Lets find out where we all stand.

. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

You are still an IDIOT. What we don't know is how many lives have been SAVED by having gun free zones. It is VERY easy to point out when gun free zones fail. My office, and all the offices owned by my company, a number in the hundreds, is a gun free zone. Nobody ever killed inside one of the buildings. Were it not a gun free zone, how would you like to fire an employee you know might be carrying a handgun? Should my company change its rules and allow handguns in their buildings just to see if allowing handguns is safer than perfection?

Poll looks rather skewed to the side of controls, doesn't it. Especially when you consider the number of open carry, arm the school kids idiots who regularly post here.

I guess maybe JDIdiot is WRONG for a change.

I've decided to do a video project. I am going to load a pistol, cock it, and place it on a table. For five years I will film it doing nothing until I come back and fire it. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Or until some little kid comes to your house and finds it and kills them self or someone else. You sound like someone who needs to learn gun safety. You are not a responsible gun owner.

Or until some little kid comes to your house and finds it and kills them self or someone else. You sound like someone who needs to learn gun safety. You are not a responsible gun owner. Originally Posted by cowboyinjungle

He's a total idiot!

What kind of asshole would make such an announcement?

Hopefully LE can find this dipshit and stop him before "his gun" kills someone.

You are still an IDIOT. What we don't know is how many lives have been SAVED by having gun free zones. It is VERY easy to point out when gun free zones fail. My office, and all the offices owned by my company, a number in the hundreds, is a gun free zone. Nobody ever killed inside one of the buildings. Were it not a gun free zone, how would you like to fire an employee you know might be carrying a handgun? Should my company change its rules and allow handguns in their buildings just to see if allowing handguns is safer than perfection? Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

You can remain the idiot hiding under your bed, sucking on your thumb while you quake in fear, Speedy, but it happened:

Armed Doctor Saved Lives in Hospital Shooting Near Philadelphia, Police Chief Says

"Without that firearm, this guy [the patient] could have went out in the hallway and just walked down the offices until he ran out of ammunition," the chief said. http://www.people.com/article/armed-...pital-shooting

Silverman worked in a gun-free hospital http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2014/07...-is-born-video

A doctor dared to defy rules set by pansy-assed, lib-retarded jackasses like you, Speedy, and doing so saved his life and -- according to LE -- the lives of several others!


BTW, Speedy, this one will really leave you quaking in your sneakers while you pee in your diaper:

Judge says Washington's ban on handguns in public is unconstitutional
By Jethro Mullen and Joe Sutton, CNN updated 7:29 AM EDT, Sun July 27, 2014

In a ruling made public Saturday, Judge Frederick J. Scullin Jr. said that "there is no longer any basis on which this court can conclude that the District of Columbia's total ban on the public carrying of ready-to-use handguns is constitutional under any level of scrutiny.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/07/27/justic...ing/index.html

Or until some little kid comes to your house and finds it and kills them self or someone else. You sound like someone who needs to learn gun safety. You are not a responsible gun owner. Originally Posted by cowboyinjungle

sar·casm

/ˈsɑrkæzəm/ Show Spelled [sahr-kaz-uhm] Show IPA
noun 1. harsh or bitter derision or irony.

2. a sharply ironical taunt; sneering or cutting remark: a review full of sarcasms.





You need to crack a dictionary.

Lets examine that "gun free zone" logic. You say that "gun free zones" save lives but you can't prove it other than the fact that no one was shot inside one (that has been disproven already). Compare that to the "non gun free zones" and the fact that they don't have anyone shot inside of them. Ever hear of a shooting at a gun show? I haven't other than the very rare accidental discharge but that's not what we're talking about it, is it? We're talking about someone so angry, so deranged, so contemptous of rules that they bring a firearm (I guess we've eliminated knives, swords, and baseball bats) to a place with the intent of causing great bodily harm. I can name a number of places that are considered "gun free zones" where that has happened. That is proof positive of the failure of your system. You want to show that a negative event occurred because of those rules but you have to show that such an event was stopped by those rules and that you can't do. A negative does not prove a positive ever. You're going to have to demonstrate that a person intent of killing someone (which is a serious crime in Kansas) was stopped by a sign that said "gun free zone" or "no guns allowed". You can't do it. The opposite can be demonstrated. Gun shows, police stations, shooting ranges, reenactor outings....every place you can expect to find guns in abundance have had little or no firearm violence. So it can't be the signage, it has to be the people.

Sign outside Highway Patrol office shows no guns to be carried in. I will give 8-1 odds the officers inside are carrying.

You can remain the idiot hiding under your bed, sucking on your thumb while you quake in fear, Speedy, but it happened:


A doctor dared to defy rules set by pansy-assed, lib-retarded jackasses like you, Speedy, and doing so saved his life and -- according to LE -- the lives of several others!


