Virginia Halts Concealed Carry Reciprocity With 25 States

[OKTexas]

Is this statement I have read true? I just read it...some time this past week....

"Every illegal gun on the streets today, was initially sold LEGALLY, to someone/ or some business."

Everyone was legally made to. What a meaningless point. The gunstore near me was robbed and I'm sure sold on the streets.

I believe I read 6% of illegal guns are stolen guns from gun stores and from cops and relatives....the rest are resold from people who initially purchased them legally.

There are many guns on the streets that have never been sold legally in the US. In fact the majority of automatic weapons on the streets were smuggled in.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Is this statement I have read true? I just read it...some time this past week....

"Every illegal gun on the streets today, was initially sold LEGALLY, to someone/ or some business."

What if it is? Now we should punish legal owners because criminals steal stuff? By the way be careful you will undermine the illiterate noobs that claim firearms companies sell to criminals.

 

[2aguy]

Is this statement I have read true? I just read it...some time this past week....

"Every illegal gun on the streets today, was initially sold LEGALLY, to someone/ or some business."

Everyone was legally made to. What a meaningless point. The gunstore near me was robbed and I'm sure sold on the streets.

I believe I read 6% of illegal guns are stolen guns from gun stores and from cops and relatives....the rest are resold from people who initially purchased them legally.

And you would be wrong......the majority of guns come from theft and straw buying.....

the straw buyer is someone clean as a whistle who can purchase a gun legally because he or she passes all background checks and requirements, right?

Yes. Thereby making background checks pointless. And the same method will be used to by pass universal background checks, even for individual sales.

 

[frigidweirdo]

I've lived in countries without many guns, I felt safer.

Criminals are not festive in those countries, unless it's Christmas and they're not in prison.

Are people in those countries at a disadvantage? Maybe, but then they're not going to experience more crime, and will experience less murderers.

That all depends. In this country, if you take away guns, the criminals will still have them just like they have illegal narcotics. Unlike other countries, our prison system is not all that much of a deterrent. In fact going to prison is a badge of honor in some of these communities also known as Street Cred.

So I don't know what countries you are talking bout, their prison system, or their criminals, but just because something works in other places doesn't mean it will work here.

I understand that point. However people are making the point that if you don't have guns, then the criminals will go crazy. Will they? They're basing this on what?

If the US tries to sort out all of the problems, instead of only dealing with the problems of the rich, then maybe you'd not have that situation.

We are basing it on several things: First of all is our mass shootings which normally take place in gun free environments. People who want to commit mass murder often avoid places where people can protect themselves.

Secondly is the fact that even if you don't carry or own a firearm, a criminal doesn't know that. They take precautions to make sure residents are not home when they go to burglarize the place. Years ago when people normally didn't have a firearm in the house, burglaries many times were conducted while people were home.

Gun violence and violence in general has been on the decline since the mid 90's. That's about the time more and more states adopted better gun laws for citizens such as CCW's and Castle Doctrine laws. Can I prove that's what reduced those crimes? No I can't, but it has to be more than just coincidence. Not much else has changed since then.

I'll give up my gun when somebody can show me how government can disarm the criminals first. When that can be accomplished, then we could talk about it. Until that time, I'm arming myself when I feel necessary.

You say mass shootings normally take place in gun free environments. Is this because certain places which are more likely to be shot up are more likely to feel the effects of guns and see them as negative and therefore ban them, or do these crimes happen because there are no guns there?

Is there any evidence at all that the implementation of gun free zones has made things worse? Or are you just pulling assumptions out of a hat?

Secondly, in other countries, do burglaries happen when people are at home or not?

http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/vdhb.pdf

In the US 27% of burglaries take place with the victims at home.

I don't have time to find other information. But is there a difference in the UK or other first world countries? Or are you just assuming?

Your link also points out that 65% of the time, the offender is not a stranger to the residents. Of course it's easier to commit a crime if you are invited in or otherwise know the people there.

As far as shootings in gun free zones, do you think that is coincidence as well?

Okay, so the person isn't a stranger, then what? What is the point you're making.

I don't have any statistics for gun free zones and mass shootings, perhaps you could provide seeing as it's your point.

 

[frigidweirdo]

What are the chances the Supreme Court doesn't say that everyone has the right to carry arms? I mean, if "bear arms" were the right to carry, then you'd have the right to carry arms as you see fit. Funny how the right claims the right to bear arms is the right to carry but manages to ignore this point.

If we get enough liberal judges on the court, one day we may not be able to bear arms. It's something that people should seriously consider when voting for a President.

If that were the case, it would basically outlaw guns for law abiding citizens. The criminals would be festive and celebrate. We would all be at the disadvantage of the criminal element in our society.

I've lived in countries without many guns, I felt safer.

Criminals are not festive in those countries, unless it's Christmas and they're not in prison.

Are people in those countries at a disadvantage? Maybe, but then they're not going to experience more crime, and will experience less murderers.

That all depends. In this country, if you take away guns, the criminals will still have them just like they have illegal narcotics. Unlike other countries, our prison system is not all that much of a deterrent. In fact going to prison is a badge of honor in some of these communities also known as Street Cred.

So I don't know what countries you are talking bout, their prison system, or their criminals, but just because something works in other places doesn't mean it will work here.

I understand that point. However people are making the point that if you don't have guns, then the criminals will go crazy. Will they? They're basing this on what?

If the US tries to sort out all of the problems, instead of only dealing with the problems of the rich, then maybe you'd not have that situation.

In the last few months gun sales have been at record highs, and the crime rate in most places has gone down.

Even criminals do not want to get shot.

So you're making a correlation between gun sales and crime going down. Please provide the evidence. Note, I've never, ever found crime statistics for the "last few months", they don't get released until at the very least 6 months after, if not a year. So I think you're making this up.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

That all depends. In this country, if you take away guns, the criminals will still have them just like they have illegal narcotics. Unlike other countries, our prison system is not all that much of a deterrent. In fact going to prison is a badge of honor in some of these communities also known as Street Cred.

So I don't know what countries you are talking bout, their prison system, or their criminals, but just because something works in other places doesn't mean it will work here.

I understand that point. However people are making the point that if you don't have guns, then the criminals will go crazy. Will they? They're basing this on what?

If the US tries to sort out all of the problems, instead of only dealing with the problems of the rich, then maybe you'd not have that situation.

We are basing it on several things: First of all is our mass shootings which normally take place in gun free environments. People who want to commit mass murder often avoid places where people can protect themselves.

Secondly is the fact that even if you don't carry or own a firearm, a criminal doesn't know that. They take precautions to make sure residents are not home when they go to burglarize the place. Years ago when people normally didn't have a firearm in the house, burglaries many times were conducted while people were home.

Gun violence and violence in general has been on the decline since the mid 90's. That's about the time more and more states adopted better gun laws for citizens such as CCW's and Castle Doctrine laws. Can I prove that's what reduced those crimes? No I can't, but it has to be more than just coincidence. Not much else has changed since then.

