at avoiding accidental shootings. You almost never hear of an accidental shooting in a gun free zone.

Right...just intentional mass shootings

Yes but many more people are killed in accidental shootings than they are in mass shootings. There are about 600 people accidentally shot and killed each year. Only 130 or so killed in mass shootings each year.

Ok dude. Let me put it like this. I was a professor at a university for about 10 years and right after the Virginia Tech shooting there was a big meeting held to determine how to deal with possible shootings. One idea was to make the school a gun free zone. I laughed my ass off and asked "how are we going to enforce that?" The suggestion was made that we would put metal detectors at all entrances to the campus. My response was "well if I am a shooter I want to thank you, because those metal detectors are going to create a big, long, bunched up line which just became a perfect target for me. Hell I don't even have to aim like I would if I was randomly walking around campus. You guys have gathered the students up in a nice beautiful tight pack and all I have to do is shoot into it and toss out a pipe bomb. Thanks for increasing my kill rate."

Look man....accidents are going to happen. It happens with guns, cars, swimming pools, boomerangs, and silly putty. Gun free zones simply create a happy hunting ground for psychopaths

So to save people from the 130 mass killings you would open them up the 600 accidental killings? That makes no sense. You are more than 4X more likely to die in an accidental shooting.

 

[Brain357]

So let's just toss out a hypothetical RW. I have broken into your house. I have a knife at your wife's throat and I am about to rape her and I am telling her that after I am done I am going to slit her throat. You have a 9mm in your hand. Do you shoot me?

they should have posted the " No sharp knives allowed " sign

to prevent this sort of thing from happening in the first place

Just think of all the criminal activity we could have avoided throughout history by just posting a sign. Julius Caesar could have been saved by a sign that said "No Stabbing the Dictator Zone". Attila the Hun would have benefited from a "No Drowning on Your Own Puke Zone" sign. And Joan of Arc could have been saved by a sign that read "No Throwing Maidens Who Claim to Talk To God on Bonfires Zone". Why didn't we think of this before?

The signs are not to avoid criminal behavior, they are to avoid accidental shootings. You don't get that?

Besides the very rare incident where a professional football player shoots himself by accident in a club, when does this ever happen?

they are to avoid accidental shootings.= complete bs

the GFZ is part of the crime control act of 1990

not the accidental shooting act of 1990

It is a crime to accidentally shoot in public...

 

[jon_berzerk]

Just think of all the criminal activity we could have avoided throughout history by just posting a sign. Julius Caesar could have been saved by a sign that said "No Stabbing the Dictator Zone". Attila the Hun would have benefited from a "No Drowning on Your Own Puke Zone" sign. And Joan of Arc could have been saved by a sign that read "No Throwing Maidens Who Claim to Talk To God on Bonfires Zone". Why didn't we think of this before?

The signs are not to avoid criminal behavior, they are to avoid accidental shootings. You don't get that?

liar

Really? You think that signs are ment to avoid criminal behavior? Don't be so blatant with your stupidity. They are to avoid accidental shootings. If there are no guns there are no accidental shootings obviously.

almost all workplace violence not workplace accident policies include a section

on forbidding firearms on the property

example

Workplace Violence Policies and Procedures - 2C6 & 3C5

1. Purpose
   The safety and security of personnel, students and visitors is of vital importance to Southern Illinois University Edwardsville (SIUE). This policy and the companion procedure describe SIUE's position on violence and threats of violence, including sexual assault, domestic violence, dating violence and stalking, in University facilities and on University property and identify University resources and programs to deal with such incidents.
   
   
2. Policy Statement
   It is the policy of this institution to provide a safe environment in order to conduct the mission of the University in the most effective manner possible. A safe environment will be attained by appropriate employee screening, employee education and training, surveillance of the work area, and effective management of situations involving violence or threats of violence on University property. It is the intent of the University through its policy, procedures, and practices to reduce the potential for:
   1. Intimidation or threats from occurring.
   2. Violent acts being perpetuated.
   3. Life threatening situations from developing.
3. Definitions:
   1. Threat: Words or action that create a reasonable perception of an intent to physically harm persons or property.
   2. Violence: Any act that results in threatened or actual harm to a person or property or which unnecessarily endangers or threatens the health, safety or well-being of another person or threatens the damage or destruction of property.
4. Applicability: This policy and companion procedures apply to all SIUE facilities and property and to all faculty, staff, students, and visitors to the University. All employees are responsible to be familiar with and comply with this policy and companion procedures.
5. Policy Provisions
   1. It is a violation of law to touch another person in an unwelcome way with the intent to harm, or to threaten to do so if one has the present ability to perform the act threatened. Threats, threatening behavior, or acts of violence against employees, faculty, staff, students, customers, consumers, visitors, guests, or other individuals on SIUE property will not be tolerated and may subject individuals to discipline, up to and including termination from employment or dismissal from the University pursuant to the applicable University, Civil Service or collective bargaining procedures. Any individual engaging in prohibited conduct under this policy is also subject to legal action.
   2. SIUE will not tolerate the following conduct or behavior:
      1. Threats, direct or implied;
      2. Physical conduct that results in harm to people or property;
      3. weapons on University property. It is a violation of Illinois law to possess or store weapons on University property without prior written permission from the University Police Chief or in accordance with the SIUE Firearms Policy;

