Lets talk about guns and gun free zones

[highland145]

Question for you OP. You state people "choose" to shoot up gun free zones. Do you have any examples that someone chose a location specifically for that reason?

Mass shootings almost always happen in a place the shooter themselves has an attachment, or the person they are targeting initially is in that place.

Here's the 25 worst. Not disagreeing with the "personal attachment" but they all look like soft targets.

Haven't heard theories on why the Aurora theater was chosen.

 

[Paratus]

Most people suck at weighing relative risk. In this case the relative risk is between the number of accidental shootings that would happen if schools allowed conceal carry versus the percent of criminal school shootings.

As painful as it is, it's highly likely that the increase in accidental schools shootings would more than out weigh the deaths prevented by a stopped schools shooting.

So gun free zones are not there to prevent criminals from carrying. They are there to prevent law abiding gun owners from accidentally shooting kids.

 

[dank69]

Most people suck at weighing relative risk. In this case the relative risk is between the number of accidental shootings that would happen if schools allowed conceal carry versus the percent of criminal school shootings.

As painful as it is, it's highly likely that the increase in accidental schools shootings would more than out weigh the deaths prevented by a stopped schools shooting.

So gun free zones are not there to prevent criminals from carrying. They are there to prevent law abiding gun owners from accidentally shooting kids.

Another case in point would be OP's choice to carry a gun while simultaneously choosing not to carry health insurance for himself or his son.

 

[rudeguy]

Another case in point would be OP's choice to carry a gun while simultaneously choosing not to carry health insurance for himself or his son.

?

not sure how they relate?

 

[dank69]

?

not sure how they relate?

The risk of sustaining injury and/or illness probably dwarfs the probability of you ever needing to use your gun, and the possesion of the gun actually raises the statistical probability of injury.

 

[rudeguy]

The risk of sustaining injury and/or illness probably dwarfs the probability of you ever needing to use your gun, and the possesion of the gun actually raises the statistical probability of injury.

I see...


..I see conjecture. How about some facts? (No really, I've searched for factual stats and can't find any)

 

[dank69]

I see...


..I see conjecture. How about some facts? (No really, I've searched for factual stats and can't find any)

While I'm not sure anyone can actually compile the statistics for how likely it is to get hurt or sick, or to need a gun, here is a pro-gun website admitting:

The nay-sayers are not entirely wrong: the odds of needing to employ armed self-defense are statistically insignificant. And they go down from there. Live in a nice neighborhood? Leave criminal enterprises to criminals? Avoid stupid people doing stupid things in stupid places? As RF says, the average American can round down their odds of experiencing a defensive gun use to zero.

As for the final part about owning a gun raising the risk of injury, everyone knows this.

 

[rudeguy]

While I'm not sure anyone can actually compile the statistics for how likely it is to get hurt or sick, or to need a gun, here is a pro-gun website admitting:

As for the final part about owning a gun raising the risk of injury, everyone knows this.

ok I laughed.

I was just curious about the stats. I know that I am very safe with my guns. I know that lil rudeguy cannot get at them unless I allow it. I know that I have enough training to not shoot anything I didn't want to.

However we did get distracted off the gun free zones and image of gun owners topics.

 

[Ichinisan]

Question for you OP. You state people "choose" to shoot up gun free zones. Do you have any examples that someone chose a location specifically for that reason?

Mass shootings almost always happen in a place the shooter themselves has an attachment, or the person they are targeting initially is in that place.

What about the Aurora shooting in Colorado during the Batman premiere last year? Theaters around me have always prohibited guns.

My thick-headed friend made snarky remarks about the prohibition when we saw a movie a couple weeks ago. He's so out-of-touch, he doesn't even know about the controversy after Aurora.

 

[Phoenix86]

However we did get distracted off the gun free zones and image of gun owners topics.

Gun free zones are awesome because people can't take guns in them.

:whiste:

 

[Golgatha]

I think there should be an exception for CCW + current law enforcement officers (whether on or off duty) to carry in gun free zones. If you do carry as a CCW + police, make it illegal to consume alcohol or take controlled substances when you're carrying. That would rule out the trigger happy or non/poorly trained people having a gun in a large venue, and would add an element of randomness for would-be mass shooters. Might make the bad guys think twice about trying a mass shooting if they don't know who might also be armed.

 

[Gunslinger08]

I think there should be an exception for CCW + current law enforcement officers (whether on or off duty) to carry in gun free zones. If you do carry as a CCW + police, make it illegal to consume alcohol or take controlled substances when you're carrying. That would rule out the trigger happy or non/poorly trained people having a gun in a large venue, and would add an element of randomness for would-be mass shooters. Might make the bad guys think twice about trying a mass shooting if they don't know who might also be armed.

Most states have special provisions for law enforcement, allowing them to carry in places that non-police can't. Consuming alcohol is a big no-no for open or concealed carry in public.