I'll give up my gun when somebody can show me how government can disarm the criminals first. When that can be accomplished, then we could talk about it. Until that time, I'm arming myself when I feel necessary.

You say mass shootings normally take place in gun free environments. Is this because certain places which are more likely to be shot up are more likely to feel the effects of guns and see them as negative and therefore ban them, or do these crimes happen because there are no guns there?

Is there any evidence at all that the implementation of gun free zones has made things worse? Or are you just pulling assumptions out of a hat?

Secondly, in other countries, do burglaries happen when people are at home or not?

http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/vdhb.pdf

In the US 27% of burglaries take place with the victims at home.

I don't have time to find other information. But is there a difference in the UK or other first world countries? Or are you just assuming?

Your link also points out that 65% of the time, the offender is not a stranger to the residents. Of course it's easier to commit a crime if you are invited in or otherwise know the people there.

As far as shootings in gun free zones, do you think that is coincidence as well?

Okay, so the person isn't a stranger, then what? What is the point you're making.

I don't have any statistics for gun free zones and mass shootings, perhaps you could provide seeing as it's your point.

Would you like me to go through each one? I think it would be much simpler to point out which mass shootings were in gun acceptable zones. But off the top of my head of course was the last mass killing in California. It's considered the second largest terrorist attack since 911. Ft. Hood was definitely in a gun free zone. The church shooting the same. So was the Colorado movie theater shooting. In fact he drove past several other movie theaters to target that gun free theater. Sandy Hook where no guns are allowed in schools.

I guess I could go on and on if I had time to do the research, but to save me some work, why don't you find the last mass shooting where guns were not restricted?

 

[frigidweirdo]

I understand that point. However people are making the point that if you don't have guns, then the criminals will go crazy. Will they? They're basing this on what?

If the US tries to sort out all of the problems, instead of only dealing with the problems of the rich, then maybe you'd not have that situation.

We are basing it on several things: First of all is our mass shootings which normally take place in gun free environments. People who want to commit mass murder often avoid places where people can protect themselves.

Secondly is the fact that even if you don't carry or own a firearm, a criminal doesn't know that. They take precautions to make sure residents are not home when they go to burglarize the place. Years ago when people normally didn't have a firearm in the house, burglaries many times were conducted while people were home.

Gun violence and violence in general has been on the decline since the mid 90's. That's about the time more and more states adopted better gun laws for citizens such as CCW's and Castle Doctrine laws. Can I prove that's what reduced those crimes? No I can't, but it has to be more than just coincidence. Not much else has changed since then.

I'll give up my gun when somebody can show me how government can disarm the criminals first. When that can be accomplished, then we could talk about it. Until that time, I'm arming myself when I feel necessary.

You say mass shootings normally take place in gun free environments. Is this because certain places which are more likely to be shot up are more likely to feel the effects of guns and see them as negative and therefore ban them, or do these crimes happen because there are no guns there?

Is there any evidence at all that the implementation of gun free zones has made things worse? Or are you just pulling assumptions out of a hat?

Secondly, in other countries, do burglaries happen when people are at home or not?

http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/vdhb.pdf

In the US 27% of burglaries take place with the victims at home.

I don't have time to find other information. But is there a difference in the UK or other first world countries? Or are you just assuming?

Your link also points out that 65% of the time, the offender is not a stranger to the residents. Of course it's easier to commit a crime if you are invited in or otherwise know the people there.

As far as shootings in gun free zones, do you think that is coincidence as well?

Okay, so the person isn't a stranger, then what? What is the point you're making.

I don't have any statistics for gun free zones and mass shootings, perhaps you could provide seeing as it's your point.

Would you like me to go through each one? I think it would be much simpler to point out which mass shootings were in gun acceptable zones. But off the top of my head of course was the last mass killing in California. It's considered the second largest terrorist attack since 911. Ft. Hood was definitely in a gun free zone. The church shooting the same. So was the Colorado movie theater shooting. In fact he drove past several other movie theaters to target that gun free theater. Sandy Hook where no guns are allowed in schools.

I guess I could go on and on if I had time to do the research, but to save me some work, why don't you find the last mass shooting where guns were not restricted?

Yes, you think it would be much simpler, and much simpler doesn't give us a proper answer.

If you're making a claim, make a claim that you know. So far you're making a claim which isn't backed by anything you know.

So, they went and attacked a place in California. Did they attack because it was a "gun free zone", or did they just choose a place? Would it have made a difference had it not been a "gun free zone" or not?

Yes, you could go on and on, and you're not talking about mass shootings in non-gun free zones. Which means that what you're saying doesn't present us with a balanced picture at all.

As for me providing mass murders in non-gun free zones. Why should I? My point is that gun free zones might be places that are more likely to be shot up, hence why they become gun free zones in the first place, to reduce the instance of guns in this area.

Most of these are schools or places of education where young people are sometimes rebelling against their lives.

30 Deadliest Mass Shootings in U.S. History Fast Facts - CNN.com

But there's the 30 deadliest mass shootings.

The first two are schools.
The next one in 1991 happened in a cafeteria.
1984, 1966, 1986, 1983, 1982, 1949, 1990, 1989 and 1982 all happened before the gun free schools zone act was passed in October 1990 and effective January 1991.

1993, a law office and various others happened in places that were public.

Report: 92 Percent of Mass Shootings Since 2009 Occurred in Gun-Free Zones - Breitbart

"
On October 9, the Crime Prevention Research Center (CPRC) released a revised report showing that 92% of mass public shootings between January 2009 and July 2014 took place in gun-free zones."

"The CPRC report was released in response to an Everytown for Gun Safety study claiming only 14% of mass public shootings took place in gun-free zones. "

Oh great, one report says 92% in gun free zones, another says 14%. So you believe who you will.

"CPRC showed that the 86% claim rests on Everytown’s “inclusion of attacks in private homes” and “numerous errors in identifying whether citizens can defend themselves.”"

Was the CPRC's information correct? Probably not.

What about Everytown's? Is their correct? Probably not.

There's lot of analysis of information that needs to be done. Yes, people like their simple statements that "prove" what they want to be proven, but does it actually make sense? Probably not.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

We are basing it on several things: First of all is our mass shootings which normally take place in gun free environments. People who want to commit mass murder often avoid places where people can protect themselves.

Secondly is the fact that even if you don't carry or own a firearm, a criminal doesn't know that. They take precautions to make sure residents are not home when they go to burglarize the place. Years ago when people normally didn't have a firearm in the house, burglaries many times were conducted while people were home.

Gun violence and violence in general has been on the decline since the mid 90's. That's about the time more and more states adopted better gun laws for citizens such as CCW's and Castle Doctrine laws. Can I prove that's what reduced those crimes? No I can't, but it has to be more than just coincidence. Not much else has changed since then.

I'll give up my gun when somebody can show me how government can disarm the criminals first. When that can be accomplished, then we could talk about it. Until that time, I'm arming myself when I feel necessary.

You say mass shootings normally take place in gun free environments. Is this because certain places which are more likely to be shot up are more likely to feel the effects of guns and see them as negative and therefore ban them, or do these crimes happen because there are no guns there?

