I've noticed that the Conservatives on my Facebook feed are particularly prone to spreading these stories without any sort of verification. Most recently a story about how left-handed people will be elidgible for disability benefits starting Feb. 1st was shared by multiple people. It's like people, when they believe something to be true, they look all over the place for anything that supports it.
I'm guilty of this, too, but I do wonder why after the miracle of Google we don't aim to verify more.
. I've been hearing about it for (at least) the last 20 years and it's still not in widespread use. Sometimes technologies just don't catch on.
Nah. The issue is that the technologies haven't caught up. The reason this round has more traction than the one back in the 90's is the tracking and the displays have gotten significantly better. This could be fad, it could fade out, but people will still want it. So a few years later a new innovation in technology will raise it all over again. This will keep happening until the right ingredients come along to make it a hit. Just like what happened with mobile phones, PDAs (smart phones to all you youngsters out there), and now smartwatches.
Here's a fun fact: We'll see more talk about 3D TVs in the years to come. Not because people just like to babble about it, but because we do see in stereo. It'll never go away. We'll always want volumetric imaging, commonly referred to around here as holograms. We'll always want voice control of our appliances. It's a matter of technology, not a flaw in the premise.
I can tell you that this bug hit my wife's phone yesterday. I turned Search Suggestions off and now everything's fine. I can tell you I've witnessed it, but I have no idea how widespread it is. I am going to turn off that feature on my phone for now.
What bugs me is that I don't run an ad-blocker because ads exist, I run it because they're abusive. For example, a couple of sites I like to visit started breaking up their articles into smaller and smaller pieces. I ran across more than a few that actually wanted 42 clicks for 10 individual pieces of content. (btw that approach hurts ad-services, they're inflated ad-views...). Since you cannot detect what I don't do, ie avoiding certain sites, my only effective avenue of protest is to actively block the ads. The upside for the Ad-Czar is now they're finally understanding just how valuable my contribution really is. That information is vital to avoiding another ad-bubble.
So, yeah. AFTER THE FACT, the college clarified that they legally could not do anything about concealed permits, even though they wanted to.
After the fact, being 3 years before the shooting.
So, if YOU were a student there and without the benefit of hindsight, what would YOU think about the policy there.
If I were the shooter at that college with the same interest in guns that he had who felt that an actual enforced gun policy is all that's standing in the way of me killing anybody, even though in those circumstances I'd be willing to die myself so it really doesn't matter, I'd full well be aware that there were armed students on campus. At best I would have followed it as it happened in 2012-2013, at worst I would have looked it up and found it rather easily. I'd also probably have my fellow gun-loving friends to trade notes with on the topic.
Also, some of those shootings that you listed were apparently WERE gun free zones. According to this site, the Hartford and Accent Signage ones were gun free zones.
I looked up Accent Signage to find out if it's gun-free or not and I could not verify whether or not it was actually gun-free. The only claim I could find to it is a site that describes these zones as "Victim Rich Zones", clearly demonstrating their biases. Amusingly I could only find 14 entries on that site and the Oregon College is not among them! I'm not a fan of the source, not sure why you are.
The Modesto shooting was at a PARTY with ALCOHOL. Responsible gun owners do not carry guns while drinking...
HAHAHA, right. Do you really think that shooter would describe himself as responsible? "Me? Nah, I drink while shooting!" In any event, it doesn't matter. An irresponsible gun owner is still a gun owner, and that person is ruining your rights for you.
Wow, you are reaching again. How have I shown that?
It's in one of your early posts in this thread. If you're retracting that statement I'll accept it.
All of those mass shooting, the criminal manages to hit his target...
Umm, no, they don't. In fact this is in direct conflict with your assertion that these shooters go after weak targets. If they're attacking places solely based on lack of resistance, then they don't have 'targets', they have a count. Certainly they're not reaching the count they intend to.
Yeah, morons like Justin Timberlake and Beyonce? I would not trust them on gun policy.
Nah, instead you're trusting a moron that convinced you that the signs came before the shootings and gave you the impression that you have any idea what motivates these shooters.
Anyway, here's a few more:
Ten people killed in Geneva County in 2009. Five killed at Atlantis Plastics in Kentucky, 2008. Eight killed at Westroads Mall in Nebraska, 2007. Five killed at a Salt Lake City Mall in 2007. Six killed at a rave in Seattle 2006. Four killed at a Damage Plan concert in 2004. (Admittedly I'm not sure if concerts are 'gun-free', some have metal detectors out front.) Six killed at Lockheed Martin in Mississippi, 2003.