My state has some prohibitions for where regular folks can carry. I'm all for private property rights, meaning that any property owner can allow or disallow firearms on their premises. Businesses should be allowed to ban guns as they see fit. I also have the right to not patronize your business. I can understand the prohibition on firearms in courthouses - tempers flare easily in situations where you or your loved one are losing freedom or money (or custody, in family court). I'm back and forth on the prohibition on school grounds if you get out of your vehicle. I think this is more of an emotional response ("won't someone think of the children?") vs. a logical one. Nobody wants a child bringing a gun to school - and they already can't because of other laws. Why do we need to prohibit visitors from carrying? Teachers and administrators are more iffy to me, since they do sometimes get involved in student altercations - they would need to be very well trained to never allow their firearm to be pulled from their person by a student. Churches are the ones that baffle me. They are private property, but the state has made it illegal to carry on their premises while services are going on. I'm not saying I would want or need to carry in church, but it seems like an overreach by government to ban it on private property.

 

[rudeguy]

I think there should be an exception for CCW + current law enforcement officers (whether on or off duty) to carry in gun free zones. If you do carry as a CCW + police, make it illegal to consume alcohol or take controlled substances when you're carrying. That would rule out the trigger happy or non/poorly trained people having a gun in a large venue, and would add an element of randomness for would-be mass shooters. Might make the bad guys think twice about trying a mass shooting if they don't know who might also be armed.

In my state, its a very big deal to be under the influence while carrying. Not drunk, just under the influence. This will get your CPL revoked basically instantly. Also places that make more than 50% of their revenue from alcohol are gun free zones. Waitresses and bartenders are known to report people who break this rule. I agree with both of those. Guns and alcohol do not mix.

Again in my state, cops whether off duty or not can carry wherever they want. They have their own set of rules which I 100% agree with. The interesting part is private investigators are also exempt from pistol free zones. I assume that has something to do with the background checks associated with a PI license?

Michigan actually had a bill pass that would have allowed CPL holders to be exempt from most gun free zones. Places like courthouses and bars were still banned, which is fine. But the governor vetoed it because he's a moron.

 

[JamesV]

I see these signs everywhere now, with a gun image and a red slash through it; something like "Firearms are not permitted".

See this at the library, restaurants like Fridays and McDonalds, the mall, big stores like WalMart and Target, and even a candy store my aunt goes to.

Personally I think these signs are stupid, because only law abiding citizens will respect them. It's like the 'magic bubble' back from my Grateful Dead touring days - the druggies thought being a part of it all made them exempt from being caught. No gun signs are the 'magic bubble' that makes people think they will be safe.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Gun free zones are awesome because people can't take guns in them.

:whiste:

I should link to gun safety instructors accidentally shooting themselves in front of a classroom full of kids. I am the only person in here qualified to handle this gun! I am a professional! BLAM!!! Oh shit, I just shot myself in the leg...

http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/public/2013/08/12/concealed-carry-accidental-shooting.html

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/08/25/gun-safety-instructor-who-shot-student-also-shot-girl-in-177/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zw-jTCNZSmY

http://blogs.citypages.com/blotter/...ty_instructor_accidentally_shoots_himself.php

I could google accidental shooting and come up with a ton of stories. Hell, even the former Vice President (Dick Cheney) accidentally shot a friend in the face while hunting.

I'm sure everyone will jump on me for this though with comments about how many millions of guns there are in the country and the relatively low number of accidents when compared with the number of guns blah blah blah. I own 13 guns and have never shot anyone accidentally or intentionally but then I might go months without ever touching one of them and some of them I haven't shot in over a decade.

 

[Gunslinger08]

I see these signs everywhere now, with a gun image and a red slash through it; something like "Firearms are not permitted".

See this at the library, restaurants like Fridays and McDonalds, the mall, big stores like WalMart and Target, and even a candy store my aunt goes to.

Personally I think these signs are stupid, because only law abiding citizens will respect them. It's like the 'magic bubble' back from my Grateful Dead touring days - the druggies thought being a part of it all made them exempt from being caught. No gun signs are the 'magic bubble' that makes people think they will be safe.

I think it's mostly CYA. Businesses can't afford to have a shooting on their premises. Do the cost-benefit analysis for allowing guns. Most people who carry aren't adamant enough to stop patronizing a business because of the signs, so they aren't really losing revenue by putting up the signs. Having the sign up almost certainly won't stop someone who is intent on committing a crime on their premises, but it gives them something to point to when they are sued following a shooting or when renewing their business insurances. So you put up a $5 sign that really causes no lost revenue that has the potential to save you anywhere from $0 to millions of dollars.

 

[Scarpozzi]

It's the same exact argument that all licensed, responsible gun owners have.

"I'm not the one committing crimes, why should I be punished or not allowed to carry my firearm wherever I go."

I'm not in disagreement. I wish there was more responsibility placed on responsible gun owners, but you have to consider liabilities here. When the school shootings took place in the past few years, the suggestion always comes up to arm teachers and administrators. After some real thought to that suggestion, you come to the realization that the guns teachers carry could easily be obtained by students or even criminals that weren't initially armed. Most aren't competant enough for that responsibility or stress....so the gun free zone is an easier solution for law enforcement to handle.