BTW, Speedy, this one will really leave you quaking in your sneakers while you pee in your diaper:

Judge says Washington's ban on handguns in public is unconstitutional
By Jethro Mullen and Joe Sutton, CNN updated 7:29 AM EDT, Sun July 27, 2014

In a ruling made public Saturday, Judge Frederick J. Scullin Jr. said that "there is no longer any basis on which this court can conclude that the District of Columbia's total ban on the public carrying of ready-to-use handguns is constitutional under any level of scrutiny.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/07/27/justic...ing/index.html

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

\
You are still an IDIOT. Anytime you want to meet face-to-face and see who turns into the quivering coward, I am ready. You talk big but you are a pussy.

Lets examine that "gun free zone" logic. You say that "gun free zones" save lives but you can't prove it other than the fact that no one was shot inside one (that has been disproven already). Compare that to the "non gun free zones" and the fact that they don't have anyone shot inside of them. Ever hear of a shooting at a gun show? I haven't other than the very rare accidental discharge but that's not what we're talking about it, is it? We're talking about someone so angry, so deranged, so contemptous of rules that they bring a firearm (I guess we've eliminated knives, swords, and baseball bats) to a place with the intent of causing great bodily harm. I can name a number of places that are considered "gun free zones" where that has happened. That is proof positive of the failure of your system. You want to show that a negative event occurred because of those rules but you have to show that such an event was stopped by those rules and that you can't do. A negative does not prove a positive ever. You're going to have to demonstrate that a person intent of killing someone (which is a serious crime in Kansas) was stopped by a sign that said "gun free zone" or "no guns allowed". You can't do it. The opposite can be demonstrated. Gun shows, police stations, shooting ranges, reenactor outings....every place you can expect to find guns in abundance have had little or no firearm violence. So it can't be the signage, it has to be the people. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Who is going to rob a gun show? I've said it before, a comment to which you've NEVER responded -- most criminals rob people on a 1-on-1 confrontation, at most a 1-on-2. They don't go into a mass of people and attempt to rob someone. They go where there is the best chance to make a score and get away. Not a gun show, not a concert, not a sporting event, etc. Has absolutely NOTHING to do with the fact there are armed people at the gun show. It has EVERYTHING to do with being able to get away with what they want.

Do you have any statistics about how many of the approximately 8,500 homicides in 2013 occurred in gun free zones?

In 2013, there were a total of 5 mass public killings (defined as 4 or more killed) in the U.S. resulting in 31 deaths. 12 of the dead were shot in the Washington, D.C. Naval Yard shooting. Another 4 were on a college campus -- no idea if the shootings were in a gun free zone on campus, but even if they were, we're talking about 16 people killed in gun free zones out of 8,500 in calendar year 2013.

Source: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/n...a-map/2820423/

You are focusing on a MINOR problem -- whether or not gun free zones work.
2/10ths of 1 per cent of the killings in 2013 were in gun free zones. Focus on the big picture. How to cut down on the 8,500 or more total homicides each year in the U.S.

In the last thread on the subject, I cited an article as to why people who have committed the mass murders in gun free zones in all likelihood chose that specific location. Go back and read the article. Had absolutely nothing to do with the fact that the location was gun free.

You are correct that I can't prove that gun free zones work other than there are 10s of thousands of them across the U.S. (schools, universities, work buildings, banks, homes) and on VERY rare occasions a killing or killings occur in such places and gun advocates LEAP at the opportunity to propagandize the event telling everyone that gun free zones do not work.

I'm picking # 4. Anyone diagnosed with metal problems or that had to be put under 72 hour watch for a suicide attempt, felons, and violent misdemeanor offenders can go stab themselves and each other.

Also kids (under 18) shouldn't carry handguns. Hunting trips are fine but if you take your child boar hunting I'd like to slap you. It is way too dangerous for kids.

So, even on this right-leaning forum, 83% want the status quo or more restrictive (and the majority of those want slightly more restrictive). Too bad it is so difficult on here to have some sane discussion about what that should be. There have been a few good thoughts on a number of different posts, but most the posts seem to quickly degenerate into absolutism and insults (sadly, that is not a surprise).

So, even on this right-leaning forum, 83% want the status quo or more restrictive (and the majority of those want slightly more restrictive). Too bad it is so difficult on here to have some sane discussion about what that should be. There have been a few good thoughts on a number of different posts, but most the posts seem to quickly degenerate into absolutism and insults (sadly, that is not a surprise). Originally Posted by Old-T

I hear that!!

sar·casm

/ˈsɑrkæzəm/ Show Spelled [sahr-kaz-uhm] Show IPA
noun 1. harsh or bitter derision or irony.

2. a sharply ironical taunt; sneering or cutting remark: a review full of sarcasms.





You need to crack a dictionary. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Oh, I now understand. And here I thought all of your posts where just you being a dumbass. It just turns out you think you are witty, but your not. It does explain a lot of your post though. By the way is that Webster's definition?

This is an interesting video. Some of you will learn from it. Massad Ayoob is a very well known Fire Arms instructor who specializes in teaching classes and trains Law Enforcement as well as civilians in the art of Fire Fighting in simple terms how to keep from getting your ass killed if in an armed encounter. In this video he explains the basics of Law in terms of the use of deadly force.

Jim


http://youtu.be/m7sbHfBg92w