It is for safety. If there are no guns everyone is safe from accidental shootings.

cant read very well can you

the title of the policy

is WORKPLACE VIOLENCE POLICY AND PROCEDURE

 

[BluePhantom]

You apparently seem to think so. After Gabby Giffords got shot do you know how many liberals were screaming that a law should be passed to make it illegal for a person to carry a weapon within a certain distance of an elected official? I sat here on these boards and watched them make that argument and my jaw simply hit the floor. THAT was their solution? Pass a fucking law? You have to be kidding me! Can you liberals be that fucking dumb that you think that if that law was in place it would have stopped that shooting?

I'm an independent. I'm not aware of anyone who thinks signs will avoid criminal behavior. They are however effective at avoiding accidental shootings. You almost never hear of an accidental shooting in a gun free zone.

Right...just intentional mass shootings

Yes but many more people are killed in accidental shootings than they are in mass shootings. There are about 600 people accidentally shot and killed each year. Only 130 or so killed in mass shootings each year.

Ok dude. Let me put it like this. I was a professor at a university for about 10 years and right after the Virginia Tech shooting there was a big meeting held to determine how to deal with possible shootings. One idea was to make the school a gun free zone. I laughed my ass off and asked "how are we going to enforce that?" The suggestion was made that we would put metal detectors at all entrances to the campus. My response was "well if I am a shooter I want to thank you, because those metal detectors are going to create a big, long, bunched up line which just became a perfect target for me. Hell I don't even have to aim like I would if I was randomly walking around campus. You guys have gathered the students up in a nice beautiful tight pack and all I have to do is shoot into it and toss out a pipe bomb. Thanks for increasing my kill rate."

Look man....accidents are going to happen. It happens with guns, cars, swimming pools, boomerangs, and silly putty. Gun free zones simply create a happy hunting ground for psychopaths

So to save people from the 130 mass killings you would open them up the 600 accidental killings? That makes no sense. You are more than 4X more likely to die in an accidental shooting.

DUDE....accidental means they didn't mean for it to happen. It was an accident! Posting signs won't prevent accidents. Good Lord man. Recently, I lost my stopper for my kitchen sink and went and bought one. There were instructions on how to use it on the back of the package. That's how fucking stupid society is. We need instructions on how to put a plug into a hole. And you think a sign that says "gun free zone" is going to stop accidents when people need graphics to show how to put a plug into a kitchen sink drain? You are delusional, brother.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

So let's just toss out a hypothetical RW. I have broken into your house. I have a knife at your wife's throat and I am about to rape her and I am telling her that after I am done I am going to slit her throat. You have a 9mm in your hand. Do you shoot me?

they should have posted the " No sharp knives allowed " sign

to prevent this sort of thing from happening in the first place

Just think of all the criminal activity we could have avoided throughout history by just posting a sign. Julius Caesar could have been saved by a sign that said "No Stabbing the Dictator Zone". Attila the Hun would have benefited from a "No Drowning on Your Own Puke Zone" sign. And Joan of Arc could have been saved by a sign that read "No Throwing Maidens Who Claim to Talk To God on Bonfires Zone". Why didn't we think of this before?

The signs are not to avoid criminal behavior, they are to avoid accidental shootings. You don't get that?

Besides the very rare incident where a professional football player shoots himself by accident in a club, when does this ever happen?

they are to avoid accidental shootings.= complete bs

the GFZ is part of the crime control act of 1990

not the accidental shooting act of 1990

He assumes that just because he's more of a danger to himself with a gun, that everyone must be equally clumsy and an incompetent drooling retard. He probably needs such a sign.