Redell, Oct. 19: The student misconduct policy regarding firearms does not apply to students with a valid concealed weapons permit. There is a general prohibition against the possession of weapons on campus that would apply to College patrons, but this, similarly would not apply to those with valid concealed weapon permits pursuant to Oregon law (ORS 166.170).
Oh and there was a student that went on camera saying he was armed that day, he's still a student there.
Well, *IF* your statement is true, despite evidence to the contrary, you are up to ONE shooting not in a "gun free" zone.
Heh. Two actually, you're intentionally ignoring one I mention, not sure why. Given how hard it's been to get you to read even that It's not suprising you haven't heard of more. There was the Hartford Distributors shooting in 2010, 9 dead. 8 shot, 1 killed in Modesto over the summer. Six killed, 2 injured at Accent Signage Systems in Minneapolis 2012. Six killed one injured in a Seattle Cafe in 2012. Four killed in a spa in Atlanta, 2012. Four killed at an IHOP in Nevada 2011. Four cops killed in a coffee shop in Washington 2009, here they opened fire on clearly armed people. Eight killed in a nursing home in North Carolina, 2009.
Sorry I'm bored with writing these up.
Movie Theaters. Columbine high school, Sandy Hook Elementary, Virginia Tech, Churches in S. Carolina. Military recruiting offices. Yeah, all of those were gun free zones.
With one possible exception they all had a connection to the shooter, important detail in this topic.
...rather than have somebody in the same room be armed and take a chance of stopping the bad guy?
Yes, history... and YOU.. have shown that guns rarely hit their mark. More shots don't make me safer.
Once again, whom do I believe? Facts, or your opinion?
You wouldn't accept two shootings in a non-gun-free-zone as a rebuttal, so I assume you'll believe the morons you listen to on the radio.
If I can prove what you say is false with 10 seconds of Googling, you aren't doing it right.
Not only am I doing it right, but it's really dumb of you to have such a strong opinion on something if you won't even bother to educate yourself on it. Armed ignorance... lovely.
You didn't answer my question about how you'd feel if I let your kids use a drill-press, you answered an imaginary question of if you'd ever let me hang out with them. You're dodging, presumably because you know it's a good point.
Once again, LYING. The student who carried a weapon could get expelled for carrying. This is in their rules.
Nope. They tried it and were sued in 2013... and they lost. They cannot supercede Oregon law, all they can do is politely ask that nobody bring their guns.
Hey, I'll give you credit, you taught me something. I thought the Post Office became gun-free in 93 when schools did, but as near as i can tell it was back in the 70's. Okie doke, you can have that.
So, you would rather take a CHANCE at getting accidentally hit rather than a CERTAINTY of taking a bullet to the head.
According to you: Guns are safe because they don't actually hurt anybody. Anyway, I'd rather wait for police to arrive than have a numbnut who think he's John McClane adding more bullets to the mix. Your fantasies about how heroism works are based on what Hollywood has shown you, not reality.
You apparently do not know what "logic" means. Please explain that one.
Thank you for confirming that your logic doesn't make sense.
Now, I am still waiting for you to list the mass shootings in the last 20 years that are NOT in gun free zones.
I did.
And, no, just saying that a place is gun free does not make it so when I can produce firm evidence to the contrary.
I don't understand this sentence.
Anyways, this has been fun, but I am getting tired of refuting lies.
Apparently when you're misinformed anybody who disagree with you is 'lying'. I bet I know talk show on the radio you listen to. Mega-dittos, man.
Yes, I did. I did not answer the way you wanted...
That is correct. Instead of answering the question I asked, you answered a question I did not ask. And you are continuing to dodge.
Yeah. He broke the rules.
No, he didn't. The college can frown on it all they like but he did not break any rules.
Yes. Stupid people think that a person who is willing to commit murder will actually obey a sign.
So, no, you don't understand how those signs came into being.
Now, I will ask you ONCE AGAIN... which mass shooting in the last 20 years have NOT been in a "gun free" zone. I am expecting a dodge again.
Oregon Community College. Postal shootings. I don't know why these keep falling out of your head. Since you want more: Planned Parenthood in Texas. The shooting in Arizona that Gabriel Giffords miraculously survived. And so on. Again, most places of business actually ban guns anyway so by your definition everywhere is fair game.
When a mass shooter attacks unarmed victims, it ends badly 100% of the time. Even your supposed 15% of the time is much better than 0% of the time.
Not really. It means more shots fired, broader group of potential victims, and confusion about who the police shoot.
