EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Jun 17, 2014 20:29:35 GMT -5
Maybe let's keep it simple- nutbags do not target their workplaces because they are 'gun free'- they target them because they WORKED THERE, school shooters do not target schools because they are 'gun free'- they target them because THEY WENT THERE.
Start with Columbine- they had armed officers at the school- kind of blows that dumb theory out of the water doesn't it? Acording to the NRA they should have targeted the gun-free pre-school. down the road  Reality check. |
|
Deleted
Joined: Dec 1, 2024 7:05:12 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 17, 2014 21:29:42 GMT -5
Reality check... people that want to do bad things will do them where: A> they will matter vis-a-vis whatever their issue is... and B> there is the least likely possibility that they, themselves, will be stopped or killed before they complete their "mission" (whatever that may be) A "gun free zone" assists with "part B". So yes, Columbine would have happened "gun free zone" or not... because he wanted to make a statement (punish the bullies and the school that allowed it) that linked directly to his target location... because "part A" was MORE important to him than "part B". In MOST cases we will never know (by direct admission from the perp), because they are either not caught OR they are eventually killed... but... simple deduction will prevail in most cases... so... an admission isn't really as necessary as you'd like to make it. Robbers ignore ‘No Weapons’ sign at N.C. restaurant, assault employees at gunpoint |
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Jun 18, 2014 1:33:28 GMT -5
Thanks, I will moderate as you suggested. EVT1, you know better. You're skating on thin ice. Stop insulting other members. - mmhmm, Politics Moderator |
|
Deleted
Joined: Dec 1, 2024 7:05:12 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 18, 2014 2:46:59 GMT -5
I'm actually not going to moderate anything about that post (I can't promise that Chiver won't though).
The fact that you have devolved to that level just goes to show that you have lost the argument and you know it.
ETA: and, for the record, I actually do know. Common sense dictates the truth. Gun free zones are inherently UNsafe, because only law abiding citizens heed the law/rule/edict to BE gun free in that area. That leaves those that are NOT law abiding citizens armed and able to do as they will.
|
|
frankq
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jan 28, 2013 18:48:45 GMT -5
Posts: 1,577 
|
Post by frankq on Jun 18, 2014 18:23:17 GMT -5
Maybe let's keep it simple- nutbags do not target their workplaces because they are 'gun free'- they target them because they WORKED THERE, school shooters do not target schools because they are 'gun free'- they target them because THEY WENT THERE.
Start with Columbine- they had armed officers at the school- kind of blows that dumb theory out of the water doesn't it? Acording to the NRA they should have targeted the gun-free pre-school. down the road Reality check. Yeah, lets keep it simple. Criminals operate in areas where they have the best odds. They don't want to be challenged. They're not particularly brave. Case in point, the cities with the most stringent gun laws have the most gun crime because their law abiding victims probably will follow those stupid laws and not have guns. I don't know what they had in Columbine, but I know what they didn't have in 95% or more of all of these shootings, armed good guys. Reality Check...So much for your "dumb theory" theory. The only dumb stuff I see is what you post. No substance, just the same old hot air... |
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Jun 18, 2014 20:03:39 GMT -5
Maybe let's keep it simple- nutbags do not target their workplaces because they are 'gun free'- they target them because they WORKED THERE, school shooters do not target schools because they are 'gun free'- they target them because THEY WENT THERE.
Start with Columbine- they had armed officers at the school- kind of blows that dumb theory out of the water doesn't it? Acording to the NRA they should have targeted the gun-free pre-school. down the road Reality check. Yeah, lets keep it simple. Criminals operate in areas where they have the best odds. They don't want to be challenged. They're not particularly brave. Case in point, the cities with the most stringent gun laws have the most gun crime because their law abiding victims probably will follow those stupid laws and not have guns. I don't know what they had in Columbine, but I know what they didn't have in 95% or more of all of these shootings, armed good guys. Reality Check...So much for your "dumb theory" theory. The only dumb stuff I see is what you post. No substance, just the same old hot air... Just what point are you trying to make here- kind of all over the map.
I made a solid claim- mass shooters do not select targets based on gun laws, and therefore the 'gun free zone' argument is retarded NRA mumbo jumbo. I have yet to see one shred of evidence to the contrary, and expect I never will. |
|
Deleted
Joined: Dec 1, 2024 7:05:12 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 18, 2014 20:40:55 GMT -5
Actually you didn't make a "solid" claim. You made a claim that completely shows your bias.