Is there any evidence at all that the implementation of gun free zones has made things worse? Or are you just pulling assumptions out of a hat?

Secondly, in other countries, do burglaries happen when people are at home or not?

http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/vdhb.pdf

In the US 27% of burglaries take place with the victims at home.

I don't have time to find other information. But is there a difference in the UK or other first world countries? Or are you just assuming?

Your link also points out that 65% of the time, the offender is not a stranger to the residents. Of course it's easier to commit a crime if you are invited in or otherwise know the people there.

As far as shootings in gun free zones, do you think that is coincidence as well?

Okay, so the person isn't a stranger, then what? What is the point you're making.

I don't have any statistics for gun free zones and mass shootings, perhaps you could provide seeing as it's your point.

Would you like me to go through each one? I think it would be much simpler to point out which mass shootings were in gun acceptable zones. But off the top of my head of course was the last mass killing in California. It's considered the second largest terrorist attack since 911. Ft. Hood was definitely in a gun free zone. The church shooting the same. So was the Colorado movie theater shooting. In fact he drove past several other movie theaters to target that gun free theater. Sandy Hook where no guns are allowed in schools.

I guess I could go on and on if I had time to do the research, but to save me some work, why don't you find the last mass shooting where guns were not restricted?

Yes, you think it would be much simpler, and much simpler doesn't give us a proper answer.

If you're making a claim, make a claim that you know. So far you're making a claim which isn't backed by anything you know.

So, they went and attacked a place in California. Did they attack because it was a "gun free zone", or did they just choose a place? Would it have made a difference had it not been a "gun free zone" or not?

Yes, you could go on and on, and you're not talking about mass shootings in non-gun free zones. Which means that what you're saying doesn't present us with a balanced picture at all.

As for me providing mass murders in non-gun free zones. Why should I? My point is that gun free zones might be places that are more likely to be shot up, hence why they become gun free zones in the first place, to reduce the instance of guns in this area.

Most of these are schools or places of education where young people are sometimes rebelling against their lives.

30 Deadliest Mass Shootings in U.S. History Fast Facts - CNN.com

But there's the 30 deadliest mass shootings.

The first two are schools.
The next one in 1991 happened in a cafeteria.
1984, 1966, 1986, 1983, 1982, 1949, 1990, 1989 and 1982 all happened before the gun free schools zone act was passed in October 1990 and effective January 1991.

1993, a law office and various others happened in places that were public.

Report: 92 Percent of Mass Shootings Since 2009 Occurred in Gun-Free Zones - Breitbart

"
On October 9, the Crime Prevention Research Center (CPRC) released a revised report showing that 92% of mass public shootings between January 2009 and July 2014 took place in gun-free zones."

"The CPRC report was released in response to an Everytown for Gun Safety study claiming only 14% of mass public shootings took place in gun-free zones. "

Oh great, one report says 92% in gun free zones, another says 14%. So you believe who you will.

"CPRC showed that the 86% claim rests on Everytown’s “inclusion of attacks in private homes” and “numerous errors in identifying whether citizens can defend themselves.”"

Was the CPRC's information correct? Probably not.

What about Everytown's? Is their correct? Probably not.

There's lot of analysis of information that needs to be done. Yes, people like their simple statements that "prove" what they want to be proven, but does it actually make sense? Probably not.

The fact remains that most of these mass shootings took place in gun restricted zones. Go ahead and try to make a case that it was coincidence or that (for some reason) those places were more prone to such crimes.

What you fail to recognize is that the law of odds are against you. In most states with CCW laws, there are few places where guns are actually restricted. If you had plans to carry out a mass murder, you would have to go out of your way to find such places.

If you wanted to steal a car from a dealership, would you choose one that left the keys in the cars or one that you had to hot-wire to get started? If you wanted to rob a business or home, would you choose one that was alarmed or one that had no alarm at all?

To say that dealerships that leave their keys in the car get robbed more often or homes and businesses that have no alarm system the same is just dumb luck is to ignore the opportunities presented to the criminal.

Yes, criminals look for opportunities believe it or not.

 

[frigidweirdo]

You say mass shootings normally take place in gun free environments. Is this because certain places which are more likely to be shot up are more likely to feel the effects of guns and see them as negative and therefore ban them, or do these crimes happen because there are no guns there?

Is there any evidence at all that the implementation of gun free zones has made things worse? Or are you just pulling assumptions out of a hat?

Secondly, in other countries, do burglaries happen when people are at home or not?

http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/vdhb.pdf

In the US 27% of burglaries take place with the victims at home.

I don't have time to find other information. But is there a difference in the UK or other first world countries? Or are you just assuming?

Your link also points out that 65% of the time, the offender is not a stranger to the residents. Of course it's easier to commit a crime if you are invited in or otherwise know the people there.

As far as shootings in gun free zones, do you think that is coincidence as well?

Okay, so the person isn't a stranger, then what? What is the point you're making.

I don't have any statistics for gun free zones and mass shootings, perhaps you could provide seeing as it's your point.

Would you like me to go through each one? I think it would be much simpler to point out which mass shootings were in gun acceptable zones. But off the top of my head of course was the last mass killing in California. It's considered the second largest terrorist attack since 911. Ft. Hood was definitely in a gun free zone. The church shooting the same. So was the Colorado movie theater shooting. In fact he drove past several other movie theaters to target that gun free theater. Sandy Hook where no guns are allowed in schools.

I guess I could go on and on if I had time to do the research, but to save me some work, why don't you find the last mass shooting where guns were not restricted?

Yes, you think it would be much simpler, and much simpler doesn't give us a proper answer.

If you're making a claim, make a claim that you know. So far you're making a claim which isn't backed by anything you know.

So, they went and attacked a place in California. Did they attack because it was a "gun free zone", or did they just choose a place? Would it have made a difference had it not been a "gun free zone" or not?

Yes, you could go on and on, and you're not talking about mass shootings in non-gun free zones. Which means that what you're saying doesn't present us with a balanced picture at all.

As for me providing mass murders in non-gun free zones. Why should I? My point is that gun free zones might be places that are more likely to be shot up, hence why they become gun free zones in the first place, to reduce the instance of guns in this area.

Most of these are schools or places of education where young people are sometimes rebelling against their lives.

30 Deadliest Mass Shootings in U.S. History Fast Facts - CNN.com

But there's the 30 deadliest mass shootings.

The first two are schools.
The next one in 1991 happened in a cafeteria.
1984, 1966, 1986, 1983, 1982, 1949, 1990, 1989 and 1982 all happened before the gun free schools zone act was passed in October 1990 and effective January 1991.

1993, a law office and various others happened in places that were public.

Report: 92 Percent of Mass Shootings Since 2009 Occurred in Gun-Free Zones - Breitbart

"
On October 9, the Crime Prevention Research Center (CPRC) released a revised report showing that 92% of mass public shootings between January 2009 and July 2014 took place in gun-free zones."

"The CPRC report was released in response to an Everytown for Gun Safety study claiming only 14% of mass public shootings took place in gun-free zones. "

Oh great, one report says 92% in gun free zones, another says 14%. So you believe who you will.

