The myth of the "vulnerable" gun free zone

I keep hearing about "gun free zones" and since I live in what might be considered a "gun free zone" albeit the size of mainland USA, it has puzzled me because not only do we have fewer mass shootings per capita we have fewer overall shootings per capita

But there has been an analysis of the mass shootings

http://libcloud.s3.amazonaws.com/9/5e/c/1092/mass_shootings__2009-13__-_maig_study_1.28.13.pdf

Seems the PR arm of the NRA has done it's job again!!

 

Eh,WHO did this so called 'analysis'? Ah yes,'mayor(s) against guns....oh wait,they hide their purpose by tacking on 'illegal'


Anti gun misrepresentation if not outright lying

 

So what you are saying is that the military of your country and the police of your country do not have firearms.
If they do, then it is not a gun free zone.
The whole problem with gun free zones in the United States is that the there is no border around them that is patrolled by the military to protect them. There are also no police stationed in them. Individuals crossing the border of the gun free zone are not searched and run through metal detectors with hundreds of police standing by waiting to arrest someone who is entering the zone to cause harm. The police are tens of minutes or even hours away from some locations. That is the disjunction with your scenario. That is why the gun free zones in the United States are a bad idea.
Your particular gun free zone has an entire nation's military might with ALL of the firearms your country can field protecting it. Your particular gun free zone has a border that is monitored and has police or military posted at all times to protect it. Individuals entering your gun free zone are all searched and questioned and etc.....
Am I right?

The United States has two of the absolutely longest borders in the world that are not closed. That are not completely walled off to trespass by unauthorized persons. They are essentially porous to invasion by people out to do harm or willing to smuggle in weapons and drugs and even other people.

You can narrowly select your numbers from the hundreds of mass killings that took place in the last fifty years that may or may not have used handguns or rifles or gasoline or vehicular assault or explosives or poison but the facts still remain.
Compare apples to apples and oranges to oranges.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rampage_killers
The type of people who want to kill large numbers of people want to do it without interruption. They will pick a church or a synagogue or a school or a playground that is listed and posted as a gun free zone over any other because of the fact that they know that good people who follow the law will not have their own personal weapons with them. They might even be clever enough to select a spot that is far from the local police station to allow for more time to pursue their hobby.

 

The definition of "maas shooting" to comprise four victims changes the discussion.

Sandy Hook was a gun free zone, Columbine was a gun free zone, Aurora theater was a gun free zone. Va Tech was a gun free zone.

Where you live outside the US had no bearing on the discussion.

How many of the four victim shootings were gang and drug deal related? That is typically the case when it happens in a residence.

But go ahead, don't really think it through.

 

What part of the research is wrong - never mind the source - what part of the research is wrong??

 

((((((((((((((((((((sigh))))))))))))))))))))) Basic comprehension............

They discounted the residences and only counted those in public places

BTW how many CCW carriers have stopped a mass shooting (not counting off duty police) IF gun zones are so effective then there should be more being stopped by CCW

 

Perhaps because mass shooters decline to attempt it where their may be CCW carriers. They know there won't be any on gun free zones.

A bit hard to quantify mass shooting that didn't happen.

 

http://nakedlaw.avvo.com/crime/8-horrible-crimes-stopped-by-legal-gun-owners.html

8 situations.

6. School shooter stopped by armed college students

In 2002, a shooting at Appalachian School of Law left 3 people dead. However, the shooter was stopped before he could kill any more people. Thankfully, 2 students were able to run to their cars, get their guns, and use their weapons to halt the rampage.

 

Frequency of 'mass shootings' in the home,the assumption that plaxces that had no rules about concealed weapons meaning they are allowed,'nearly one a month',claiming the shooters don't target gun free zones,to start



You don't want to swallow NRA propagande,why Anti gun?..

 

How in the hell could you consider a gun free zone being vulnerable a myth? This is the most inane thing to spew out of your mouth yet. A new low for you bowerbird!

- - - Updated - - -

How in the hell could you consider a gun free zone being vulnerable a myth? This is the most inane thing to spew out of your mouth yet. A new low for you bowerbird!

 

Sorry but the SAME argument can be made for gun reduction i.e. Australia before 1996 almost one mass shooting per year for around 18 years (13 in 18 years) since then ONE in 16 years

Truth is there is ZERO proof that CCW decreases mass shootings and lots of proof (see OP) that it does not affect mass shootings

 

incident 1 - no indication anyone would have been shot and no-one hurt including the idiot CCW who put himself in the firing line. Most mass shootings START with someone being targeted not random shots in the air by an idiot - a DRUNK idiot at that

Incident 2 - 4 NOT a mass shootings and no indication they could have become mass shootings

Incident 5 - off duty security guard and about the ONLY case that is even remotely legitimate - but she in another interview stated that she thought the killer would target the church and so was prepared

Number 6 is also a bit of a stretch since the "college students" were off duty military police

7 and 8 also NOT mass shootings but armed robbery

 

How do you know most mass shootings start with a target? If I am going to go shoot someone, I would think you go after the one person and move quickly so you stay moveing and no one can link you to the crime. However mass shootings seem more like random acts with the thought process of hitting the most people who cant run far or open spaces for less people to hide.

 

So because nobody around had a ccw, it means that ccw is innafective? Nobody else had a gun, if someone lawfully had one, do you think the situation would be different?

How is a gun free zone NOT vulnerable?

 

So you are the expert on people who commit mass murders now? These situations could have easily ended up as so with a couple trigger pulls, which they didn't have the chance due to law abiding gun carriers.

 

So you are the expert on people who commit mass murders now? These situations could have easily ended up as so with a couple trigger pulls, which they didn't have the chance due to law abiding gun carriers.

 

Because no-one yet has proven that it is in any way effective to have CCW meanwhile Australia became basically a "gun free zone" as did a lot of other countries and in each and every one the gun crime rate fell

- - - Updated - - -

link em to ONE mass murder that started with some drunk shooting off a gun

 

Read up on mass shootings - read the FBI research

 

Only GUN crime fell, while the OVERALL crime and murder went unaffected. You telling me that you are ok with murder as long as its done without a gun? View attachment 18243
http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/homicide.html

 

I would bloody be surprised if manslaughter DID fall since a large proportion of those are vehicle related

Are you SERIOUSLY trying to tell me you would expect overall crime rates to fall with the restriction on guns?

 

These are overall murder rates, if gun control worked, shouldn't they show a significant drop?

 

For a start that is raw data not per capita so with a rising population the numbers SHOULD have risen

But let us look closer at those numbers and remember we are STARTING with very small numbers statistically speaking

Oooooops! that was from YOUR link - which BTW thanks for posting!

A further look at the data on the link and you will find



percentage of homicides committed with a firearm

See taking the guns out of the equation does not stop the gangland murders but it DOES stop the guy pissed off at his neighbour shooting up the neighbourhood

 

Yeah but that just means he's going over with his hammer to nail the neighbor. lol

 

You live in a vast place with a tiny population with little history of real gun ownership (only 7% owned guns during your grab) and diversity is a joke.

When you have ten times your population in the same area and a really diverse population, then speak to me of the Australian gun experience.

 

Bwa ha ha ha ha ha !!

Ad Hom the last, hopeless stand of those who have no further rebuttals in a debate