Yes... (as I admitted earlier) there is quite often a tie-in that has nothing to do with "gun free zone" status... BUT here'e the part you seem to completely disregard: Maybe if it wasn't a gun free zone in the first place, the person might not even think of committing the act.
Maybe if the person knew there COULD BE (not "would be"... but "COULD be") immediate consequences... he or she might NOT even harbor those thoughts.
As to "I have yet to see a shred of evidence to the contrary, and expect I never will"... Only you can take the blinders off that keep you from seeing it.
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Jun 18, 2014 23:57:01 GMT -5
What bias? I am not against guns remember? I am just against ridiculous claims by the nuts on the fringe end.
The facts speak for themselves- I do not need to speculate. The last two nuts were targeting cops- hard to claim they were worried about guns or gun laws.
I think you fail to understand the mind of a mass murderer- you think they are worried about consequences  People that half the time end up putting a bullet through their own brain are not interested in consequences.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Dec 1, 2024 7:05:12 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 19, 2014 4:02:28 GMT -5
What bias? I am not against guns remember? I am just against ridiculous claims by the nuts on the fringe end.
The facts speak for themselves- I do not need to speculate. The last two nuts were targeting cops- hard to claim they were worried about guns or gun laws.
I think you fail to understand the mind of a mass murderer- you think they are worried about consequences People that half the time end up putting a bullet through their own brain are not interested in consequences. The "There's no tie in with gun free zones, because I disagree" bias. I don't think they are worried about consequences... I think they are worried about carrying out their objective. Something that they would likely be unable to do if there were other armed people in the general vicinity. Yes. The facts DO speak for themselves. Gun Free Zones have the highest incidents of gun violence anywhere. That is an immutable, inescapable fact. That the last two nuts were targeting cops doesn't prove your point. Their goal was cops (stupid goal... but that WAS their goal). Not to mention I never said gun violence doesn't happen in non-"gun free zones". It's just LESS gun violence. And, last but certainly not least (of this post)... if you are "just against ridiculous claims"... why do you insist on making the ridiculous claim that there is no tie in with gun free zones? |
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Jun 19, 2014 15:21:31 GMT -5
What bias? I am not against guns remember? I am just against ridiculous claims by the nuts on the fringe end.
The facts speak for themselves- I do not need to speculate. The last two nuts were targeting cops- hard to claim they were worried about guns or gun laws.
I think you fail to understand the mind of a mass murderer- you think they are worried about consequences People that half the time end up putting a bullet through their own brain are not interested in consequences. The "There's no tie in with gun free zones, because I disagree" bias. I don't think they are worried about consequences... I think they are worried about carrying out their objective. Something that they would likely be unable to do if there were other armed people in the general vicinity. Yes. The facts DO speak for themselves. Gun Free Zones have the highest incidents of gun violence anywhere. That is an immutable, inescapable fact. Double bullshit- these things happen all of the time where there are armed people in the general vicinity. These nuts will wear body armor if they can get it.
You are taking an irrelevant and barely defined detail and calling it a factor when it isn't. You took the NRA bullshit hook, line and sinker.
How about some facts:
www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/04/gun-free-zones-mass-shootings
Among the 62 mass shootings over the last 30 years that we studied, not a single case includes evidence that the killer chose to target a place because it banned guns. To the contrary, in many of the cases there was clearly another motive for the choice of location.
Proponents of this argument also ignore that the majority of mass shootings are murder-suicides. Thirty-six of the killers we studied took their own lives at or near the crime scene, while seven others died in police shootouts they had no hope of surviving (a.k.a. "suicide by cop"). These were not people whose priority was identifying the safest place to attack.
No less a fantasy is the idea that gun-free zones prevent armed civilians from saving the day. Not one of the 62 mass shootings we documented was stopped this way. Veteran FBI, ATF, and police officials say that an armed citizen opening fire against an attacker in a panic-stricken movie theater or shopping mall is very likely to make matters worse
www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/mass-shootings-map
There are links to all of the relevant facts if you will allow them to penetrate that bubble.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Dec 1, 2024 7:05:12 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 19, 2014 18:04:03 GMT -5
A few relevant facts for you to consider (if you even care about reality):
1> I don't take anything the NRA says as the truth. If we both come to the same conclusions on our own... that's just completely coincidental. Heck I don't even FOLLOW or LOOK for NRA postings/news. I may come across it in my searches with other keywords... but, I don't take it as "gospel" without corroborating evidence from some other source, because I KNOW they have an agenda (just like you have an agenda against them).
