straightUp Loc: California

Well, I guess you had to say something... You *could* have said thanks for pointing out my error, that would have had a far greater impact on my impression of you. But whatever...


LOL - the shit-eating grin is still there... Even bigger, now that I've read the source of your excited statements.

You see, a "zone" is pretty ambiguous... gun free zones could mean "gun free countries" and Morgan did show you the data that shows most mass shootings occur in countries with no or little control over guns. But you're not thinking about what a gun free zone actually means, you're just parroting what someone else is saying so it helps to see the what that person is calling a gun free zone - so thanks for the link.

So, now I'm wondering how anyone can read that article and not see the obvious trick. But I guess it's easy to miss if you're just looking to enforce your delusions.

So, here's the rip... the "zones", as described in the article, are essentially crime scenes... so, the proximity of mass shootings like schools, concert venues, stuff like that. Indeed, most places that support large gatherings of people do prohibit guns and the decision to do so is usually made outside the government, many times for insurance and liability reasons.

So the first error on your part is to assume gun control has anything to do with the policies of any place of business like a concert venue or even a public school. These gun-free zones are the result of independent business decisions not gun control and not really the government either.

The second error, and I really can't believe you missed this one, is the assumption that that these places were targeted BECAUSE they are gun free. They are far more likely to be targeted because they are filled with lots of people just like terrorists that plant bombs like to target rush hour traffic in subway stations.

Also, whether or not the place is a "gun-free zone" probably doesn't matter to most people who are psychotic enough to slaughter people and this is further supported by the fact that many of these killers have no intention of surviving the ordeal and often pull the gun on themselves before they can be arrested.

It just so happens that for the reasons I've already stated (and unrelated to gun-control), most of these places DO have their own independent policies on restricting guns, which they have the freedom to do. Government gun control laws are in fact exactly the same in gun-free zones as they are in any other zone.

So, your source is trying to make a case out of a coincidence leaving you with a limp noodle argument.

buffalo Loc: Texas

The Gun-Free School Zones Act (GFSZA) is an act of the U.S. Congress prohibiting any unauthorized individual from knowingly possessing a loaded or unsecured firearm at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone as defined by 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(25). The law applies to public, private, and parochial elementary schools and high schools, and to non-private property within 1000 feet of them. It provides that the states and their political subdivisions may issue licenses that exempt the licensed individuals from the prohibition.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun-Free_School_Zones_Act_of_1990

http://definitions.uslegal.com/g/gun-free-zone/

http://www.gunstocarry.com/federal-gun-laws/

"Government gun control laws are in fact exactly the same in gun-free zones as they are in any other zone." No they are not. State laws vary widely.

You think you know what your talking about, but you don't.

Morgan

If all you need is a license or pay a tax, in my book that makes it very easily legal for people to use and carry, come on now.

Morgan

Yes, of course, the world will never be totally safe, but we're trying to make the US a hell of a lot more safer. I'll take peaceful any day of the week. I don't like all the people in your last comment either, but me getting myself killed by pointing a gun at them won't solve those problems. A gun is made to kill that is its purpose and intention, can you say that about a car? Guns give people a false sense of power and security. Your post makes more of a case to not ban fully automatic but to do away with all guns, you convinced me.

Morgan

[quote=straightUp]Actually, it's a bit ironic but what eagle is posing as an absurdity is actually quite true. These young adults are participating in our democracy in an effort to make America a better place. This is what eagle is describing as "being led astray" and that being the case, yes a "proper" education can certainly be called an influence.

The right doesn't seem to want children to learn how to participate in a democracy. In fact there isn't much evidence to show that the right even wants a democracy at all. For every expansion of voting rights for example, whether it's the civil rights movement that gave black people the right to vote or woman's suffragette movement that gave women the right to vote or any other expansion of democracy it has ALWAYS been the right that resisted it. And they don't stop at resistance, they actually go on the offensive and attack our democracy by encouraging court decisions like Citizens United, which is probably the greatest blow to democracy in our lifetimes but even that pales, symbolically at least, to the presidential election in 2000 where the Republicans, who clearly lost the popular vote, felt threatened by a close call electoral vote and decided to dismiss the will of the people AND their representatives entirely in favor of an appointment by the courts. A decision that led us to war and economic disaster.

The right is also behind the attacks on ANY education system that teaches liberal arts, which is the basically the part of education that teaches students how to think for themselves. You've heard them... They want our schools to limit their programs to the "Three R's" so that they learn enough to function as obedient cogs in a machine but not enough to second guess the purpose of the machine.

Why?



Yes, straight I agree with you completely. My son's high school would not allow them a free demonstration, if they left the school they would be suspended for 5 days. They had to congregate in the auditorium to listen to students speeches. They took away their right to protest.



