Except several shootings have happened in areas that were not gun free zones. The Sikh Temple shooting in Milwaukee wasn't in a gun free zone, Umpqua Community College in Oregon wasn't (they allowed valid permit holders to carry guns), the Gabby Giffords' shooting didn't take place in a gun free zone (there was a CCL near the scene at the time who failed to stop the shooting), and the shooting at the PP in Colorado Springs started outside which wasn't a gun free zone. If we talk about terrorism the Garland, TX attempted attack took place in a non-gun free zone. As the article notes in the majority of shootings the main factor for location seems to be personal or ideological connection to the place, not whether it is a gun free zone or not.
The Community College in Oregon was actually a gun free zone, there were signs saying as much and it was against the student code of conduct. Either way, MOST shootings happen in gun free zones, and when the don't it can end disastrously for the shooters just like it did in Garland. What you need to note here is that it's not 100% gun free zones, but nearly all are soft targets and that's the point. Gun free zones are just one example of soft targets. All gun free zones are soft targets, but not all soft targets are gun free zones.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/umpqua-community-college-gun-free-zone_5626a0f4e4b02f6a900e519d [rquoter]Umpqua Community College does have policies prohibiting guns on campus, but they “would not apply to those with valid concealed weapon permits pursuant to Oregon law,” a college official told us.[/rquoter] In fact there was a CCL holder at Umpqua who didnt' respond because he was worried that LE might think he was the shooter. Your evidence for this? I've just posted several mass shootings that took place in places that weren't gun free zones. Further what is your counter evidence to the article that selection of targets has to do with personal or ideological connection as opposed to them being a gun free zone? Further while things ended well in Garland (note that was not done by an armed civilian but by armed security which are allowed in gun free zones). No one is claiming that a gun free zone is absolutely gun free as most people recognize the need for armed LE and security which are present in places like schools and shopping malls. What is the point of your argument then? What you say here basically counters the argument that shooters are specifically picking gun free zones when now you say it doesn't really matter.
If you don't realize that soft targets are generally picked, and why, there's not really anything I can do to help you. This really is a common sense sort of thing. A target that maybe has one or two security guards that doesn't allow guns is an awesome target......which was the case at that community college despite what they've said after the fact, their student handbook specifically prohibited it and suggested that you'd be subject to expulsion for carrying on campus....but that really doesn't matter when talking about the overall picture. As to the gunmen having some sort of attachment or relationship with the area they attack....well no kidding, of course they are, but those are going to be soft targets that they have some kind of attachment to in almost every case. You don't attack Fort Knox when you are just looking to hurt people, it's much easier to knock over a community college with 2 rent a cops or a movie theater that has no armed guards and doesn't allow guns. Put yourself into the shoes of a terrorist or other person that wants to harm others, are you really going to be stupid enough to attack a target that might shut your attack down in seconds? Of course not, you are going to attack an area that you think gives you the most amount of time to do your thing so you can end things on your own terms. All it takes is a little bit of logic and you'll figure it out.
For those wondering here is the link about the armed student at Umpqua Community College: http://www.arktimes.com/ArkansasBlo...-weapon-explains-why-he-didnt-shoot-in-umpqua [rquoter]A veteran who says he was carrying a concealed weapon on the UCC campus Thursday when 26-year-old Christopher Harper Mercer went on a murderous rampage, says he didn’t intervene because he knew police SWAT team members wouldn’t know him from the shooter. In an interview with MSNBC, vet John Parker said he knows lots of students who conceal carry at the school because, despite a school policy that discourages weapons on campus, Oregon state law does allow it. ...Parker explained that his military training provided him with the skills to “go into danger,” but said he felt lucky he and others didn’t try to get involved going after Mercer. “Luckily we made the choice not to get involved,” he explained. “We were quite a distance away from the building where this was happening. And we could have opened ourselves up to be potential targets ourselves, and not knowing where SWAT was, their response time, they wouldn’t know who we were. And if we had our guns ready to shoot, they could think that we were bad guys.”[/rquoter]
That's great considering I'm providing evidence and you're providing speculation. Except as I just posted there was at least one armed student on campus. Except the evidence argues against your logic.
