Guns don't kill people ... Colleges in Oregon do

Pull wings off of flies? Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Don't tell Turdy the Smelly ol' Turdfly!

Yes, let's state a few facts.

1. These people who were killed may have been killed with handguns that were easy to obtain rather than assault rifles that were easy to obtain. This is an important distinction because....mmmm

2. Obama agreed with bans in other countries so....somehow what happened here in our country yesterday....is his fault.

3. What happened in Benghazi excuses the firearms massacres in the United States.

4. There were a lot of negroes in Chicago that shot each other this past weekend because there are no effective gun control laws in our country....so, all the people in Oregon that got shot... deserved it.

5. If only all of the students at the school where they were trying to get an education had been forced to carry pistols and assault rifles...well, they could have avoided their untimely deaths. So, you know what? According to the admiral...and the rest of the psycho gun-embracing, death-addled lunatics on the right-wing...the people who go shot have nobody to blame but themselves.

Does that just about cover it psycho-fuckwads?

Bring your best shit, motherfuckers. Originally Posted by timpage

Where are "the facts"?

SLOBBRIN, we can always count on you to add something ... oh what's the use?

Ignorant fuck.

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

I'm sorry about your eyes...

Interesting. I'd like to see a link to this. As I stated in another thread, in the post game speech, Obama seemed to want to take the crazy card off the bargaining table. Originally Posted by gnadfly

Here you go....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/w...have-that-now/

https://www.nraila.org/articles/2013...h-and-firearms

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/0...-cornyn-121035

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/0...-cornyn-121035

Here are a few...

How many times do we have to go over this?

There are probably tens of thousands of gun free zones that WORK every day of the year. Homes, office buildings, schools, government buildings, bars and restaurants, etc. We can only speculate on how many lives may be saved each year because of these gun free zones. Maybe zero. Maybe hundreds. How would you like to call an employee into your office and fire him knowing he is a slight mental case and might be carrying? It is only when a mass killing does occur in a gun free zone that certain individuals come out of the woodwork and say gun free zones should be abolished. Do you REALLY think that people who establish gun free zones do so with no thought? My office building is a gun free zone. I can guarantee you that the people responsible for making such a decision weighed the pros and cons of the decision in great detail and decided it was in the best interest of the majority of the employees to make the building a gun free zone.
Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

A couple of questions, does your office building employee armed security, if it does its not a gun free zone. Second question, sure there are lots of gun free zones where nothing has occurred, there are also thousands of gun allowed zones where nothing has happened. So the real question is this, how many of the areas where shootings have happened have been gun free zones, to include no security, has there been a common theme in the selection of these locations.

A couple of questions, does your office building employee armed security, if it does its not a gun free zone. Second question, sure there are lots of gun free zones where nothing has occurred, there are also thousands of gun allowed zones where nothing has happened. So the real question is this, how many of the areas where shootings have happened have been gun free zones, to include no security, has there been a common theme in the selection of these locations. Originally Posted by dirty dog

The highway patrol office displays a no guns sign on the door, however I really doubt there aren't any firearms inside.

A couple of questions, does your office building employee armed security, if it does its not a gun free zone. Second question, sure there are lots of gun free zones where nothing has occurred, there are also thousands of gun allowed zones where nothing has happened. So the real question is this, how many of the areas where shootings have happened have been gun free zones, to include no security, has there been a common theme in the selection of these locations. Originally Posted by dirty dog

No armed security. The only security I have ever seen is a guy who drives around the parking lots of the buildings, and he LOOKS to be unarmed. No gun visible when he is out of his car. And the parking lots are NOT gun free zones. If a person wants an escort from a building to his/her car, security is available for that.

To answer your second question -- there is absolutely NO evidence to suggest that any of the killers in gun free zones chose their locations because it was a gun free zone. However, each killer had strong ties to the location for the most part. Columbine. Ft. Hood. Washington Naval Yard. Aurora, Colorado. Virginia Tech. Umpqua Community College. So, in my opinion, yes, there has been a common theme -- the killers chose their site because they were very familiar with it and probably had a vendetta with the people inside.

You mentioned the numbers of "gun free" zones that are working....how about the MILLIONS of CCW holders that are working as well. They are not having shoot outs in the streets. They are not accidently shooting their co-workers. They are not killing their children. They are just prepared to protect themselves and others from violence. Why don't you mention them?

You keep trying to spread that lie like it was cream cheese on a bagel but it's just not true. The diary of James Holmes says that he scouted several theatres and chose the one with the sign saying "Gun Free Zone". That's one that disproves your theory. Anything else is icing on the cake. Try this:

By John R. Lott Jr.

