The Asininity of "Gun-Free" Zones

[omega2xx]

I certainly hope that Trump will be able to end these unenforceable "gun-free" laws. I did not vote for Trump due to his lack of knowledge and experience among other problems but I like him, and certainly think he has a lot of common sense.

I think he can do it by executive order. Trump wasn't my favorite, but it was no contest for me when the only other choice was Clinton.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It hasn't happened that often because law-abiding citizens tend to obey signs that say "no guns." That was the point of the post.

So... any gun owner who would disobey a "no guns" sign isn't the sort of person who would stop an armed attacker?

The reason it hasn't happened that often is because scenarios are created in which it cannot happen. IF, "gun-free zone" laws were removed, I would wager that the incidence of mass shootings would be reduced, and many law-abiding citizens would prevent mass shootings.

So all mass shootings happen in "gun-free" zones?

 

[McBell]

Of course not, I was referring to public establishments (businesses, etc.). Your property is private.

So you are saying that Target would be required to allow those with permits/licenses to carry and would have no right to declare no weapons?

Or is it just fire arms that they will have to allow?

 

[McBell]

So... any gun owner who would disobey a "no guns" sign isn't the sort of person who would stop an armed attacker?

anyone who ignores the no weapons/no guns/no firearms signs would be a criminal for disobeying.

So all mass shootings happen in "gun-free" zones?

Please list the mass shootings that did not happen in gun free zones.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I am of the opinion that one of the biggest reasons that so many mass shootings have been occurring is the fact that many public buildings in the United States are declared "gun-free" zones. These buildings contain signs posted on their doors that state something to the effect of "No firearms allowed in this building." As a result, citizens who lawfully carry concealed weapons for self-defense are not allowed to do so in these buildings, and, if they are law-abiding, they will remove their weapons prior to entering the building. However, the only people who will respect these signs are law-abiding citizens. No one intent on conducting a mass shooting is going to blink at a sign that says guns are not allowed! As a result, these "gun-free signs," are literally removing all possible defenses against mass shootings, by effectively disarming people who could prevent a mass murder, while leaving the only possible carriers of weapons in the hands of violent criminals. There are only two possible solutions to this problem: either 1) Enforce the signs and ensure that every building that is a declared "gun-free zone" is surrounded by armed guards/police officers who check everyone entering and ensure that they are not carrying firearms, or 2) Pass legislation that prohibits all public establishments from posting signs that state "no guns allowed" on their doors. Solution 1) would be a dangerous step in the direction of a totalitarian police state. Therefore, Solution 2) is the only viable option.

There's a third solution: get rid of the guns.

So I'm on the organizing committee for a big public event here in Canada. The hired event manager is a guy from the US.

As we were going through all the last minute details right before the event, he asked "what about the bag check?"

All the Canadians looked at each other with puzzled expressions. "No - we don't have a bag check. Why would we need that?"

The event manager said "to look for weapons. My last show was in Texas and it's standard there."

"Oh - no, we don't need a bag check."

So... 3,000 people didn't have to have their privacy intruded upon every time they came into our venue. I'd call that a check mark for liberty, and it was because we don't have a society where people think it's necessary to bring firearms to public events.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

anyone who ignores the no weapons/no guns/no firearms signs would be a criminal for disobeying.

Not what I asked, thanks.

Please list the mass shootings that did not happen in gun free zones.

There are too many to list, but for starters: the shooting at the Fort Lauderdale airport. The shooter brought his gun into the airport legally, in his checked baggage.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

This poses an interesting question.....
If someone shot a violent perp, how could it possibly be known that a mass shooting
was prevented? There might be a few cases where the perp was heavily armed,
& it could be said he (always a he) was bent on mass mayhem.
But this approach doesn't appear to be amenable to disproof by statistical analysis.

I see what you mean. The heavily armed whackadoo could've just been a civic-minded gun enthusiast, there for everyone's protection.

 

[Sunstone]

I am of the opinion that one of the biggest reasons that so many mass shootings have been occurring is the fact that many public buildings in the United States are declared "gun-free" zones.

On the other hand, an analysis of 133 mass shootings between 2009 and 2015 found that only 13% took place in gun free zones. That certainly doesn't go very far to confirm your opinion that gun free zones are "one of the biggest reasons mass shooting have been occurring."

 

[Revoltingest]

I see what you mean. The heavily armed whackadoo could've just been a civic-minded gun enthusiast, there for everyone's protection.

No, I think you missed the point.
Crimes prevented seldom become statistics.
Let me illustrate....
List the murders cops have prevented.
Can't? Then they serve no useful purpose.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

On the other hand, an analysis of 133 mass shootings between 2009 and 2015 found that only 13% took place in gun free zones. That certainly doesn't go very far to confirm your opinion that gun free zones are "one of the biggest reasons mass shooting have been occurring."

I would be curious as to how the source defines "gun-free zones" since many public establishments like theatres with signs stating "firearms prohibited" may not necessarily be considered a "gun-free zone" in the same sense as a school for example.