2> "Mother Jones" is hardly an unbiased source for anything... so might want to look elsewhere for something to back up your stance
3> Whether an armed citizen would make things better or worse depends on the armed citizen. Unbiased findings would never have suggested that the likelihood would have been worse.
Your theories have more holes in them than Swiss cheese.
And again I will point out that if there had not been a "gun free zone" different choices might have been made... so this:is completely biased BS. Remember... I agree that "desire to achieve objective" is a primary issue. I never said it wasn't. BUT if it's KNOWN gun free zone, that WILL affect people's choices.
ETA: Or are you actually suggesting the ludicrous idea that the reason there's less gun violence in places that AREN'T "gun free zones" is because there's less unhappy employees/clients? Everything is peaches and rainbows and unicorns at those "guns allowed" places?
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Jun 19, 2014 22:54:46 GMT -5
Not biased- it is factual. Workplace shootings- worker. Classroom shooting-student. That's the norm.
You are really trying to hard to read into this some non existent motivation.
But you have one point that is true- Mother Jones is not known as a neutral source- can be considered left wing if you like.
BUT- when the NRA makes stupid claims- and of course their research is about as deep as their morality- they produce no evidence at all.
There is only the one study because the NRA could give a shit- they just mouth off and make ridiculous claims- so please show me the NRA study about the gun free zones and the downfall of America.... |
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Jun 19, 2014 22:58:18 GMT -5
If you really want to discuss it- and think you have a leg to stand on then let's start with a definition of a 'gun free zone'.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Dec 1, 2024 7:05:12 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 20, 2014 7:55:52 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Dec 1, 2024 7:05:12 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 20, 2014 14:19:05 GMT -5
Yeah, lets keep it simple. Criminals operate in areas where they have the best odds. They don't want to be challenged. They're not particularly brave. Case in point, the cities with the most stringent gun laws have the most gun crime because their law abiding victims probably will follow those stupid laws and not have guns. I don't know what they had in Columbine, but I know what they didn't have in 95% or more of all of these shootings, armed good guys. Reality Check...So much for your "dumb theory" theory. The only dumb stuff I see is what you post. No substance, just the same old hot air... Just what point are you trying to make here- kind of all over the map.
I made a solid claim- mass shooters do not select targets based on gun laws, and therefore the 'gun free zone' argument is retarded NRA mumbo jumbo. I have yet to see one shred of evidence to the contrary, and expect I never will. How many mass killings in places where off duty cops hang out ? Just a little shred here.  |
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Jun 20, 2014 17:33:11 GMT -5
OK- so workplaces are not gun free zones then, correct?
Resource officers- great idea- Columbine had them- didn't help much. Why did they target that school again?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Dec 1, 2024 7:05:12 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 20, 2014 18:19:53 GMT -5
OK- so workplaces are not gun free zones then, correct?
Resource officers- great idea- Columbine had them- didn't help much. Why did they target that school again?
Some workplaces are "gun free zones"... some aren't. The ones that get shot up usually are "gun free" (case in point, the recent FedEx shootup at a "gun free" FedEx warehouse). So... you focus on a single failure (Columbine), rather than the dismal failure that's all the schools where there WASN'T a "resource officer", and completely ignore an example that I give where an armed person DID make a difference... and you think I am the one with bias? ETA: and apparently you keep missing my comments/agreement that SOMETIMES target takes precedence over personal safety (Columbine, targeting of cops) |
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Jun 20, 2014 18:44:14 GMT -5
Always takes precedence.
I am sure Fed-Ex was targeted because of their guns in the workplace policy. 
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Dec 1, 2024 7:05:12 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 20, 2014 21:17:07 GMT -5
Always takes precedence.
I am sure Fed-Ex was targeted because of their guns in the workplace policy.