"CPRC showed that the 86% claim rests on Everytown’s “inclusion of attacks in private homes” and “numerous errors in identifying whether citizens can defend themselves.”"

Was the CPRC's information correct? Probably not.

What about Everytown's? Is their correct? Probably not.

There's lot of analysis of information that needs to be done. Yes, people like their simple statements that "prove" what they want to be proven, but does it actually make sense? Probably not.

The fact remains that most of these mass shootings took place in gun restricted zones. Go ahead and try to make a case that it was coincidence or that (for some reason) those places were more prone to such crimes.

What you fail to recognize is that the law of odds are against you. In most states with CCW laws, there are few places where guns are actually restricted. If you had plans to carry out a mass murder, you would have to go out of your way to find such places.

If you wanted to steal a car from a dealership, would you choose one that left the keys in the cars or one that you had to hot-wire to get started? If you wanted to rob a business or home, would you choose one that was alarmed or one that had no alarm at all?

To say that dealerships that leave their keys in the car get robbed more often or homes and businesses that have no alarm system the same is just dumb luck is to ignore the opportunities presented to the criminal.

Yes, criminals look for opportunities believe it or not.

The fact? what fact is this?

Again, if things happen in gun restricted zones, is this because it's a gun restricted zone, or because it's a public place?

I don't care if you think the odds are against me. You haven't proven anything. And if it carries on like this the odds are well in my favor.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Your link also points out that 65% of the time, the offender is not a stranger to the residents. Of course it's easier to commit a crime if you are invited in or otherwise know the people there.

As far as shootings in gun free zones, do you think that is coincidence as well?

Okay, so the person isn't a stranger, then what? What is the point you're making.

I don't have any statistics for gun free zones and mass shootings, perhaps you could provide seeing as it's your point.

Would you like me to go through each one? I think it would be much simpler to point out which mass shootings were in gun acceptable zones. But off the top of my head of course was the last mass killing in California. It's considered the second largest terrorist attack since 911. Ft. Hood was definitely in a gun free zone. The church shooting the same. So was the Colorado movie theater shooting. In fact he drove past several other movie theaters to target that gun free theater. Sandy Hook where no guns are allowed in schools.

I guess I could go on and on if I had time to do the research, but to save me some work, why don't you find the last mass shooting where guns were not restricted?

Yes, you think it would be much simpler, and much simpler doesn't give us a proper answer.

If you're making a claim, make a claim that you know. So far you're making a claim which isn't backed by anything you know.

So, they went and attacked a place in California. Did they attack because it was a "gun free zone", or did they just choose a place? Would it have made a difference had it not been a "gun free zone" or not?

Yes, you could go on and on, and you're not talking about mass shootings in non-gun free zones. Which means that what you're saying doesn't present us with a balanced picture at all.

As for me providing mass murders in non-gun free zones. Why should I? My point is that gun free zones might be places that are more likely to be shot up, hence why they become gun free zones in the first place, to reduce the instance of guns in this area.

Most of these are schools or places of education where young people are sometimes rebelling against their lives.

30 Deadliest Mass Shootings in U.S. History Fast Facts - CNN.com

But there's the 30 deadliest mass shootings.

The first two are schools.
The next one in 1991 happened in a cafeteria.
1984, 1966, 1986, 1983, 1982, 1949, 1990, 1989 and 1982 all happened before the gun free schools zone act was passed in October 1990 and effective January 1991.

1993, a law office and various others happened in places that were public.

Report: 92 Percent of Mass Shootings Since 2009 Occurred in Gun-Free Zones - Breitbart

"
On October 9, the Crime Prevention Research Center (CPRC) released a revised report showing that 92% of mass public shootings between January 2009 and July 2014 took place in gun-free zones."

"The CPRC report was released in response to an Everytown for Gun Safety study claiming only 14% of mass public shootings took place in gun-free zones. "

Oh great, one report says 92% in gun free zones, another says 14%. So you believe who you will.

"CPRC showed that the 86% claim rests on Everytown’s “inclusion of attacks in private homes” and “numerous errors in identifying whether citizens can defend themselves.”"

Was the CPRC's information correct? Probably not.

What about Everytown's? Is their correct? Probably not.

There's lot of analysis of information that needs to be done. Yes, people like their simple statements that "prove" what they want to be proven, but does it actually make sense? Probably not.

The fact remains that most of these mass shootings took place in gun restricted zones. Go ahead and try to make a case that it was coincidence or that (for some reason) those places were more prone to such crimes.

What you fail to recognize is that the law of odds are against you. In most states with CCW laws, there are few places where guns are actually restricted. If you had plans to carry out a mass murder, you would have to go out of your way to find such places.

If you wanted to steal a car from a dealership, would you choose one that left the keys in the cars or one that you had to hot-wire to get started? If you wanted to rob a business or home, would you choose one that was alarmed or one that had no alarm at all?

To say that dealerships that leave their keys in the car get robbed more often or homes and businesses that have no alarm system the same is just dumb luck is to ignore the opportunities presented to the criminal.

Yes, criminals look for opportunities believe it or not.

The fact? what fact is this?

Again, if things happen in gun restricted zones, is this because it's a gun restricted zone, or because it's a public place?

I don't care if you think the odds are against me. You haven't proven anything. And if it carries on like this the odds are well in my favor.

There are all kinds of public places that have no gun restrictions. Hell, just walk downtown where hundreds of people are and a shooter has that opportunity. Go to a park, a beach, a bar that's having a live band and dancing. All gun free places. But shooters don't choose those places. Why?

If half of the public places were gun-free zones and half of the shootings took place in gun-free zones, you might have a point. But since gun-free zones are small and most of the mass shootings happen in those places, the odds are well against you.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Okay, so the person isn't a stranger, then what? What is the point you're making.

I don't have any statistics for gun free zones and mass shootings, perhaps you could provide seeing as it's your point.

Would you like me to go through each one? I think it would be much simpler to point out which mass shootings were in gun acceptable zones. But off the top of my head of course was the last mass killing in California. It's considered the second largest terrorist attack since 911. Ft. Hood was definitely in a gun free zone. The church shooting the same. So was the Colorado movie theater shooting. In fact he drove past several other movie theaters to target that gun free theater. Sandy Hook where no guns are allowed in schools.

I guess I could go on and on if I had time to do the research, but to save me some work, why don't you find the last mass shooting where guns were not restricted?

Yes, you think it would be much simpler, and much simpler doesn't give us a proper answer.

If you're making a claim, make a claim that you know. So far you're making a claim which isn't backed by anything you know.

So, they went and attacked a place in California. Did they attack because it was a "gun free zone", or did they just choose a place? Would it have made a difference had it not been a "gun free zone" or not?

Yes, you could go on and on, and you're not talking about mass shootings in non-gun free zones. Which means that what you're saying doesn't present us with a balanced picture at all.

As for me providing mass murders in non-gun free zones. Why should I? My point is that gun free zones might be places that are more likely to be shot up, hence why they become gun free zones in the first place, to reduce the instance of guns in this area.