There is a wave coming with this new generation to stop the BS and I'll be supporting them or out in front of them.

Morgan

It looks to me that is very true. Iceland due to low, few illegal drugs and a low population, all of which contribute to the low crime rate — which also extends to gun violence.

Germany...You can’t buy a firearm simply for personal protection—self-defense doesn’t count as a necessity here."

Canada...it's illegal for Canadians to possess "automatic weapons, handguns with a barrel shorter than 10.5 cm or any modified handgun, rifle or shotgun. Most semi-automatic assault weapons are also banned," according to

Iraq...Firearm homicides per 100,000: N/A

Percent of homicides by guns: N/A...Really??? Not applicable?

Finnland...Finland is currently experiencing a slight downward trend in gun ownership due to new mandatory aptitude tests, according to YLE, a Finnish news source.

Further gun safety laws are being implemented as well, including storing guns in approved locked containers.

They hardly have incidents compared to us yet feel the need to reform some laws.

Do I need to go on, the US is in a category like no one else, we've already have had over 13,146 incidents and 3,344 deaths, 146 children injured or killed, 0-11yrs of age, 625 killed or injured teenagers. When do you say...when?

Morgan

Their needle is stuck, it can go on and on...

straightUp Loc: California

Don't get too cocky yet...

I'll concede on my suggestion that gun control laws have no effect on public schools. You pointed out a federal law that I forgot about. So, well done. Still... this doesn't do a whole lot for your bigger argument because not all mass shootings take place in or within 1000 feet of a public school which IS the extent of jurisdiction for the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990.

Your bigger argument, which you wrote out in all caps, is that "MOST MASS SHOOTINGS TAKE PLACE IN GUN FREE ZONES!" Well, proving that the government has a hand in establishing gun free zones doesn't prove THAT statement. And since your posts really don't offer much other than references to what your sources are saying, I guess we'll follow the links.

You linked to the Daily Wire. The author there was basically doing the same thing you're doing, propagating what someone else said... so, let's look at HER source. She cited a "study" by the Crime Prevention Research Center, which *sounds* like a neutral research organization but it's not... It's a gun-rights advocacy organization founded by John Lotts, author of ‘More Guns, Less Crime’ and the ‘The Bias Against Guns’. (Not sure if you can be any more obvious than that), but we won't let that obscure our objectivity... ;)

Basically, John Lotts appears to be the author of your argument that gun-free zones encourage more gun violence - as in more guns, less crime. Right?

Republican House Speaker Richard Corcoran, who supports expanding the list of where permit holders can carry their guns also cites John Lotts which has unleashed a flurry of disagreements over the claims, including numerous fact checks and several contradicting studies but several research organizations including the National Research Council of the National Academies which released a report that said...


No link between right-to-carry laws and changes in crime is apparent in the raw data, even in the initial sample; it is only once numerous covariates are included that the negative results in the early data emerge. While the trend models show a reduction in the crime growth rate following the adoption of right-to-carry laws, these trend reductions occur long after law adoption, casting serious doubt on the proposition that the trend models estimated in the literature reflect effects of the law change. Finally, some of the point estimates are imprecise. Thus, the committee concludes that with the current evidence it is not possible to determine that there is a causal link between the passage of right-to-carry laws and crime rates.


I could quote a lot more but I think it's fair to say that the the "findings" from the Crime Prevention Research Center are not exactly confirmed. I *did* visit that site and I looked for myself... Now, I spent 15 years professionally in the business intelligence field (which is a fancy way of saying I built systems that gathered, compiled and manipulated large sets of data to extract "intelligence". It only took me a few minutes looking at the CPRC site to realize how convoluted it is and to be honest I wasn't surprised... not because of political bias but because of the nature of the question the data is being used to answer.

First of all, he doesn't define what a mass shooting is and he doesn't actually define what a gun-free zone is either... Yes, I know... 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(25) but again that's only applied to schools, I was noticing locations in his data that include coffee shops, military bases, apartments, churches, heavy metal concerts and a forest. I also noticed the kill counts go as low as 4. Even his time frames are shifty... He's counting incidents from 1950... That's 40 years BEFORE the Gun Free School Zones Act.

Anytime you have ambiguous inputs you're going to have ambiguous results. I give John Lotts one Pinocchio for trying to push a very bold statement from really shifty data and I give him two more for reminding me so much of all those corporate managers that wanted me to massage data so they can lie.

Finally, the it's the main point of John Lotts data antics, to suggest that that there is causal link between the passage of right-to-carry laws and crime rates, that's disingenuous as hell. Even if he could extract and confirm the number of mass shootings in gun-free zones as a percentage of the total, that STILL doesn't prove the cause in a complex world where a LOT more variables are in play.