You keep missing the simple point... It's not the MAIN reason... no. (and I NEVER, EVER said it was) It is A reason that gun violence is even considered though... because no one is likely to stop them. (and FedEx has a "no guns in the workplace" policy... not a "guns in the workplace" one) ETA: and no... it doesn't ALWAYS take precedence. Every time someone chose to NOT "go postal" because it wasn't a "gun free zone", the lack of it being a "gun free zone" took precedence. You are focusing on ONLY the times it happened... not the times it could have, yet didn't. |
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Jun 20, 2014 22:59:22 GMT -5
I am not missing it- I am saying it is nonsense.
And really, would love to hear of these stories where someone decided not to shoot up their work or other place because someone might shoot back. 
Did you miss the part that the majority of these incidents end in suicides or shoot outs? And if I recall 100% of the time someone stops them.
But it has been beat into the ground so I'm sticking with my opinion and you can stick with yours.
|
|
frankq
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jan 28, 2013 18:48:45 GMT -5
Posts: 1,577
|
Post by frankq on Jun 21, 2014 10:37:34 GMT -5
I made a solid claim- mass shooters do not select targets based on gun laws, and therefore the 'gun free zone' argument is retarded NRA mumbo jumbo. I have yet to see one shred of evidence to the contrary, and expect I never will.
No, you won't, because you are closed to the very thought. You have shown that you don't ever see evidence contrary to your mantra, even when it's placed right under your nose. In addition, there is not one shred of evidence to suggest that more restrictive gun laws, bans on certain guns, etc, would have prevented any of those events either, but common sense says that maybe, if just one of those people involved or on site had a weapon, they could have ended those shootings sooner. If more restrictive gun laws were the answer then why are mass shootings such a relatively recent issue. Actually, they coincide to the same timeframe as the rise of the personal computer and the internet. Hmmmmmm.......should we ban computers and the internet? On the other hand, the Thompson machine gun, known as the Tommy gun was developed around 1918. When the military showed little interest, John Thompson sold his guns though retail stores to the public for years. Aside from mob shootings, where they killed their own, mass shootings were unknown. Somehow, the fact that the average Joe could buy a FULLY automatic weapon at Sears or the local hardware store didn't translate to more crime. In fact, guns were available through the mail until after the Kennedy assassination. Recent events such as the kid who stabbed over 20 people in school show that guns do not cause people to go crazy. The cause is something other than the guns, but your liberal, biased media won't acknowledge that. The people that bitch about guns are the same people that are fine with their kids sitting on their asses in front of a game console all day and night playing every type of gory, shoot em up, stupid ass game on the planet, or searching the web for the latest beheading videos and stupid Slenderman shit. What kind of imbacile does something to gain approval of a fictional character? Was that the really the reason? Just ask those two girls who stabbed their friend 19 times in the woods. At least these parents can enjoy a little quiet time while their kids are keeping themselves "busy". How about that poor guy in Minnesota who was shot in the back and killed by three teenage assholes who were "bored"? Find out why young people have such a battle hardened attitude in regard to violence and why their moral compass is so far off kilter and for the most part, the problem will be cease to be. Start with their choice of entertainment and the sensationalist news media that make these jerkoffs more famous than rock stars. How about we don't use NAMES of perps when these things happen. Kind of hard for someone to go down in infamy when nobody knew their name.....
I made a solid claim- mass shooters do not select targets based on gun laws,
Wrong again. The Aurora Colorado shooter traveled for up to 20 minutes passing theaters where gun carry was legal to get to that theater in a where carry was NOT legal according to the earlier media reports. ( interestingly, the anti gun media stopped reporting that fact shortly afterwards). Tell me why he passed countless theaters along the way to go to a place where he had no prior history? See sources below. Your claim is not solid. "Gun free zones" are just another way of telling criminal is that law abiding people probably wont be armed in or out of their homes, and are easy pickings. Chicago and New Jersey are prime examples. A week into declaring school zones in Chicago "gun free" the shootings started. Two dead in the first two weeks. Emanual had to flood the zones with cops. Concealed carry classes are booking fast out here.
www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/09/10/did-colorado-shooter-single-out-cinemark-theater/
www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2969408/posts
From the sources above:
"Yet, neither explanation is right. Instead, out of all the movie theaters within 20 minutes of his apartment showing the new Batman movie that night, it was the only one where guns were banned. In Colorado, individuals with permits can carry concealed handgun in most malls, stores, movie theaters, and restaurants. But private businesses can determine whether permit holders can carry guns on their private property.