Most of these are schools or places of education where young people are sometimes rebelling against their lives.

30 Deadliest Mass Shootings in U.S. History Fast Facts - CNN.com

But there's the 30 deadliest mass shootings.

The first two are schools.
The next one in 1991 happened in a cafeteria.
1984, 1966, 1986, 1983, 1982, 1949, 1990, 1989 and 1982 all happened before the gun free schools zone act was passed in October 1990 and effective January 1991.

1993, a law office and various others happened in places that were public.

Report: 92 Percent of Mass Shootings Since 2009 Occurred in Gun-Free Zones - Breitbart

"
On October 9, the Crime Prevention Research Center (CPRC) released a revised report showing that 92% of mass public shootings between January 2009 and July 2014 took place in gun-free zones."

"The CPRC report was released in response to an Everytown for Gun Safety study claiming only 14% of mass public shootings took place in gun-free zones. "

Oh great, one report says 92% in gun free zones, another says 14%. So you believe who you will.

"CPRC showed that the 86% claim rests on Everytown’s “inclusion of attacks in private homes” and “numerous errors in identifying whether citizens can defend themselves.”"

Was the CPRC's information correct? Probably not.

What about Everytown's? Is their correct? Probably not.

There's lot of analysis of information that needs to be done. Yes, people like their simple statements that "prove" what they want to be proven, but does it actually make sense? Probably not.

The fact remains that most of these mass shootings took place in gun restricted zones. Go ahead and try to make a case that it was coincidence or that (for some reason) those places were more prone to such crimes.

What you fail to recognize is that the law of odds are against you. In most states with CCW laws, there are few places where guns are actually restricted. If you had plans to carry out a mass murder, you would have to go out of your way to find such places.

If you wanted to steal a car from a dealership, would you choose one that left the keys in the cars or one that you had to hot-wire to get started? If you wanted to rob a business or home, would you choose one that was alarmed or one that had no alarm at all?

To say that dealerships that leave their keys in the car get robbed more often or homes and businesses that have no alarm system the same is just dumb luck is to ignore the opportunities presented to the criminal.

Yes, criminals look for opportunities believe it or not.

The fact? what fact is this?

Again, if things happen in gun restricted zones, is this because it's a gun restricted zone, or because it's a public place?

I don't care if you think the odds are against me. You haven't proven anything. And if it carries on like this the odds are well in my favor.

There are all kinds of public places that have no gun restrictions. Hell, just walk downtown where hundreds of people are and a shooter has that opportunity. Go to a park, a beach, a bar that's having a live band and dancing. All gun free places. But shooters don't choose those places. Why?

If half of the public places were gun-free zones and half of the shootings took place in gun-free zones, you might have a point. But since gun-free zones are small and most of the mass shootings happen in those places, the odds are well against you.

Why? You're asking a very, VERY complex question. You're trying to get inside of the minds of people who commit these acts, and claim they've all got the same thought process, and you're trying to claim it's simple.

School killings. Do they happen because schools are places without guns, or do they happen because kids go crazy and they're targeting those people who they think have done them wrong?

Those with religious views might shoot up a place where they see whatever it is they're against, the California massacre appears to be people who got angry with America and then took it out on those they knew.

How many of these mass killing do you KNOW happened in a gun free zone because it was a gun free zone? How many?

 

[2aguy]

Your link also points out that 65% of the time, the offender is not a stranger to the residents. Of course it's easier to commit a crime if you are invited in or otherwise know the people there.

As far as shootings in gun free zones, do you think that is coincidence as well?

Okay, so the person isn't a stranger, then what? What is the point you're making.

I don't have any statistics for gun free zones and mass shootings, perhaps you could provide seeing as it's your point.

Would you like me to go through each one? I think it would be much simpler to point out which mass shootings were in gun acceptable zones. But off the top of my head of course was the last mass killing in California. It's considered the second largest terrorist attack since 911. Ft. Hood was definitely in a gun free zone. The church shooting the same. So was the Colorado movie theater shooting. In fact he drove past several other movie theaters to target that gun free theater. Sandy Hook where no guns are allowed in schools.

I guess I could go on and on if I had time to do the research, but to save me some work, why don't you find the last mass shooting where guns were not restricted?

Yes, you think it would be much simpler, and much simpler doesn't give us a proper answer.

If you're making a claim, make a claim that you know. So far you're making a claim which isn't backed by anything you know.

So, they went and attacked a place in California. Did they attack because it was a "gun free zone", or did they just choose a place? Would it have made a difference had it not been a "gun free zone" or not?

Yes, you could go on and on, and you're not talking about mass shootings in non-gun free zones. Which means that what you're saying doesn't present us with a balanced picture at all.

As for me providing mass murders in non-gun free zones. Why should I? My point is that gun free zones might be places that are more likely to be shot up, hence why they become gun free zones in the first place, to reduce the instance of guns in this area.

Most of these are schools or places of education where young people are sometimes rebelling against their lives.

30 Deadliest Mass Shootings in U.S. History Fast Facts - CNN.com

But there's the 30 deadliest mass shootings.

The first two are schools.
The next one in 1991 happened in a cafeteria.
1984, 1966, 1986, 1983, 1982, 1949, 1990, 1989 and 1982 all happened before the gun free schools zone act was passed in October 1990 and effective January 1991.

1993, a law office and various others happened in places that were public.

Report: 92 Percent of Mass Shootings Since 2009 Occurred in Gun-Free Zones - Breitbart

"
On October 9, the Crime Prevention Research Center (CPRC) released a revised report showing that 92% of mass public shootings between January 2009 and July 2014 took place in gun-free zones."

"The CPRC report was released in response to an Everytown for Gun Safety study claiming only 14% of mass public shootings took place in gun-free zones. "

Oh great, one report says 92% in gun free zones, another says 14%. So you believe who you will.

"CPRC showed that the 86% claim rests on Everytown’s “inclusion of attacks in private homes” and “numerous errors in identifying whether citizens can defend themselves.”"

Was the CPRC's information correct? Probably not.

What about Everytown's? Is their correct? Probably not.

There's lot of analysis of information that needs to be done. Yes, people like their simple statements that "prove" what they want to be proven, but does it actually make sense? Probably not.

The fact remains that most of these mass shootings took place in gun restricted zones. Go ahead and try to make a case that it was coincidence or that (for some reason) those places were more prone to such crimes.

What you fail to recognize is that the law of odds are against you. In most states with CCW laws, there are few places where guns are actually restricted. If you had plans to carry out a mass murder, you would have to go out of your way to find such places.

If you wanted to steal a car from a dealership, would you choose one that left the keys in the cars or one that you had to hot-wire to get started? If you wanted to rob a business or home, would you choose one that was alarmed or one that had no alarm at all?

To say that dealerships that leave their keys in the car get robbed more often or homes and businesses that have no alarm system the same is just dumb luck is to ignore the opportunities presented to the criminal.

Yes, criminals look for opportunities believe it or not.

The fact? what fact is this?

