Why do all these shooting keep happening in Gun Free Zones?

Sandy Hooks is a great example, there was a sign that clearly indicated that it was a gun free zone, and that Lanza guy still shot the place up. To be honest, I'm starting to think that criminals don't obey laws...in fact, maybe that's why we call them criminals. I think I'm really on to something here! (In unrelated news, law abiding citizens in Conneticut only have a little time left to turn in those scary looking assault weapons)

 

The point of a "gun free zone" is that if an armed person is spotted, the police can be called and the person arrested without having to wait for the armed person to slaughter 20 kids before stopping them.

The issue with assault weapons is not how they LOOK, its how many shredded elementary school kid bodies guns like that can generate in just a few seconds.

 

Eh, no link, this will be gone soon... Don't get me wrong, I'm the most supportive person of the 2nd you can find, but forum rules are forum rules... Now, if you ask me to register a gun, you can get bent...

 

Any gun can do that so FAIL.

 

These shootings don't happen this frequently in other countries who own lots of guns. Ask yourself why that is?

 

Most of those countries are kneelers who only recently got the smallest amount of freedom and still can't comprehend what it means to have their own destinies in their own hands...

 

That is just retarded. Just admit that Americans are the problem.

 

Feh, if you look at per capita data, excluding 2012 which would be removed using standard deviation, our per capita mass murder is pretty similar to Australia over the years.

 

Lets see that. On legit sources.

 

Most countries don't have the social issues that America has.

 

Simple numbers you can do yourself.

 

In other words you made it up. Knew it.

 

Yes, many people use the numbers provided by the respective governments and can actually do the math, whereas some cannot.

 

In other words you made it up. Knew it.

 

I see.

So ALL the money we have spent arming our troops with ever more powerful assault weapons has been a complete waste of money, the more powerful, faster firing and higher penetrating weapons just make NO difference at all!

That shooter could have turned the same rooms full of of the same numbers of children just as fast and thoroughly into hamburger with a .22 pistol in the TOTAL of 10 minutes? Some kids were ripped to pieces with up to eleven shots in them. Not only is there no chance of survival or even an open coffin at a funeral, burying your children in a 5 gallon bucket is an additional trauma as well. Imagine the trauma of identifying these shredded pieces of meat and brains by the parents.

Your absurd assertion is the FAIL. The insanity of these whacko gun nut defenses of the empowerment of mass killers is getting very serious

 

That may be the intended point, but the effect is that there is no protection from a deranged shooter in a gun free zone, and the police will arrive after the carnage has happened. How effective were the police in Connecticut, at Virginia Tech, or at the army base shooting?

 

The US got a very high unequal distribution of wealth.
The chances that when born poor, to remain poor, is exceptionally high.
Guns are widely available.
The army is exceptionally large, and so the country is swamped with veterans.
Veterans are loved, but they are a violent breed. 1 in 10 prisoners is a veteran.
The country totally fails to do something against drugs, and so drug related crimes for decades.


Who knows, that these things might have an impact in overal violent behavior.

 

Well, one of the worst massacres was done with a 9mm and .22 handgun. Virginia Tech.

You evidently are not aware that civilians cannot own the same weapons our troops use except for handguns. That is a common mistake because most people get their education about guns from the television and movies. As it stands, the current M4 that the troops use, derived from the M16, was a compromise. It uses less powerful ammunition than used before so it would be lighter for the troops to carry. They carry what is called an intermediate round, that is, between a handgun and a rifle round like the .308. In fact up close it can be less damaging than at distance because the bullet has to wobble to be effective. That round is the .223, which is basically a .22 on steroids.

 

Our troops are not armed with AR-15's. Very difficult to take your arguments seriously when you show such cavalier attitudes towards reality. Semi automatic designs such as the AR are over 100 years old. Not exactly cutting edge technology. Ever more powerful is an absurdity in itself. A civil war musket can pack more terminal energy than the 5.56 NATO round. As far as modern rifle cartridges are concerned the 5.56 is way down on the list of power and penetration capabilitys. It's earned the nickname " mouse gun" for a reason. It is considered sufficient to create wounds on the battlefield. Low weight and mass of ammunition and wounding ability are its preeminent attributes.

What happened in Newtown was obviously a tragedy. Bidens 12 gauge shotgun used with such malicious intent would have been 100 times worse. Welcome to reality.