Most movie theaters allow permit holders carrying guns. But the Cinemark movie theater was the only one with a sign posted at the theater’s entrance."
The sources go on to say that the policy was posted on the theater website along with show times. Bottom line, I won't have your fear, as well as others, translate into less liberty for me. You guys can do what you want, just keep the useless hand wringing to yourself, and try to be more accurate in your postings. That way they won't sound like retarded mumbo-jumbo.
I keep waiting for someone to post even one case where a mass shooter targeted a particular place because of a 'no guns' sign. It is a fantasy.
Looks like your wait is over. The sequence of events suggests that is exactly what this guy did.
But it has been beat into the ground so I'm sticking with my opinion and you can stick with yours.
Yes you can, as un-quantified as your opinions generally are. |
|
frankq
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jan 28, 2013 18:48:45 GMT -5
Posts: 1,577
|
Post by frankq on Jun 21, 2014 13:47:17 GMT -5
Interesting reading: Mark Glaze, who just resigned as executive director of Michael Bloomberg’s Mayors Against Illegal Guns (MAIG), now says that the gun control restrictions MAIG supports are “a mismatch,” where crimes committed by mass murderers are concerned. “It is a messaging problem” for gun control supporters “when a mass shooting happens and nothing that we have to offer would have stopped that mass shooting,” Glaze told the Wall St. JournalRead more: dailycaller.com/2014/06/21/former-maig-boss-gun-control-wouldnt-stop-mass-murderers/#ixzz35IihIdsw |
|
frankq
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jan 28, 2013 18:48:45 GMT -5
Posts: 1,577
|
Post by frankq on Jun 21, 2014 14:00:02 GMT -5
Here's a little something from our friends in Canada:
"The adage of 'guns don't kill people, people kill people' has proven itself in this situation," Rushfeldt tells OneNewsNow.
Rushfeldt
After the shooting, Fox News offered a review of Canada's current gun laws, which prohibit legal ownership of the semi-auto rifles Bourque was allegedly using.
The manhunt shook up the city of Moncton, where schools and government offices were closed, mail service was temporarily shut down, and residents were asked to remain indoors.
BBC News reported the manhunt lasted approximately 24 hours.
Rushfeldt says strict gun control leaves Canadians defenseless just like they do in the United States.
"If we take guns away from all of the good people, we know that the bad people then are the only ones that have guns," he insists. "And how does one protect their own property, family or community?"
The BBC News report included still photos of Bourque during his alleged rampage, when he was seen dressed in military-style camouflauge and carrying two semi-auto rifles.
Unlike the United States, Canadians don't have a Second Amendment-like right to keep and bear arms.
- See more at: www.onenewsnow.com/culture/2014/06/10/canada-prime-target-for-armed-criminals-says-conservative-activist#.U6XViWdOWM8
There are people out here that think we should emulate laws such as those in Canada. Apparently, many Canadians aren't too happy with those laws..... |
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Jun 21, 2014 14:33:03 GMT -5
As said it is beaten into the ground- and bullshit Fox opinion piece isn't helping your claim- especially when the author directly lied in it (The Sikh temple was NOT a "gun free zone").
You want to believe the NRA- have at it. You believe a bunch of people drawing their weapons in a crowded theater is going to help things or stop these incidents- enjoy your fantasy.
But what you should realize by my arguments is that you are not going to stop mass shootings with a gun law or a no-guns sign. You are not going to invite mass shootings with a gun law or a no-guns sign. IRRELEVANT.
For arguments sake- say this one shooter did seek out a softer target- so what? What would your solution be? Force every private business in the country to allow its customers and employees arm themselves? You think that would be the end of mass shootings do you? Fantasyland. |
|
Deleted
Joined: Dec 1, 2024 7:05:12 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 21, 2014 18:02:51 GMT -5
I am not missing it- I am saying it is nonsense.
And really, would love to hear of these stories where someone decided not to shoot up their work or other place because someone might shoot back.
Did you miss the part that the majority of these incidents end in suicides or shoot outs? And if I recall 100% of the time someone stops them.
But it has been beat into the ground so I'm sticking with my opinion and you can stick with yours.