Again, if things happen in gun restricted zones, is this because it's a gun restricted zone, or because it's a public place?

I don't care if you think the odds are against me. You haven't proven anything. And if it carries on like this the odds are well in my favor.

The mass shooters did not choose police stations....they did not choose the firing range on military bases.

We actually have notes of mass shooters who specifically state they selected gun free zones as their targets...the South Carolina church shooter, the Santa Barbara shooter, the Colorado theater shooter, Sandy Hook...the shooter attended the elementary school, the middle school and the high school.....the only one of the three without a police resource officer, an armed resource officer was the elementary school....the kid in Minnesota who was captured before he shot up his school planned on luring police away from the school by starting a fire in a field and then first murdering the police resource officer, why? Because the kid knew he was the only one on campus with a gun...the kid was going to create a gun free zone...

The Fort Hood shooter.....there were several targets that would have had armed resistance...the firing range and check points, and the military police headquarters...he didn't choose either one.....

So you are wrong.......

Also keep in mind....the gun free zone laws have made almost every public space a gun free zone....so most of the time the shooter doesn't have to factor that into their equation of target selection ....and the notes from the shooters who have no emotional connection to the target......show they chose gun free zones because they wanted to kill a lot of people and did not want to be stopped by good guys with guns.

 

[2aguy]

Would you like me to go through each one? I think it would be much simpler to point out which mass shootings were in gun acceptable zones. But off the top of my head of course was the last mass killing in California. It's considered the second largest terrorist attack since 911. Ft. Hood was definitely in a gun free zone. The church shooting the same. So was the Colorado movie theater shooting. In fact he drove past several other movie theaters to target that gun free theater. Sandy Hook where no guns are allowed in schools.

I guess I could go on and on if I had time to do the research, but to save me some work, why don't you find the last mass shooting where guns were not restricted?

Yes, you think it would be much simpler, and much simpler doesn't give us a proper answer.

If you're making a claim, make a claim that you know. So far you're making a claim which isn't backed by anything you know.

So, they went and attacked a place in California. Did they attack because it was a "gun free zone", or did they just choose a place? Would it have made a difference had it not been a "gun free zone" or not?

Yes, you could go on and on, and you're not talking about mass shootings in non-gun free zones. Which means that what you're saying doesn't present us with a balanced picture at all.

As for me providing mass murders in non-gun free zones. Why should I? My point is that gun free zones might be places that are more likely to be shot up, hence why they become gun free zones in the first place, to reduce the instance of guns in this area.

Most of these are schools or places of education where young people are sometimes rebelling against their lives.

30 Deadliest Mass Shootings in U.S. History Fast Facts - CNN.com

But there's the 30 deadliest mass shootings.

The first two are schools.
The next one in 1991 happened in a cafeteria.
1984, 1966, 1986, 1983, 1982, 1949, 1990, 1989 and 1982 all happened before the gun free schools zone act was passed in October 1990 and effective January 1991.

1993, a law office and various others happened in places that were public.

Report: 92 Percent of Mass Shootings Since 2009 Occurred in Gun-Free Zones - Breitbart

"
On October 9, the Crime Prevention Research Center (CPRC) released a revised report showing that 92% of mass public shootings between January 2009 and July 2014 took place in gun-free zones."

"The CPRC report was released in response to an Everytown for Gun Safety study claiming only 14% of mass public shootings took place in gun-free zones. "

Oh great, one report says 92% in gun free zones, another says 14%. So you believe who you will.

"CPRC showed that the 86% claim rests on Everytown’s “inclusion of attacks in private homes” and “numerous errors in identifying whether citizens can defend themselves.”"

Was the CPRC's information correct? Probably not.

What about Everytown's? Is their correct? Probably not.

There's lot of analysis of information that needs to be done. Yes, people like their simple statements that "prove" what they want to be proven, but does it actually make sense? Probably not.

The fact remains that most of these mass shootings took place in gun restricted zones. Go ahead and try to make a case that it was coincidence or that (for some reason) those places were more prone to such crimes.

What you fail to recognize is that the law of odds are against you. In most states with CCW laws, there are few places where guns are actually restricted. If you had plans to carry out a mass murder, you would have to go out of your way to find such places.

If you wanted to steal a car from a dealership, would you choose one that left the keys in the cars or one that you had to hot-wire to get started? If you wanted to rob a business or home, would you choose one that was alarmed or one that had no alarm at all?

To say that dealerships that leave their keys in the car get robbed more often or homes and businesses that have no alarm system the same is just dumb luck is to ignore the opportunities presented to the criminal.

Yes, criminals look for opportunities believe it or not.

The fact? what fact is this?

Again, if things happen in gun restricted zones, is this because it's a gun restricted zone, or because it's a public place?

I don't care if you think the odds are against me. You haven't proven anything. And if it carries on like this the odds are well in my favor.

There are all kinds of public places that have no gun restrictions. Hell, just walk downtown where hundreds of people are and a shooter has that opportunity. Go to a park, a beach, a bar that's having a live band and dancing. All gun free places. But shooters don't choose those places. Why?

If half of the public places were gun-free zones and half of the shootings took place in gun-free zones, you might have a point. But since gun-free zones are small and most of the mass shootings happen in those places, the odds are well against you.

Why? You're asking a very, VERY complex question. You're trying to get inside of the minds of people who commit these acts, and claim they've all got the same thought process, and you're trying to claim it's simple.

School killings. Do they happen because schools are places without guns, or do they happen because kids go crazy and they're targeting those people who they think have done them wrong?

Those with religious views might shoot up a place where they see whatever it is they're against, the California massacre appears to be people who got angry with America and then took it out on those they knew.

How many of these mass killing do you KNOW happened in a gun free zone because it was a gun free zone? How many?

It is not a complex question and these shooters have been researched in depth......

Minnesota…...

Teen made bombs, stockpiled guns in prep for Minnesota school massacre: police

The unhinged teen told cops, after being busted Tuesday, that he planned to shoot his sister, mom and dad with a .22-caliber rifle before he went to a rural field and set a fire to distract cops.

The 11th-grader then said he planned to go to Waseca Junior and Senior High School where he would toss Molotov cocktails and explode pressure-cooker bombs to try and kill “as many students as he could” in the cafeteria during lunchtime.

About 1,000 students, in 7th through 12th grade, attend the school.

LaDue, according to the notebook of his plan, would kill the school resource officer before continuing to kill other students. He was prepared to be gunned down by a SWAT Team, police said.



************************


Vince Vaughn is right about guns (and was brave to be so honest) | Fox News

Last June, Elliot Rodger, who killed six people in Santa Barbara, Calif., explained his own choice. In his 141-page “Manifesto,” Rodger turned down alternate targets because he worried that someone with a gun would cut short his killing spree.

That same month, Justin Bourque shot to death three people in Canada. His Facebook page made fun of gun bans, with pictures of defenseless victims explaining to killers that they weren’t allowed to have guns.

The diary of the Aurora, Colorado, “Batman” movie theater killer, James Holmes, was finally released this past week. It was clear that he was considering both attacking an airport and a movie theater, but he turned down the airport option because he was concerned about their “substantial security.”