Posted: Wednesday, October 7, 2015, 5:33 PM

image: http://media.philly.com/designimages/partnerIcon-Inquirer-2014.jpg


There has been another horrible crime committed and once again it is followed by calls for so-called universal background checks on private transfers of guns.
Hillary Clinton vows, if she becomes president, to use executive action to enact such rules. She is angry that Republicans “refuse to do anything” about mass shootings.
But gun-control advocates face a couple of problems.
First, the law that President Obama and other Democrats keep pushing wouldn’t have stopped Thursday’s shooting at Umpqua Community College in Oregon, where expanded background checks have been in place since August. It wouldn’t have stopped any of the other mass public shootings during Obama’s presidency.


Second, virtually all mass public shootings take place in gun-free zones, and Thursday’s attack was no exception. If the media more regularly reported when a shooting occurs in a gun-free zone, more people would realize that gun-control laws don’t deter criminals who are looking for select targets where people can’t fight back. More Americans would come to feel that gun ownership makes them safer.
Oregon law does allow permitted concealed handguns on school property. The New York Times, Media Matters, and others have been quick to pounce on this fact. What has been ignored, however, is that public educators in Oregon have undermined the law by putting bans in faculty and student handbooks. In other words, a de facto gun free zone.
There may be no criminal sanctions for violating the ban, but faculty face termination and students risk expulsion. Those are life-altering penalties. Faculty members undoubtedly won’t get another academic job if they committed a firearms violation. Expelled students are very unlikely to be admitted into another college.
Although Umpqua can theoretically provide written exemptions for the bans, school president Rita Calvin wouldn’t even let the college’s security guards carry guns.
Only people unaffiliated with the college can carry on campus. But even they are subject to a 2011 Oregon appeals court decision that allowed schools to ban guns in their buildings.
What all these rules mean is that no potential victims — students, faculty, or those unaffiliated with the college — were able to defend themselves in the classroom where the attack occurred.
Some point to the one student, a veteran, who news reports noted still carried his gun despite the college’s warnings, as evidence that the school wasn’t a gun-free zone. Unfortunately, he was far removed from the attack.
Mark Kelly, founder of the gun-control group Americans for Responsible Solutions, was asked on CNN last Sunday about the Oregon college being a gun-free zone that “might attract bad guys.”
Kelly claimed that less than 15 percent of mass shootings have occurred in a gun-free zone. But Kelly was relying on a study sponsored by anti-gun advocate Michael Bloomberg that based its numbers on whether newspaper articles mentioned if a shooting occurred in a gun-free zone. That isn’t very useful. The media haven’t cared about this fact. Determining a more precise number requires a lot more research.
What motivates mass public shootings is also quite different than gang fights, but Bloomberg’s study mixes the two together.
Since at least 1950, all but two public mass shootings in America have taken place where general citizens are banned from carrying guns. In Europe, there have been no exceptions. Every mass public shooting has occurred in a gun-free zone. And Europe is no stranger to mass shootings. It has been host to three of the six worst K-12 school shootings and by far the worst mass public shooting perpetrated by a single individual.
Still, Kelly said, “There’s no indication from other — from another study that any shooter intentionally went to a gun-free zone.”
Kelly might be surprised to learn that killers have frequently talked about their desire to attack where guns are banned. The suspect in the Charleston, S.C., shootings in June originally aimed to attack the College of Charleston. He chose a church instead because the college had armed guards.
The diary of the Batman movie theater killer, James Holmes, was finally released just a few months ago. He decided against attacking an airport because of the “substantial security.” Out of seven theaters showing the Batman movie premiere within 20 minutes of the suspect’s apartment in 2012, only one banned permitted concealed handguns. That’s the one he attacked.
Or take a couple of cases from last year. Elliot Rodger, who fatally shot three people in Santa Barbara, Calif., explained his reasoning in his 141-page “manifesto.” He ruled out various targets because he worried that someone with a gun would cut short his killing spree. Justin Bourque shot to death three people in Canada. His Facebook page made fun of gun bans, with pictures of defenseless victims explaining to killers that guns are prohibited.
Americans seem to understand these points. A June Rasmussen Reports survey found that 68 percent feel safer in neighborhoods where guns are allowed, while just 22 percent would feel less safe. A Gallup poll last December found by a whopping 63 to 30 percent margin that Americans thought guns in their homes made them safer.
If you don’t think deterrence works, ask yourself if you would post a sign in front of your home saying it is a “gun-free zone.” It’s very likely that such signs aren’t going to be going up in any neighborhoods soon.
John R. Lott Jr. is the president of the Crime Prevention Research Center and the author of “More Guns, Less Crime.” johnrlott@crimeresearch.org

Read more at http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/t...2IeW3Mi6sXs.99

You mentioned the numbers of "gun free" zones that are working....how about the MILLIONS of CCW holders that are working as well. They are not having shoot outs in the streets. They are not accidently shooting their co-workers. They are not killing their children. They are just prepared to protect themselves and others from violence. Why don't you mention them? Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

I fully support CCW holders. I do not look for them to protect ME but I fully support their decisions to protect themselves. I certainly wish we didn't live in a country where people think it necessary to be armed, but we do and I support them.

