Why anti gun people are so angry.....

[ChrisL]

Some corporations DO have armed guards.

Military bases have armed guards. That didn't stop shooters. If you are really serious about this no gun free zone thing you need to go after the big corporations.

No, I don't have to go AFTER anyone. This is a FREE country. If you want to be armed, you should have that right. If you do not, then you don't have to.

Ah you aren't very serious about this then. Or you only go after places that don't fund the Republicans.

I don't go "after" anyone. I've got no idea what you are talking about.

It is a right to carry or to have your business be armed, or to run a business and be armed yourself if you so choose. It is a CHOICE, get it yet?

Shouldn't the workers have the right to be armed? I mean it is a right and there are lots of shootings at work.

Sure. I don't see any reason why a person shouldn't be able to carry to work, and I'm sure that some do.

 

[ChrisL]

like I said CORPORATIONS are Private property , if an employee doesn't like the rules on private property he can walk away or try to change the rules. Private property is much different than taxpayer owned public property Brian !!

I suppose you have a point there too.

 

[ChrisL]

Some corporations DO have armed guards.

Military bases have armed guards. That didn't stop shooters. If you are really serious about this no gun free zone thing you need to go after the big corporations.

No, I don't have to go AFTER anyone. This is a FREE country. If you want to be armed, you should have that right. If you do not, then you don't have to.

Ah you aren't very serious about this then. Or you only go after places that don't fund the Republicans.

I don't go "after" anyone. I've got no idea what you are talking about.

It is a right to carry or to have your business be armed, or to run a business and be armed yourself if you so choose. It is a CHOICE, get it yet?

Shouldn't the workers have the right to be armed? I mean it is a right and there are lots of shootings at work.

There are not "a LOT" of shootings at workplaces. Sorry, but you are wrong. It is actually a relatively VERY rare occurrence here in the US.

 

[pismoe]

employees can try to change the Private property owner smind Brian !!

 

[ChrisL]

Some corporations and businesses that deal with precious materials have armed security guards as well as metal detectors.

 

[Brain357]

Military bases have armed guards. That didn't stop shooters. If you are really serious about this no gun free zone thing you need to go after the big corporations.

No, I don't have to go AFTER anyone. This is a FREE country. If you want to be armed, you should have that right. If you do not, then you don't have to.

Ah you aren't very serious about this then. Or you only go after places that don't fund the Republicans.

I don't go "after" anyone. I've got no idea what you are talking about.

It is a right to carry or to have your business be armed, or to run a business and be armed yourself if you so choose. It is a CHOICE, get it yet?

Shouldn't the workers have the right to be armed? I mean it is a right and there are lots of shootings at work.

There are not "a LOT" of shootings at workplaces. Sorry, but you are wrong. It is actually a relatively VERY rare occurrence here in the US.

How is that possible? You said shootings occur in gun free zones. These are the biggest gun free zones and you say there is a low occurrence of shootings? Well that makes your statement about gun free zones seem silly.

 

[Brain357]

employees can try to change the Private property owner smind Brian !!

It is a right. Why should they have to?

 

[ChrisL]

No, I don't have to go AFTER anyone. This is a FREE country. If you want to be armed, you should have that right. If you do not, then you don't have to.

Ah you aren't very serious about this then. Or you only go after places that don't fund the Republicans.

I don't go "after" anyone. I've got no idea what you are talking about.

It is a right to carry or to have your business be armed, or to run a business and be armed yourself if you so choose. It is a CHOICE, get it yet?

Shouldn't the workers have the right to be armed? I mean it is a right and there are lots of shootings at work.

There are not "a LOT" of shootings at workplaces. Sorry, but you are wrong. It is actually a relatively VERY rare occurrence here in the US.

How is that possible? You said shootings occur in gun free zones. These are the biggest gun free zones and you say there is a low occurrence of shootings? Well that makes your statement about gun free zones seem silly.

Not at all. They do occur but not often. What are you having a difficult time with? It's certainly a simple concept.

 

[pismoe]

thing is that banks used to have guns in the drawer of the bank manager , its up to the bank I think but was common at one time . Same for the POST OFFICE but they went gun free sometime in the 60s I think , anyone remember the saying about 'going postal' . Shopkeepers were catered to by the gunmakers as they made short barrel 'shop keeper ' models of guns , mostly revolvers .