Of course, there are numerous other examples such as the Columbine killersopposing the concealed carry law that was then working its way through the state legislature. The bill would have allowed people to carry permitted concealed handguns on school property. The killers timed their attack for the very day that final passage of the law was planned for in the legislature.

If you go to the link for the Colorado theater shooter they have a photo of his journal where he has notes about airports…..he lists one of the items…."Substantial Security"

http://crimeresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/james-holmes-notebook-dragged.pdf
**************

Sandy hook, did not have police resource officer

Building a safer Sandy Hook | News21: Gun Wars

The high school and middle school, which already had armed resource officers, doubled down on security and restricted all visitors that didn’t have prior permission to enter.

Lupica: Lanza plotted massacre for years

They don’t believe this was just a spreadsheet. They believe it was a score sheet,” he continued. “This was the work of a video gamer, and that it was his intent to put his own name at the very top of that list. They believe that he picked an elementary school because he felt it was a point of least resistance, where he could rack up the greatest number of kills. That’s what (the Connecticut police) believe.”
The man paused and said, “They believe that (Lanza) believed that it was the way to pick up the easiest points. It’s why he didn’t want to be killed by law enforcement. In the code of a gamer, even a deranged gamer like this little bastard, if somebody else kills you, they get your points. They believe that’s why he killed himself.

-----

It really was like he was lost in one of his own sick games. That’s what we heard. That he learned something from his game that you learn in (police) school, about how if you’re moving from room to room — the way he was in that school — you have to reload before you get to the next room. Maybe he has a 30-round magazine clip, and he’s only used half of it. But he’s willing to dump 15 rounds and have a new clip before he arrives in the next room.”
*****************
MILLER: Adam Lanza shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown final report

----

Blame school security?

The school doors were locked and secure at 9:30 a.m. with a video camera and buzzer system that can allow entry after that time from three monitoring locations. Lanza simply shot through the plate-glass window next to the lobby door to enter the school.

A 911 call was made at 9:35 a.m. It took less than five minutes for the police to get to the school. About a minute later, Lanza shot and killed himself. The first officer entered the school at 9:44 a.m.

In that tight time frame, it seems the only thing that could have stopped Lanza was a good guy inside the school with a gun. There were no armed security guards at Sandy Hook Elementary School, nor did any of the staff have a weapons.

 

[2aguy]

Would you like me to go through each one? I think it would be much simpler to point out which mass shootings were in gun acceptable zones. But off the top of my head of course was the last mass killing in California. It's considered the second largest terrorist attack since 911. Ft. Hood was definitely in a gun free zone. The church shooting the same. So was the Colorado movie theater shooting. In fact he drove past several other movie theaters to target that gun free theater. Sandy Hook where no guns are allowed in schools.

I guess I could go on and on if I had time to do the research, but to save me some work, why don't you find the last mass shooting where guns were not restricted?

Yes, you think it would be much simpler, and much simpler doesn't give us a proper answer.

If you're making a claim, make a claim that you know. So far you're making a claim which isn't backed by anything you know.

So, they went and attacked a place in California. Did they attack because it was a "gun free zone", or did they just choose a place? Would it have made a difference had it not been a "gun free zone" or not?

Yes, you could go on and on, and you're not talking about mass shootings in non-gun free zones. Which means that what you're saying doesn't present us with a balanced picture at all.

As for me providing mass murders in non-gun free zones. Why should I? My point is that gun free zones might be places that are more likely to be shot up, hence why they become gun free zones in the first place, to reduce the instance of guns in this area.

Most of these are schools or places of education where young people are sometimes rebelling against their lives.

30 Deadliest Mass Shootings in U.S. History Fast Facts - CNN.com

But there's the 30 deadliest mass shootings.

The first two are schools.
The next one in 1991 happened in a cafeteria.
1984, 1966, 1986, 1983, 1982, 1949, 1990, 1989 and 1982 all happened before the gun free schools zone act was passed in October 1990 and effective January 1991.

1993, a law office and various others happened in places that were public.

Report: 92 Percent of Mass Shootings Since 2009 Occurred in Gun-Free Zones - Breitbart

"
On October 9, the Crime Prevention Research Center (CPRC) released a revised report showing that 92% of mass public shootings between January 2009 and July 2014 took place in gun-free zones."

"The CPRC report was released in response to an Everytown for Gun Safety study claiming only 14% of mass public shootings took place in gun-free zones. "

Oh great, one report says 92% in gun free zones, another says 14%. So you believe who you will.

"CPRC showed that the 86% claim rests on Everytown’s “inclusion of attacks in private homes” and “numerous errors in identifying whether citizens can defend themselves.”"

Was the CPRC's information correct? Probably not.

What about Everytown's? Is their correct? Probably not.

There's lot of analysis of information that needs to be done. Yes, people like their simple statements that "prove" what they want to be proven, but does it actually make sense? Probably not.

The fact remains that most of these mass shootings took place in gun restricted zones. Go ahead and try to make a case that it was coincidence or that (for some reason) those places were more prone to such crimes.

What you fail to recognize is that the law of odds are against you. In most states with CCW laws, there are few places where guns are actually restricted. If you had plans to carry out a mass murder, you would have to go out of your way to find such places.

If you wanted to steal a car from a dealership, would you choose one that left the keys in the cars or one that you had to hot-wire to get started? If you wanted to rob a business or home, would you choose one that was alarmed or one that had no alarm at all?

To say that dealerships that leave their keys in the car get robbed more often or homes and businesses that have no alarm system the same is just dumb luck is to ignore the opportunities presented to the criminal.

Yes, criminals look for opportunities believe it or not.

The fact? what fact is this?

Again, if things happen in gun restricted zones, is this because it's a gun restricted zone, or because it's a public place?

I don't care if you think the odds are against me. You haven't proven anything. And if it carries on like this the odds are well in my favor.

There are all kinds of public places that have no gun restrictions. Hell, just walk downtown where hundreds of people are and a shooter has that opportunity. Go to a park, a beach, a bar that's having a live band and dancing. All gun free places. But shooters don't choose those places. Why?

If half of the public places were gun-free zones and half of the shootings took place in gun-free zones, you might have a point. But since gun-free zones are small and most of the mass shootings happen in those places, the odds are well against you.

Why? You're asking a very, VERY complex question. You're trying to get inside of the minds of people who commit these acts, and claim they've all got the same thought process, and you're trying to claim it's simple.

School killings. Do they happen because schools are places without guns, or do they happen because kids go crazy and they're targeting those people who they think have done them wrong?

Those with religious views might shoot up a place where they see whatever it is they're against, the California massacre appears to be people who got angry with America and then took it out on those they knew.

How many of these mass killing do you KNOW happened in a gun free zone because it was a gun free zone? How many?

The South Carolina church shooter wanted to shoot up a college....but they had armed security...

Dylann Roof 'wanted to target local university'

“I don't think the church was his primary target because he told us he was going for the school,” Mr Scriven said.