So, getting back to you're comment... I might skip a few beats here and there, like forgetting the Gun-Free School Zones Act, but at least I know how to question claims, do my own research and apply rational thought, instead of just parroting questionable sources. So think about that next time you want to tell me I don't know what I'm talking about.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/do-concealed-weapon-laws-result-in-less-crime/2012/12/16/e80a5d7e-47c9-11e2-ad54-580638ede391_blog.html?utm_term=.1df919f84a0b

https://www.nap.edu/read/10881/chapter/1

http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2017/feb/21/richard-corcoran/do-most-mass-shootings-happen-gun-free-zones/

straightUp Loc: California

I can try...

In general, it's the difference between blame and prevention. Sure, if we're just looking for someone to blame, we can blame the sheriff and his pussy deputy, but what does that really do? Besides they are already being dealt with, so I'm not really sure what further advantage there would be to ranting and pissing even more about them. I guess to vent?

I think what "my side" is more interested in is prevention (as in never again). The odds of the those particular law enforcement officers being involved in the next mass shooting is pretty unlikely, but the odds of an AR-15 being used is actually pretty high considering how often they seem to show up these mass shooting scenes.

We are fully aware that it's the people not the guns that kill... We totally got that. But we also know that a weapon CAN make a person more dangerous. Look at the issue with North Korea... we already know their leader is a psychopath but would he present us with a threat if he didn't have nuclear weapons? Do you think maybe that's why we are trying to disarm him?

I know that's an extreme example but it is really that different in principal?

And think about this... There are 350 million people in this great country. How easy do you think it would be to constantly monitor and manage each and every one of them and guess what everyone's next move is going to be? Do you even WANT to do that? I don't know about you but I think having my person monitored and studied for any sign of trouble would be a LOT more like Orwell's 1984 than any restriction on guns. Besides, the total number of gun categories do not even come close to 350 million and guns don't have hidden motives and psychological issues. So they really are a LOT easier to manage which makes gun-control (rather than people-control) an easier path to prevention.

That's my two cents anyway.

proud republican Loc: RED CALIFORNIA

Iagree with you on prevention would be better....That being said how do you prevent something that is basically un preventable due to there are about 11 million guns in the US..How in the world do you prevent one gun getting into wrong hands???You can ban and prevent all you want, but if one bad dude decides he wants to kill people just to be famous, he WILL find the way.....So i dont know how preventing somebody like this from purchasing the gun would work.....And thats my two cents...

straightUp Loc: California

Well, having established a consensus that prevention is better than blame, we can start looking at this from a more realistic perspective. I don't know how many on my side actually believe we can prevent ALL crime. LOL - I feel like we need to write a set of affirmations on some gold plate somewhere...

1. We do NOT think guns are capable of premeditative murder.
2. We do NOT actually think gun-control will stop ALL violence.

What we CAN do however, is remove SOME of the more dangerous weapons and munitions from the market. And that CAN reduce the risks. We also have an abundance of data from other countries to show that this does actually work AND it's actually not hard to do (once you get past the resistance.)

Will it prevent bad people from finding other weapons? No, of course not. Will it prevent bad people from finding those exact items on the black market? No, of course not. (We might be idealistic but we're not stupid). What this most likely WILL do is reduce the number of opportunities "bad" people have. That's what we actually mean by prevention. It's not any different then all the crime prevention programs that law enforcement involves themselves in without ever putting an actual end to crime.

I can't help but notice a tendency on "your side" to imply that "my side" is trying to do impossible things, such as ending all violence, or disarming all Americans. I call those "strawman arguments" because the impossibility of the supposed task helps portray a failure on our part even though it really isn't what we are trying to do at all.

That's probably three cents there

youngwilliam Loc: Deep in the heart

Come on now, that is a ridiculous statement..
Very extensive background checks, local sheriff signoffs required. Not to mention thousands of dollars.. How many crimes committed with automatic weapons? 00000

PeterS

All well and good but you missed the most important thing that Straight said: "gun free zones" are not the reason particular venues are chosen but because there are plenty of targets to engage. It's absurd to think that a gun is going to be a deterrent to a shooter who plans on dying anyway. In the case of schools it just means the teachers will be the first to die that's all...

PeterS

That's because automatic weapons are so regulated that they are prohibitive to own.

PeterS

We can't prevent all crime but a ban on certain types of guns would make certain venues safer. Do you want a shooter equipped with a revolver or a semi auto with high capacity magazines? At least with a revolver you might stand a chance but with a semi auto there is little you can do...