 

[ChrisL]

No, I don't have to go AFTER anyone. This is a FREE country. If you want to be armed, you should have that right. If you do not, then you don't have to.

Ah you aren't very serious about this then. Or you only go after places that don't fund the Republicans.

I don't go "after" anyone. I've got no idea what you are talking about.

It is a right to carry or to have your business be armed, or to run a business and be armed yourself if you so choose. It is a CHOICE, get it yet?

Shouldn't the workers have the right to be armed? I mean it is a right and there are lots of shootings at work.

There are not "a LOT" of shootings at workplaces. Sorry, but you are wrong. It is actually a relatively VERY rare occurrence here in the US.

How is that possible? You said shootings occur in gun free zones. These are the biggest gun free zones and you say there is a low occurrence of shootings? Well that makes your statement about gun free zones seem silly.

Sorry to inform you, but the ONLY one who is "silly" here is yourself. You are ridiculously transparent. Hope you don't think you're fooling anyone with your ridiculous posts.

 

[pismoe]

silly statement Brian but I'll answer . Private Property , the owner has his say . Even now one of the questions from one of the gun control boneheads was , can store owners in Texas ban open carriers in their stores , answer is , yes they can simply by posting their anti gun , no guns allowed signs . If they can afford the money loss from being anti gun then all is cool Brian .

 

[M14 Shooter]

Regardless, people who want to kill a bunch of people are going to go to gun free zones. They are NOT going to go to a place where there are armed people because then they wouldn't be able to kill as many people. Common sense.

When was the last mass shooting at a gun show?
Marksmanship competition?

 

[Bfgrn]

Yeah...already shown to be a lie....

Says a guy paid by one of the biggest gun manufacturers...want to buy a bridge?

 

[Bfgrn]

Wait all you want...Newtown is not the only reason for passing sensible and reasonable gun laws. America leads the world in gun violence.

There is no way to completely prevent a tragedy like Newtown. But it could have been 'less' tragic if Lanza didn't have an assault rifle with a rate of fire of 50 rounds per minute and ten 30 round magazines.

Sorry, but that is not true. Cho killed more, they were adults AND he didn't use a rifle at all. Lanza had two pistols just like Cho AND many of Lanza's magazines were discarded after only using 15 rounds,

P.S. - the modern sporting rifle that you mis-attributed as an assault rifle has the same "rate of fire" as every other semi-automatic...one round per trigger pull.






I wish you guys/gals would do you homework, gain an understanding of firearms, instead of this knee-jerk reactionary stuff.

And I'm not saying that to be mean. Take a day at the range and shoot an AR-15, and a Glock, and a .38 special. Find out what it is you are talking about.

Hell, I'll take you if you live near me.

Beyond ironic...

Gun Murders Shot Up 25% After Missouri Repealed Universal Background Check Law

The one permanent emotion of the inferior man is fear - fear of the unknown, the complex, the inexplicable. What he wants above everything else is safety.
H. L. Mencken

Here is how they lied....

Opinion Media cherry picks Missouri gun data to make misleading case for more control Fox News

While it is true that the murder rate in Missouri rose 17 percent relative to the rest of the U.S. in the five years after 2007, it had actually increased by 32 percent during the previous five years. The question is why the Missouri murder rate was increasing relative to the rest of the United States at a slower rateafter the change in the law than it did prior to it. Missouri was on an ominous path before the law was ended.

Simply looking at whether murder rates were higher after the law was rescinded than before misses much of what was going on. Most likely, getting rid of the law slowed the growth rate in murders.



And john lott directs to this study in the article....

What does Missouri show about the benefits from universal background checks Nothing really The forthcoming Journal of Urban Health study by the Bloomberg School of Public Health

More right wing lies...

What's the Matter With Missouri's Murder Rate?