Fair enough, I can't help you then. Feel free to live your life in ignorance. Maybe one day you'll take the time to think it out and realize that you were wrong, maybe not. Doesn't really matter though. I prefer to spend time on those who have some hope of seeing the light.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">For first time in 20 yrs of <a href="https://twitter.com/nytimes">@nytimes</a> poll, a majority of Americans opposes ban on assault weapons <a href="https://t.co/xosjHoDNTi">pic.twitter.com/xosjHoDNTi</a></p>— Patrick J. Egan (@Patrick_J_Egan) <a href="https://twitter.com/Patrick_J_Egan/status/675127990620131329">December 11, 2015</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
The fact that Donald Trump is a leading candidate for President just exemplifies the 'dummification' of America. I forsee President Camacho in 2024. Actually President Camacho didn't seem much like a bigot. BTW, you can thank the NRA propaganda machine for that trend(referring to the chart).
I'm a gun owner so not sure where that came from. Where are the studies, lol? Bobbytheblowhard claimed he was quoting studies. This isn't hard.
Asking you to cite the "studies" you claim as a basis for your assertions makes me lazy? Wow, you're an idiot. Not providing a cite means, functionally, there is no study. You've merely made an assertion with zero backing. I'm pretty sure I had it right the first time, you made it up or its from an nra hack so you don't want to quote it. Lame. And in the only comprehensive study done on the assault weapons ban, the share of crimes involving assault weapons declined about 17%. Great example of a policy moving the needle. Not a fairy dust 100% solution, but one with zero downside. Correcting Myths About the Assault Weapons Ban Research: http://www.urban.org/urban-wire/correcting-myths-about-assault-weapons-ban-research via @urbaninstitute} In other news: The Assault Weapons Ban the NRA Couldn't Stop http://rol.st/1mb9RT7 via @rollingstone
PRES. OBAMA TO EXPAND BACKGROUND CHECKS FOR GUNS, INCREASE FUNDING FOR MENTAL HEALTH Spoiler <blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Each year, more than 30,000 American lives are cut short by guns - two-thirds coming from suicides. Too many Americans have lost loved ones.</p>— President Obama (@POTUS) <a href="https://twitter.com/POTUS/status/684153926636015616">January 4, 2016</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script> <blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Guns now kill as many people as cars in almost half of the U.S. We can't stop every act of violence, but we can save lives if we act.</p>— President Obama (@POTUS) <a href="https://twitter.com/POTUS/status/684154637436370944">January 4, 2016</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script> <blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-conversation="none" lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Tomorrow, I'm taking action to reduce gun violence and save lives - protecting the Second Amendment and our kids. <a href="https://t.co/vNqXEhaC9M">pic.twitter.com/vNqXEhaC9M</a></p>— President Obama (@POTUS) <a href="https://twitter.com/POTUS/status/684155537433309184">January 4, 2016</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script> <blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">We will keep guns out of the wrong hands, enforce our guns laws, and ensure those with serious mental illnesses get treatment.</p>— President Obama (@POTUS) <a href="https://twitter.com/POTUS/status/684156422179786752">January 4, 2016</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script> <blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-conversation="none" lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">What's often ignored in this debate is that a majority of gun owners agree with commonsense steps to save lives.</p>— President Obama (@POTUS) <a href="https://twitter.com/POTUS/status/684157715837403136">January 4, 2016</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script> <blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-conversation="none" lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">The gun lobby may be holding Congress hostage, but they can't hold America hostage. We can't accept this carnage in our communities.</p>— President Obama (@POTUS) <a href="https://twitter.com/POTUS/status/684158987185614849">January 4, 2016</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
It'll be interesting to see what the details look like when they are announced and how quickly they'll be challenged in court. Until we know exactly what he's proposing, it's impossible to say if I support or oppose his measures.
I cant imagine any gun policy where I wouldn't want Congress voting on it. Why would anyone want this kind of thing decreed instead of being voted on by our legislative body?
Yeah I can see that point but right now I'm not even sure exactly what is being done. Anything serious and sure, I would think it would have to go through Congress but if it's just really simple stuff, he can probably get away with it.
Potus has asked for congresses help with this if they continue to sit on there butts and do nothing he should go ahead and do what needs to be done.
That's not how it works. The POTUS doesn't dictate legislation, that's the job of the congress....if he's worked to get a good relationship with congress, they might listen to him but that hasn't been his bag. Now again, I don't know what he's actually tried to do with these executive orders so I can't say that he overstepped his authority, but given his previous actions, it wouldn't be surprising if that ended up being the case.
Holy **** dude, do you really think that the current administration could have done anything to "get a good relationship" with the current legislature? That's sisyphus-type work.
Absolutely. Clinton managed to have a good relationship with the congress that impeached him. It was just never a priority for this president to get a good relationship with congress, he just wanted to tell them what to do and have them comply. That's not how it works if you want a good relationship with congress, you have to be willing to compromise and you have to realize that you can't dictate their agenda.