Therein lies the problem, all of the times this has happened... no one knows about it because it didn't get media coverage. How does one research something that never happened? And no, I didn't miss that part. But I will agree to the "I'm sticking with my opinion and you can stick with yours" peace offering.  |
|
Deleted
Joined: Dec 1, 2024 7:05:12 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 21, 2014 18:17:16 GMT -5
EVT1, question for you: Have you ever heard of Kennesaw, Georgia?
If you (and your stance) are right... why does the knowledge that (basically) everyone is armed in Kennesaw, cause the crime rate to PLUMMET?
Here's a well written piece about what happened there:
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 64,924
|
Post by Tennesseer on Jun 21, 2014 18:19:55 GMT -5
OK- so workplaces are not gun free zones then, correct?
Resource officers- great idea- Columbine had them- didn't help much. Why did they target that school again?
Some workplaces are "gun free zones"... some aren't. The ones that get shot up usually are "gun free" (case in point, the recent FedEx shootup at a "gun free" FedEx warehouse). So... you focus on a single failure (Columbine), rather than the dismal failure that's all the schools where there WASN'T a "resource officer", and completely ignore an example that I give where an armed person DID make a difference... and you think I am the one with bias? ETA: and apparently you keep missing my comments/agreement that SOMETIMES target takes precedence over personal safety (Columbine, targeting of cops) One of the six shot at the FedEx facility in Atlanta was a security guard. In fact, he was the first person shot. All FedEx employed security officers carry weapons. Whether the guard who was shot was employed by FedEx I cannot determine. |
|
Deleted
Joined: Dec 1, 2024 7:05:12 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 21, 2014 18:49:26 GMT -5
Some workplaces are "gun free zones"... some aren't. The ones that get shot up usually are "gun free" (case in point, the recent FedEx shootup at a "gun free" FedEx warehouse). So... you focus on a single failure (Columbine), rather than the dismal failure that's all the schools where there WASN'T a "resource officer", and completely ignore an example that I give where an armed person DID make a difference... and you think I am the one with bias? ETA: and apparently you keep missing my comments/agreement that SOMETIMES target takes precedence over personal safety (Columbine, targeting of cops) One of the six shot at the FedEx facility in Atlanta was a security guard. In fact, he was the first person shot. All FedEx employed security officers carry weapons. Whether the guard who was shot was employed by FedEx I cannot determine.Are you sure about that? Seems to me that he wasn't armed. Based on statements released by his family. |
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Jun 21, 2014 19:19:55 GMT -5
EVT1, question for you: Have you ever heard of Kennesaw, Georgia? If you (and your stance) are right... why does the knowledge that (basically) everyone is armed in Kennesaw, cause the crime rate to PLUMMET? Here's a well written piece about what happened there: Really? You want to use a one horse town to prove the impossible?
It is perfectly legal in our state- as you know- to open carry, to conceal carry, to be armed as much as we want to- and guess what? Doesn't stop shit- we just had some HS kid arrested a few weeks back planning to shoot up the school. How is that even possible?
But break it down- are you honestly saying the solution to gun crime and mass killing is to arm everyone at all times in all places? Statistics already prove owning a gun or having one in the house makes your ass more likely to end up dead by it- how do you explain that little nugget?
What you fail to realize, I think, is that the other gun owners are like you, or me even. They are not. There was a very young child that killed his mother last week with a gun that was stuck in a couch- the owner was not charged.
While more guns being in the hands of responsible people might very well have an effect on crime rates- the law making it so also allows complete morons to arm themselves- and you see it all the time. Again- last week some idiot blew half his dick off with a .45 he had jammed into his pants. And don't get me started on the fucking open carry nuts- also a new video where some lunatic was walking down the road with a rifle got into it with the police talking about the revolution and how cops are gang members- if his ass wasn't some old white man- possible the uncle of one of the cops- that hour long standoff would have ended in gunfire in under 5 minutes.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 64,924
|
Post by Tennesseer on Jun 21, 2014 19:26:30 GMT -5
One of the six shot at the FedEx facility in Atlanta was a security guard. In fact, he was the first person shot. All FedEx employed security officers carry weapons. Whether the guard who was shot was employed by FedEx I cannot determine.Are you sure about that? Seems to me that he wasn't armed. Based on statements released by his family. And I also said I was not sure if he was a FedEx too, didn't I. And even ìf he had been armed, he would have been taken out by surprise. Just like those two police officers eating lunch were in Las Vegas. |
|