“But I think he couldn't get into the school because of the security ... so I think he just settled for the church.”

 

[JoeB131]

The South Carolina church shooter wanted to shoot up a college....but they had armed security...

Dylann Roof 'wanted to target local university'

“I don't think the church was his primary target because he told us he was going for the school,” Mr Scriven said.

“But I think he couldn't get into the school because of the security ... so I think he just settled for the church.”

the fact colleges need armed security because there are too many nuts with guns out there is the problem.

Not that some potential targets are better guarded than others.

Dylan Roof never, ever should have had a gun in the first place. Not with his mental and criminal history and political leanings.

 

[JoeB131]

In that tight time frame, it seems the only thing that could have stopped Lanza was a good guy inside the school with a gun. There were no armed security guards at Sandy Hook Elementary School, nor did any of the staff have a weapons.

No, what would have stopped Lanza would be not letting his crazy mother buy enough guns to fight the Zombie Apocalypse.

 

[paulitician]

Sad to see Virginia go Communist/Progressive. Nuff said.

So you want fugitives from justice to be armed? Why am I not surprised?

Obviously, no one is saying that. And you know that. Also, what this Communist did, may be illegal. He is not a Legislator. This may not be implemented. He may have overstepped and abused his power. It will be challenged.

And you may shit and then fall back in it. That was one of the reasons that state uses to deny a license., but other states don't. Why should they allow people from other states that don't meet their standards?

because the 2nd Amendment is a right….not a choice of activity the state allows or refuses to allow…..the democrat states during Jim Crow had poll taxes and literacy tests…….that was the standard they set for the practice of voting…but voting is a right and poll taxes and literacy tests are infringements on that right…so they had to be abolished….and the democrats had to change tactics….

Quit whining and make up your mind. I guess you're just for states rights on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays.

This wasn't done by the Legislature or the People of Virginia. It was done by one overzealous Anti-Constitution Communist/Progressive. The People of Virginia haven't had their say. They won't until the Virginia Legislature intervenes. This will be challenged. Bet on it.

 

[Redfish]

gun sales up, crime down

http://bearingarms.com/fbi-confirms-gun-sales-violent-crime/

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

In that tight time frame, it seems the only thing that could have stopped Lanza was a good guy inside the school with a gun. There were no armed security guards at Sandy Hook Elementary School, nor did any of the staff have a weapons.

No, what would have stopped Lanza would be not letting his crazy mother buy enough guns to fight the Zombie Apocalypse.

Really? Then how many guns should she have owned that would have stopped it?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Would you like me to go through each one? I think it would be much simpler to point out which mass shootings were in gun acceptable zones. But off the top of my head of course was the last mass killing in California. It's considered the second largest terrorist attack since 911. Ft. Hood was definitely in a gun free zone. The church shooting the same. So was the Colorado movie theater shooting. In fact he drove past several other movie theaters to target that gun free theater. Sandy Hook where no guns are allowed in schools.

I guess I could go on and on if I had time to do the research, but to save me some work, why don't you find the last mass shooting where guns were not restricted?

Yes, you think it would be much simpler, and much simpler doesn't give us a proper answer.

If you're making a claim, make a claim that you know. So far you're making a claim which isn't backed by anything you know.

So, they went and attacked a place in California. Did they attack because it was a "gun free zone", or did they just choose a place? Would it have made a difference had it not been a "gun free zone" or not?

Yes, you could go on and on, and you're not talking about mass shootings in non-gun free zones. Which means that what you're saying doesn't present us with a balanced picture at all.

As for me providing mass murders in non-gun free zones. Why should I? My point is that gun free zones might be places that are more likely to be shot up, hence why they become gun free zones in the first place, to reduce the instance of guns in this area.

Most of these are schools or places of education where young people are sometimes rebelling against their lives.

30 Deadliest Mass Shootings in U.S. History Fast Facts - CNN.com

But there's the 30 deadliest mass shootings.

The first two are schools.
The next one in 1991 happened in a cafeteria.
1984, 1966, 1986, 1983, 1982, 1949, 1990, 1989 and 1982 all happened before the gun free schools zone act was passed in October 1990 and effective January 1991.

1993, a law office and various others happened in places that were public.

Report: 92 Percent of Mass Shootings Since 2009 Occurred in Gun-Free Zones - Breitbart

"
On October 9, the Crime Prevention Research Center (CPRC) released a revised report showing that 92% of mass public shootings between January 2009 and July 2014 took place in gun-free zones."

"The CPRC report was released in response to an Everytown for Gun Safety study claiming only 14% of mass public shootings took place in gun-free zones. "

Oh great, one report says 92% in gun free zones, another says 14%. So you believe who you will.

"CPRC showed that the 86% claim rests on Everytown’s “inclusion of attacks in private homes” and “numerous errors in identifying whether citizens can defend themselves.”"

Was the CPRC's information correct? Probably not.

What about Everytown's? Is their correct? Probably not.

There's lot of analysis of information that needs to be done. Yes, people like their simple statements that "prove" what they want to be proven, but does it actually make sense? Probably not.

The fact remains that most of these mass shootings took place in gun restricted zones. Go ahead and try to make a case that it was coincidence or that (for some reason) those places were more prone to such crimes.

What you fail to recognize is that the law of odds are against you. In most states with CCW laws, there are few places where guns are actually restricted. If you had plans to carry out a mass murder, you would have to go out of your way to find such places.

If you wanted to steal a car from a dealership, would you choose one that left the keys in the cars or one that you had to hot-wire to get started? If you wanted to rob a business or home, would you choose one that was alarmed or one that had no alarm at all?

To say that dealerships that leave their keys in the car get robbed more often or homes and businesses that have no alarm system the same is just dumb luck is to ignore the opportunities presented to the criminal.

Yes, criminals look for opportunities believe it or not.

The fact? what fact is this?

Again, if things happen in gun restricted zones, is this because it's a gun restricted zone, or because it's a public place?

I don't care if you think the odds are against me. You haven't proven anything. And if it carries on like this the odds are well in my favor.

There are all kinds of public places that have no gun restrictions. Hell, just walk downtown where hundreds of people are and a shooter has that opportunity. Go to a park, a beach, a bar that's having a live band and dancing. All gun free places. But shooters don't choose those places. Why?

If half of the public places were gun-free zones and half of the shootings took place in gun-free zones, you might have a point. But since gun-free zones are small and most of the mass shootings happen in those places, the odds are well against you.

Why? You're asking a very, VERY complex question. You're trying to get inside of the minds of people who commit these acts, and claim they've all got the same thought process, and you're trying to claim it's simple.

School killings. Do they happen because schools are places without guns, or do they happen because kids go crazy and they're targeting those people who they think have done them wrong?

Those with religious views might shoot up a place where they see whatever it is they're against, the California massacre appears to be people who got angry with America and then took it out on those they knew.

How many of these mass killing do you KNOW happened in a gun free zone because it was a gun free zone? How many?

Just to make you happy, why don't we say it's luck. That being said, why not just get rid of more gun-free zones because they are unlucky?