For decades, Missouri required a permit to purchase a handgun, even from a private seller. (Under federal law, licensed dealers must conduct background checks but private sellers don't have to.) In 2007 the law was repealed -- causing a rash of murders, according to a forthcoming study we featured in White Papers & Research today:

The study [from researchers with the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research], to be published in a forthcoming issue of Journal of Urban Health, finds that the law's repeal was associated with an additional 55 to 63 murders per year in Missouri between 2008 and 2012. State-level murder data for the time period 1999-2012 were collected and analyzed from the Federal Bureau of Investigation's (FBI) Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) system. The analyses controlled for changes in policing, incarceration, burglaries, unemployment, poverty, and other state laws adopted during the study period that could affect violent crime.

Here's some FBI data I pulled myself:

It's normal for crime stats to fluctuate here and there, but Missouri has had five straight years of abnormally high murder rates while the nation's rate has been declining.

The forthcoming study reports that states bordering Missouri didn't experience anything like this; in a similar exercise, I tried ranking all the states by murder rate as of 2006 (the year before the law's repeal) and then comparing Missouri with the two states that straddled it on the list. Illinois wasn't too far off and borders Missouri, so I included it too. I got a similar result -- starting in 2008, Missouri's rate was noticeably and consistently high:

And then there is the truth, and reality, and facts....


While it is true that the murder rate in Missouri rose 17 percent relative to the rest of the U.S. in the five years after 2007, it had actually increased by 32 percent during the previous five years. The question is why the Missouri murder rate was increasing relative to the rest of the United States at a slower rateafter the change in the law than it did prior to it. Missouri was on an ominous path before the law was ended.

Simply looking at whether murder rates were higher after the law was rescinded than before misses much of what was going on. Most likely, getting rid of the law slowed the growth rate in murders.

But there are other reasons not to accept the conclusion touted by the press.


 There are currently 17 states with these background check laws, down from a peak of 19 states. Missouri is just one of them.
 If you are going to insist on looking at just one state, Missouri adopted the law in 1981 and rescinded it in 2007. Why not test if the murder rate fell after 1981 and whether it increased after 2007?
 Why only look at just the murder rate for this one state? Why not the overall violent crime or robbery rates?
The reason for this cherry picking is obvious. Only those conditions produced the desired results. For example, Missouri’s violent crime rate fell 7 percent faster than the violent crime rate for the rest of the United States from 2006 to 2012.

Researchers should not cherry pick one state to examine. Consider the following. You flip a coin 20 times — ten heads and ten tails. If you specifically picked just five heads, you might well conclude the coin was biased. Since most readers don’t know the data, researchers need to make clear why they are only examining a small portion of the total sample.

There is already ample research on these universal background checks acrossall the states. Indeed, the third edition of More Guns, Less Crime provided one study on this, and, unlike the Webster study, it shows no reduction in murder rates from these expanded background checks. Indeed, there was even a slight 2 percent increase in murder rates, but the result was not statistically significant.

For those interested, a discussion of the other problems with Webster’s study is available here.

If one wants to look at the impact of licensing, again there is national research, again such as More Guns, Less Crime, on all sorts of licensing rules from licenses to carry a gun to licenses to own one.

For example, if you wanted to look at what happened in one state where murder and robbery rates soared after gun licensing was imposed, look at the disaster that happened in Massachusetts.

It is presumably too much to hope that reporters will understand empirical work.

But alarm bells should always go off when only one example is studied when many places have adopted the same types of laws. Reporters should always ask themselves why that one state was examined. Why didn't the researcher even look at what happened when the law was adopted?

Unfortunately, the Webster study isn't alone. There have been a rash of recent news stories on other misleading studies funded by Michael Bloomberg as well as on the risks of guns in the home.

And again.....

 There are currently 17 states with these background check laws, down from a peak of 19 states. Missouri is just one of them.

 If you are going to insist on looking at just one state, Missouri adopted the law in 1981 and rescinded it in 2007. Why not test if the murder rate fell after 1981 and whether it increased after 2007?

And the most important point and the reason not to trust the anti gunners....

 Why only look at just the murder rate for this one state? Why not the overall violent crime or robbery rates?

The reason for this cherry picking is obvious. Only those conditions produced the desired results. For example, Missouri’s violent crime rate fell 7 percent faster than the violent crime rate for the rest of the United States from 2006 to 2012.

Here is the chart FROM YOUR SITE:

 

[Iceweasel]

Here is the chart FROM YOUR SITE:

Looks like the murder rate shot up from 1.1 to 1.2.