This is not the place for political disputes.
Shut the fuck up and hobby!!! Lol

This is not the place for political disputes.
Shut the fuck up and hobby!!! Lol Originally Posted by Natasha Love

Actually, this is precisely the place for a political discussion. Business down?

Wow! Talk about coincidence. Another train hero is stabbed. Jihad?

http://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2015/...cal-condition/

Then you have shit like this....
A shoplifter at a Home Depot in Detroit came running out with a cart full of stolen goods, threw it into a SUV and was leaving, when a crazy bitch pulled her CC and started firing at the SUV. Unknown if she will face charges for discharging her weapon in a parking lot.

Then you have shit like this....
A shoplifter at a Home Depot in Detroit came running out with a cart full of stolen goods, threw it into a SUV and was leaving, when a crazy bitch pulled her CC and started firing at the SUV. Unknown if she will face charges for discharging her weapon in a parking lot. Originally Posted by i'va biggen

Actually the story said that she would be charged and 9 million other CCW people did not shoot their firearm that same day.

You mentioned the numbers of "gun free" zones that are working....how about the MILLIONS of CCW holders that are working as well. They are not having shoot outs in the streets. They are not accidently shooting their co-workers. They are not killing their children. They are just prepared to protect themselves and others from violence. Why don't you mention them?

You keep trying to spread that lie like it was cream cheese on a bagel but it's just not true. The diary of James Holmes says that he scouted several theatres and chose the one with the sign saying "Gun Free Zone". That's one that disproves your theory. Anything else is icing on the cake. Try this:

By John R. Lott Jr.

Posted: Wednesday, October 7, 2015, 5:33 PM

image: http://media.philly.com/designimages/partnerIcon-Inquirer-2014.jpg


There has been another horrible crime committed and once again it is followed by calls for so-called universal background checks on private transfers of guns.
Hillary Clinton vows, if she becomes president, to use executive action to enact such rules. She is angry that Republicans “refuse to do anything” about mass shootings.
But gun-control advocates face a couple of problems.
First, the law that President Obama and other Democrats keep pushing wouldn’t have stopped Thursday’s shooting at Umpqua Community College in Oregon, where expanded background checks have been in place since August. It wouldn’t have stopped any of the other mass public shootings during Obama’s presidency.