 

[Sunstone]

It hasn't happened that often because law-abiding citizens tend to obey signs that say "no guns." That was the point of the post. The reason it hasn't happened that often is because scenarios are created in which it cannot happen. IF, "gun-free zone" laws were removed, I would wager that the incidence of mass shootings would be reduced, and many law-abiding citizens would prevent mass shootings.

You seem to be reasoning by logic alone. Reasoning by logic alone -- without empirical evidence to guide and confirm your logic -- almost always ends up poorly, as is the case here.

 

[Neo Deist]

Tell that to those who died from gunshots in a Florida airport....

You can thank the FBI for that one. The shooter had gone to them prior and told them that he was hearing voices. They confiscated his guns and kept him under evaluation for four days. The FBI then turned him loose and gave back his guns.

<insert usual obligatory Obama administration jab here...>

 

[Rational Agnostic]

So you are saying that Target would be required to allow those with permits/licenses to carry and would have no right to declare no weapons?

Or is it just fire arms that they will have to allow?

In states where concealed carry of firearms is allowed, than yes, that is what I am proposing. Other weapons that citizens are allowed to carry would also need to be allowed at public facilities.

 

[Sunstone]

I would be curious as to how the source defines "gun-free zones" since many public establishments like theatres with signs stating "firearms prohibited" may not necessarily be considered a "gun-free zone" in the same sense as a school for example.

It defines "gun free zones" as "areas where the carrying of concealed guns is prohibited".

 

[Rational Agnostic]

I think he can do it by executive order. Trump wasn't my favorite, but it was no contest for me when the only other choice was Clinton.

There were more than two choices. I voted third party.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

You seem to be reasoning by logic alone. Reasoning by logic alone -- without empirical evidence to guide and confirm your logic -- almost always ends up poorly, as is the case here.

Would you agree that a sign stating "Firearms Prohibited" is not going to stop a deranged lunatic intent on killing people from entering a building with a firearm?

 

[oldbadger]

I am of the opinion that one of the biggest reasons that so many mass shootings have been occurring is the fact that many public buildings in the United States are declared "gun-free" zones. These buildings contain signs posted on their doors that state something to the effect of "No firearms allowed in this building." As a result, citizens who lawfully carry concealed weapons for self-defense are not allowed to do so in these buildings, and, if they are law-abiding, they will remove their weapons prior to entering the building. However, the only people who will respect these signs are law-abiding citizens. No one intent on conducting a mass shooting is going to blink at a sign that says guns are not allowed! As a result, these "gun-free signs," are literally removing all possible defenses against mass shootings, by effectively disarming people who could prevent a mass murder, while leaving the only possible carriers of weapons in the hands of violent criminals. There are only two possible solutions to this problem: either 1) Enforce the signs and ensure that every building that is a declared "gun-free zone" is surrounded by armed guards/police officers who check everyone entering and ensure that they are not carrying firearms, or 2) Pass legislation that prohibits all public establishments from posting signs that state "no guns allowed" on their doors. Solution 1) would be a dangerous step in the direction of a totalitarian police state. Therefore, Solution 2) is the only viable option.

I don't know......
I reckon that Marshall Dillon had some good ideas. Are you calling him a numpty?

 

[McBell]

I would be curious as to how the source defines "gun-free zones" since many public establishments like theatres with signs stating "firearms prohibited" may not necessarily be considered a "gun-free zone" in the same sense as a school for example.

really?
how so?

 

[SkepticThinker]

For the life of me I'll never understand why anybody thinks that everybody having a gun makes everybody safer. It doesn't help that the people who usually push this belief are from a country that suffers from mass shootings on practically a weekly basis.

 

[Sunstone]

Would you agree that a sign stating "Firearms Prohibited" is not going to stop a deranged lunatic intent on killing people from entering a building with a firearm?

There is an appreciable chance that "deranged lunatic" is someone with a permit to conceal carry:

Since 2007, at least 763 people have been killed by someone with a concealed carry permit. Those deaths are the result of 579 separate shootings, all initiated by someone who was given the legal right to carry a concealed weapon in our communities– our schools, churches, shopping centers, movie theaters and everywhere else.

>snip<

[O]ut of the 579 shootings carried out by concealed carry permit holders since 2007, just 21 were in self defense. That equates to about four percent of all shootings in which the shooter was licensed to carry a concealed weapon.

Even more telling, more than 97 percent of the 763 deaths caused by someone with a concealed carry permit were not related to self defense in any way.

Concealed carry permit holders have been responsible for 29 separate mass shootings which took the lives of three or more people. In total, concealed carry permit holders murdered 139 innocent people in mass shootings during this time period.

They’ve also killed nearly as many police officers as they have “bad guys with guns.” Concealed carry permit owners have shot and killed 17 law enforcement officers, compared to the 21 people they shot in self-defense.

The NRA claims that owning a gun empowers people to “defend their lives.” Yet while only 21 concealed carry permit holders used their weapon in self defense, 223 of them used a gun to end, not defend, their own lives.

To repeat: "Concealed carry permit holders have been responsible for 29 separate mass shootings which took the lives of three or more people."

[Source]

[An Even Better Source]