Actually the opposite is true A large proportion of mass shootings end in "suicide by cop" which suggests that they would be looking for concentrations of police or where police would respond quickly
That makes no sense at all. Cops always respond. BTW in Chicago has multiple shootings that meet criteria for mass shootings and I'm pretty sure they're aren't doing them in places congregate.
And yet that is what an analysis of mass shootings has shown - no correlation to "gun free zones" and a significant number WANTING to die at the end
"going out in a blaze of glory" does not have to make sense after all is not mental illness the major cause of mass shootings?
these mass-killers aren't rational and don't think rationally. fear of being shot by an armed citizen doesn't concern them. that's why they target malls, movie theaters, etc..
Except the NRA has no authority over gun shows. I won't even get into the rest of why you're just wrong. Try harder.
Oh, you are correct. I was thinking the NRA Convention where they don't allow weapons. I speed read too much
Unfortunately that is also wrong. Bridgestone Arena in Indianapolis prohibits the possession of firearms, and always has. The NRA didn't ban weapons at their convention, the state and federal government did.
Great choice by the NRA? Are you stating it was a "sneak attack" or something? The NRA knew it wouldn't allow open carry... "I'm going to have a party at a Bar. Not that I don't like kids, It's the Bar that regulates kids from being at my party"
What other locations are you accusing them of banning guns, or are you just trying to fish after your last two unsuccessful pieces of propaganda?
Why are you committed to posting as many false messages as possible? You're just a joke on these threads.
Nice try to change your response, but I already quoted your last attempt. Too late to erase it now. Why would the NRA NOT have conventions in states that don't allow guns to be carried? Again, the NRA has conventions all over the place, and when they are in those places, they have to follow the laws of those places. Should they only have them in "gun friendly" states?
I stated the NRA knew they didn't allow guns. You are trying to paint them as a victim ....Different buildings are owned by different Corporations that have different beliefs. They chose one that doesn't allow guns and you scream victim. The NRA made the choice with intention.
You're just making yourself look worse as you continue to post nonsense, you might want to give it a rest. Maybe you should speed read for comprehension.
^That moment Information overwhelms someone and they turn into all insults/troll.... No information, no debate, all attack..
Except I've clearly showed you to be completely wrong in everything you've said. Other than that I'm just letting you know that anyone who reads this will see the obvious. You're certainly welcome to continue, I'm not even really trying.
Your "source" is a college professor who claims he did a study - with no details, specifics or facts whatsoever to back any of it up. Politifact says you and Obama are wrong and not telling the truth. "We compared mass shooting incidents across countries is to calculate the number of victims per capita -- that is, adjusted for the country’s total population size. Calculating it this way shows the United States in the upper half of the list of 11 countries, ranking higher than Australia, Canada, China, England, France, Germany and Mexico. Still, the U.S. doesn’t rank No. 1. At 0.15 mass shooting fatalities per 100,000 people, the U.S. had a lower rate than Norway (1.3 per 100,000), Finland (0.34 per 100,000) and Switzerland (1.7 per 100,000). The data shows that it clearly happens in other countries, and in at least three of them, there’s evidence that the rate of killings in mass-shooting events occurred at a higher per-capita rate than in the United States between 2000 and 2014. The only partial support for Obama’s claim is that the per-capita gun-incident fatality rate in the United States does rank in the top one-third of the list of 11 countries studied. On balance, we rate the claim Mostly False." http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...-obama-correct-mass-killings-dont-happen-oth/
I noticed you stopped trying when you got stumped with facts I already pointed that out. "I give up on you because you are such a dumby" is the typical debate of someone who can't debate. " Have a good night and ty for the win Keep trying to say the "NRA CONVENTION WAS CONTROLLED" and "NOT ALLOWED TO HAVE WEAPONS". Then Contradict yourself by openly notating that it's held in different centers with different rules. The best was when you said it was "government" that controlled them and not the building management.
You haven't presented anything factual. You were wrong about the NRA having control over gun shows, then you were wrong about the NRA banning guns in it's convention centers, then finally you went on to claim that the NRA intentionally had it's convention in a place they knew didn't allow guns. I'm not seeing any facts. In case you sped past my questions in the above post, here they are again.
Oh one other thing. Since it is the government law that authorizes the private owner to determine who can or cannot carry weapons on their property, I'm still correct on that point as well.
My source was an article in the Sydney Morning Herald - which STILL beats "above top secret" hands down (mind you a kindergarten kids blog would beat ATS I do not know what criteria those researchers were using for mass shootings because they listed Australia as having 2 mass shootings between 2000 and 2014 - with a total of nine victims but only 2 dead. Hmmmmm methinks I smell a fit up The usual criteria used for mass shootings is the FBI standard of more than 4 dead but this is not the only card being dealt from the bottom of the pack here Let me give you this analysis by Huffpo - which has some bloody good points http://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/2015/06/22/politifact-mass-shootings_n_7638888.html?ir=Australia Still searching for the truth?