Second, virtually all mass public shootings take place in gun-free zones, and Thursday’s attack was no exception. If the media more regularly reported when a shooting occurs in a gun-free zone, more people would realize that gun-control laws don’t deter criminals who are looking for select targets where people can’t fight back. More Americans would come to feel that gun ownership makes them safer.
Oregon law does allow permitted concealed handguns on school property. The New York Times, Media Matters, and others have been quick to pounce on this fact. What has been ignored, however, is that public educators in Oregon have undermined the law by putting bans in faculty and student handbooks. In other words, a de facto gun free zone.
There may be no criminal sanctions for violating the ban, but faculty face termination and students risk expulsion. Those are life-altering penalties. Faculty members undoubtedly won’t get another academic job if they committed a firearms violation. Expelled students are very unlikely to be admitted into another college.
Although Umpqua can theoretically provide written exemptions for the bans, school president Rita Calvin wouldn’t even let the college’s security guards carry guns.
Only people unaffiliated with the college can carry on campus. But even they are subject to a 2011 Oregon appeals court decision that allowed schools to ban guns in their buildings.
What all these rules mean is that no potential victims — students, faculty, or those unaffiliated with the college — were able to defend themselves in the classroom where the attack occurred.
Some point to the one student, a veteran, who news reports noted still carried his gun despite the college’s warnings, as evidence that the school wasn’t a gun-free zone. Unfortunately, he was far removed from the attack.
Mark Kelly, founder of the gun-control group Americans for Responsible Solutions, was asked on CNN last Sunday about the Oregon college being a gun-free zone that “might attract bad guys.”
Kelly claimed that less than 15 percent of mass shootings have occurred in a gun-free zone. But Kelly was relying on a study sponsored by anti-gun advocate Michael Bloomberg that based its numbers on whether newspaper articles mentioned if a shooting occurred in a gun-free zone. That isn’t very useful. The media haven’t cared about this fact. Determining a more precise number requires a lot more research.
What motivates mass public shootings is also quite different than gang fights, but Bloomberg’s study mixes the two together.
Since at least 1950, all but two public mass shootings in America have taken place where general citizens are banned from carrying guns. In Europe, there have been no exceptions. Every mass public shooting has occurred in a gun-free zone. And Europe is no stranger to mass shootings. It has been host to three of the six worst K-12 school shootings and by far the worst mass public shooting perpetrated by a single individual.
Still, Kelly said, “There’s no indication from other — from another study that any shooter intentionally went to a gun-free zone.”
Kelly might be surprised to learn that killers have frequently talked about their desire to attack where guns are banned. The suspect in the Charleston, S.C., shootings in June originally aimed to attack the College of Charleston. He chose a church instead because the college had armed guards.
The diary of the Batman movie theater killer, James Holmes, was finally released just a few months ago. He decided against attacking an airport because of the “substantial security.” Out of seven theaters showing the Batman movie premiere within 20 minutes of the suspect’s apartment in 2012, only one banned permitted concealed handguns. That’s the one he attacked.
Or take a couple of cases from last year. Elliot Rodger, who fatally shot three people in Santa Barbara, Calif., explained his reasoning in his 141-page “manifesto.” He ruled out various targets because he worried that someone with a gun would cut short his killing spree. Justin Bourque shot to death three people in Canada. His Facebook page made fun of gun bans, with pictures of defenseless victims explaining to killers that guns are prohibited.
Americans seem to understand these points. A June Rasmussen Reports survey found that 68 percent feel safer in neighborhoods where guns are allowed, while just 22 percent would feel less safe. A Gallup poll last December found by a whopping 63 to 30 percent margin that Americans thought guns in their homes made them safer.
If you don’t think deterrence works, ask yourself if you would post a sign in front of your home saying it is a “gun-free zone.” It’s very likely that such signs aren’t going to be going up in any neighborhoods soon.
John R. Lott Jr. is the president of the Crime Prevention Research Center and the author of “More Guns, Less Crime.” johnrlott@crimeresearch.org

Read more at http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/t...2IeW3Mi6sXs.99 Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

I would accept any "proof" you have EXCEPT something written by John Lott. Pretty much everything he has published or said has been universally discredited.

I will restrict my comments to James Holmes. I used this source for the diaries of the guy since they were the most legible.

http://www.esquire.com/news-politics...olmes-journal/

According to the diary Holmes had 2 venues in mind -- an airport and a movie theater. He PARTIALLY eliminated the airport due to security. The MAIN reason he dismissed the airport is that it was "too much of a terrorist history. Terrorism isn't the message."

No where can I find that Holmes state he chose the theater he did because it was a gun free zone. He narrowed his choice down to, according to the diary, those theaters that were "isolated, proximal, and large". The Century 16 Cineplex was the the closest theater to his home that filled those requirements. Once that decision was made, the diary clearly states that he narrowed down his specific theater down to theater 10 or 9. He wrote 2 entire pages in the diary on the pros and cons of why to choose one over the other. He finally decided that theater 9 met his needs. ABSOLUTELY NO MENTION OF THE THEATER BEING A GUN FREE ZONE BEING PART OF HIS DECISION MAKING PROCESS.

Regarding your last paragraph on various polls.

The question in the Rasmussen poll was, to me, very poorly worded.
"Would you feel safer moving to a neighborhood where nobody was allowed to own a gun or a neighborhood where you could have a gun for your own protection?"

Many would find it hard to say "No" to that question. I don't own a gun. I don't look to my neighbors who might have a gun to protect me. I would not feel safer or unsafer in either case. But I think most people would say "No" when asked that question. Do I feel safer going to a movie theater that allows or bans guns? Makes no difference to me.

I couldn't find the Gallup poll to which you were referring. However, I can cite several recent polls that show gun ownership within homes to be at there lowest level in many decades, such as:

"A General Social Survey, which has been tracking gun ownership in surveys since 1872, has found that 31 percent of households reported owning a gun in 2014, which is down from approximately half of households in the late 1970's and early 1980's."

So while both the Rasmussen and Gallup polls may be correct in their results, people are not doing what they are saying is best. 63% say guns make them safer in their homes but only 31% have guns in their homes. Do you think that criminals are looking at the drop in homes having handguns and planning their next crime? Doubtful there is high correlation between handgun ownership in the homes and crimes committed by people coming into the home to commit a crime.

Do you have a sign outside your home stating something like "I am heavily armed so come in at your own risk"?