Time to rethink this!

 

[Bfgrn]

Here is the chart FROM YOUR SITE:

Looks like the murder rate shot up from 1.1 to 1.2.

Time to rethink this!

Yea, 17% which even the liar John Lott doesn't dispute. Cherry picker extraordinaire

Shooting Down the Gun Lobby s Favorite Academic A Lott of Lies Armed With Reason

 

[2aguy]

That is funny. You realize that the US is about 316 million people and Israel 8 million right? So taking that into account the number of deaths are pretty much the same. One for every million people. Whoever made that up gets the dumb award for the day.

Regardless, people who want to kill a bunch of people are going to go to gun free zones. They are NOT going to go to a place where there are armed people because then they wouldn't be able to kill as many people. Common sense.

Places like where most people work? Most corporations don't allow employees to carry. Those are probably the biggest gun free zones in the country.

Some corporations DO have armed guards.

Military bases have armed guards. That didn't stop shooters. If you are really serious about this no gun free zone thing you need to go after the big corporations.

Actually, the two Fort Hood shooters targeted the areas of Fort Hood where the soldiers were unarmed.....they weren't stopped until the Military Police showed up with guns......

 

[Brain357]

Ah you aren't very serious about this then. Or you only go after places that don't fund the Republicans.

I don't go "after" anyone. I've got no idea what you are talking about.

It is a right to carry or to have your business be armed, or to run a business and be armed yourself if you so choose. It is a CHOICE, get it yet?

Shouldn't the workers have the right to be armed? I mean it is a right and there are lots of shootings at work.

There are not "a LOT" of shootings at workplaces. Sorry, but you are wrong. It is actually a relatively VERY rare occurrence here in the US.

How is that possible? You said shootings occur in gun free zones. These are the biggest gun free zones and you say there is a low occurrence of shootings? Well that makes your statement about gun free zones seem silly.

Not at all. They do occur but not often. What are you having a difficult time with? It's certainly a simple concept.

Well if gun free zones are magnets for mass shooters, why do they not occur often? Your claim seems to be false.

 

[Brain357]

That is funny. You realize that the US is about 316 million people and Israel 8 million right? So taking that into account the number of deaths are pretty much the same. One for every million people. Whoever made that up gets the dumb award for the day.

Regardless, people who want to kill a bunch of people are going to go to gun free zones. They are NOT going to go to a place where there are armed people because then they wouldn't be able to kill as many people. Common sense.

Places like where most people work? Most corporations don't allow employees to carry. Those are probably the biggest gun free zones in the country.

Some corporations DO have armed guards.

Military bases have armed guards. That didn't stop shooters. If you are really serious about this no gun free zone thing you need to go after the big corporations.

Actually, the two Fort Hood shooters targeted the areas of Fort Hood where the soldiers were unarmed.....they weren't stopped until the Military Police showed up with guns......

Are the military police not armed guards?

 

[2aguy]

doesn't relly matter Brian , corporations are private property . USA is the 'public property' or taxpayers property and is owned by the people rather than the government .

I don't think you should go after them. But if you were really as serious about it as you pretend you would be. Way more people are disarmed at work than any other gun free zone. I don't think you guys are very serious about this. That is the BIG gun free zone.

I don't think you should be disarmed at work....depending on the job and the safety requirements of the job.....for example...the Dr. at the hospital....the hospital was a gun free zone but he broke that rule and brought a gun to his work place.....and a killer also brought a gun to that work place gun free zone...and the Doctor..who brought a gun to his work place stopped him....dittos the construction company owner who brought a gun to his workplace when the guy came back to kill people...dittos the work place owner when the muslim came back to work and cut the womans head off and the owner, who brought his gun to his work place and shot the guy....dittos the Minister who brought the gun to his work place, during a meeting and when the janitor they fired came in and tried shooting people, the minister, who brought a gun to his work place shot and stopped him....dittos the city councilman..who had a gun with him at his work place during a meeting when a disgruntled guy got into a gun fight with the police in the lobby of the building, you saw the video of this councilman who brought a gun to work draw it and protect his fellow councilmen until it was safe....

You mean like those cases of people bringing guns to their work places....?