The other side here is when gun crimes create a bunch of vigilantes. If you engage in a shootout with a criminal in a mall, for instance....he has a gun....you have a gun. Both of you are exchanging shots and ducking for cover.....3 minutes later, the police enter the room. They aren't going to ask who's side you're on. It's in your best interest to run when shots are fired and only shoot back if you're backed into a corner.

 

[irishScott]

I see these signs everywhere now, with a gun image and a red slash through it; something like "Firearms are not permitted".

See this at the library, restaurants like Fridays and McDonalds, the mall, big stores like WalMart and Target, and even a candy store my aunt goes to.

Personally I think these signs are stupid, because only law abiding citizens will respect them. It's like the 'magic bubble' back from my Grateful Dead touring days - the druggies thought being a part of it all made them exempt from being caught. No gun signs are the 'magic bubble' that makes people think they will be safe.

They're especially stupid because even for law-abiding citizens they won't stop anything. I use those signs to know when to spend my money and when to take my money elsewhere, but if there's no other option I'll simply ignore it. It's not like they're going to search me, the worst they can do is demand that I leave, and God forbid I actually have to use my gun to stop a robbery or something, they'll look mighty fucking stupid.

 

[irishScott]

It's the same exact argument that all licensed, responsible gun owners have.

"I'm not the one committing crimes, why should I be punished or not allowed to carry my firearm wherever I go."

I'm not in disagreement. I wish there was more responsibility placed on responsible gun owners, but you have to consider liabilities here. When the school shootings took place in the past few years, the suggestion always comes up to arm teachers and administrators. After some real thought to that suggestion, you come to the realization that the guns teachers carry could easily be obtained by students or even criminals that weren't initially armed. Most aren't competant enough for that responsibility or stress....so the gun free zone is an easier solution for law enforcement to handle.

The other side here is when gun crimes create a bunch of vigilantes. If you engage in a shootout with a criminal in a mall, for instance....he has a gun....you have a gun. Both of you are exchanging shots and ducking for cover.....3 minutes later, the police enter the room. They aren't going to ask who's side you're on. It's in your best interest to run when shots are fired and only shoot back if you're backed into a corner.

Yes and no, depends on the situation. This is actually hotly debated with the gun community. My personal philosophy is that engaging in a firefight is stupid, simply because at best I have 13 shots total on my person, I simply don't have the ammo for an extended firefight. But if I have a clear shot, can end the killing and the cops haven't responded yet, I'll take it. Beyond that I'm running my ass off or very carefully looking for said opportunity, depending on the geography of the situation.

 

[CZroe]

Question for you OP. You state people "choose" to shoot up gun free zones. Do you have any examples that someone chose a location specifically for that reason?

Mass shootings almost always happen in a place the shooter themselves has an attachment, or the person they are targeting initially is in that place.

Are you that out-of-touch/delusional?! Sandy-Freakin'-Hook.

 

[rudeguy]

Are you that out-of-touch/delusional?! Sandy-Freakin'-Hook.

He was asking if there was any evidence of a shooter choosing a site specifically because it was a gun free zone. I'm sure it played a part in a lot of them but I don't know of any that were specifically targeted because of that. Mostly because the shooters are usually dead.

 

[PliotronX]

He was asking if there was any evidence of a shooter choosing a site specifically because it was a gun free zone. I'm sure it played a part in a lot of them but I don't know of any that were specifically targeted because of that. Mostly because the shooters are usually dead.

Well they're not going to shoot up a gun store or NRA meeting I'd say mass shootings in GFZ at least had that fact taken into consideration. They know they're boned as soon as they encounter resistance.

 

[CZroe]

He was asking if there was any evidence of a shooter choosing a site specifically because it was a gun free zone. I'm sure it played a part in a lot of them but I don't know of any that were specifically targeted because of that. Mostly because the shooters are usually dead.

*Facepalm* We know why he chose Sandy Hook.

 

[BurnItDwn]

Yea, Gun free zones are silly. And I agree that people have a right, and SHOULD have a right to carry. I do not believe it should be necessary to carry to be able to protect yourself. however, I know life usually throws curveballs and sometimes even spitballs, and rarely even fireballs! So I can appreciate the "better safe than sorry" crowd.

However, I do not think it's cool when any/all possible changes to gun laws are argued before they ere even discussed...

Universal background checks seem like a logical sort of thing.

Having a central "who has what guns" registration seems very beneficial. It would be easier for police to catch some criminals if every single gun was ID'd at time of sale to an owner. (of course there's lots of complications, and lots of people would not be comfortable with the federal government having that data.)

Anyhow, There are some things that I think are rational gun laws.

I think a national CCW standards/permit makes sense rather than each state having their own rules and obeying only certain states licenses ... Each state may have their own rules of the road, but, they all allow you to drive your car with your license from your home state. CCW should be like that IMO.

 

[Nebor]

Having a central "who has what guns" registration seems very beneficial. It would be easier for police to catch some criminals if every single gun was ID'd at time of sale to an owner. (of course there's lots of complications, and lots of people would not be comfortable with the federal government having that data.)

IIRC both Maryland and Canada have total gun registration, and those registries are famous for solving virtually no crimes.