Sorry, but we have seen repeatedly the consequences of gun free zones. It is stupid to think that the answer is more gun free zones.
Going by that logic you can avoid having an unwanted child by not purchasing a mini-van.
Yeah, we learned that at Columbine, Sandy Hook, and Virginia tech. Those "no guns allowed" sign really worked. I can believe you, or I can believe reality.
Ah, reality. Here's reality: Columbine, Virginia Tech, and the school up in Oregon were shot up by actual students attending there. The sign did not attract them. In fact the student that shot up the Oregon school was aware of the local conceal carry laws and knew there were likely armed students around him, that did not deter him. Again, you have your cause and effect reversed about where these signs came from.
You're not choosing reality, you're cherry-picking what you want to hear. I'm just not sure if that's out of laziness or passion about owning guns.
If you are in doubt, I can provide a link to a video of the college president saying that no guns are allowed.
Go ahead, and I'll show you a link to an armed student that was there. He went on to say others were, too, and elected not to engage for fear of shooting innocent bystanders or becoming a target by the police.
So, once again, how many mass shootings in the last 20 years not in gun free zones?
Do you understand how gun-free zones came into being?
And YOU dodge.
Actually, unlike you, I did answer. "2) Let me guess, we should ban seat belts because you MIGHT get trapped in your car, and unable to flee if it catches on fire.""Nah..."
No, I am not eager. I hope it never happens. However, if forced to choose between a criminal or a family member dying, I am going to save my family.
You should have finished reading that paragraph.
More publicized, maybe. More in general? I don't think so.
But his victims shouldn't have guns? Yeah, makes sense. That worked out SO well in movie theaters, schools, and churches in S. Carolina. All had a "no guns" policy.
How would people with widely varying skills with firearms somehow end in less bloodshed? We already have statistics that show that, at best, the "Good guy with a gun" only works about 15% of the time. Meanwhile you're opening the door to problems like people rage shooting, accidental discharge, innocent victims, etc.
In fact a woman was shot in a theater just this last weekend. Was the problem that the shooter had a gun or that she wasn't armed?
We protect the President with guns. We protect our kids with plastic signs.
We've already learned that surrounding our kids with more guns doesn't make them safer. That's actually how we got into this in the first place. Remember when I said you got your cause and effect mixed up? Why do you think those signs suddenly appeared? I'll give you a hint: I wasn't from someone predicting the future.
He dodges! So why don't you want to answer my question?
Gun ownership is a right -- and a responsibility.
Thank you.
Well, putting meat in the freezer, shooting holes in paper targets, killing pests that threaten your crops and/or livestock.
Heh. Yeah this country is just chock-full of hunters protecting their farms.
OK. How many mass shootings can you name in the past 20 years that did NOT happen in gun free zones? Go ahead. I will wait...
Plenty actually, for example all of the postal rampages that happened in the 90's. But I am using your definition of 'gun-free-zone'. Most places of employment do not allow guns. If you don't believe me then try taking your gun to work tomorrow and see how many of your coworkers show you theirs.
More recently there was the community college in Oregon. But I'm not sure why we're talking about this since in nearly all those cases the shooter had ties to the location, as opposed to the 'randomly appeared and started blasting' theory that people like you seem to think.
Generally, from areas with looser gun laws and less crime.
Thank you for supporting my point.
You really think that Switzerland has the same level of violence as Venezuela? Wow. Just.... wow.
I didn't say that, perhaps this message was intended for someone else?
1) I am a danger to NOBODY, unless you break into my house or try to seriously hurt my family. If you don't want to be a victim of my gun, it is simple -- don't be a criminal.
You have a gun in your house. It can be stolen. It can be used by your kids. It can be used by you. Don't act like there's a non-zero risk introduced by your purchase of that weapon, You yourself alluded to how your ownership of that gun has the potential to end up in the inner-city.
2) Let me guess, we should ban seat belts because you MIGHT get trapped in your car, and unable to flee if it catches on fire.
Nah, but you should be pulled over if you're driving drunk. Fiery crashes aren't 100% preventable, but drunk driving is.
3) And wanting to take away my gun because I MIGHT hurt an intruder? What about the fact that the intruder MIGHT hurt me?
You want to have a gun so you can kill anybody the law will allow? Why are you so eager to shoot a living being?!?!?! If you find that to be a mis-characterization of your point, instead of hitting reply instead pause for a moment to let that sink in.
And the number of people dying goes DOWN every year.
Except mass shootings, which are going up rather dramatically. Which is why we're even having this conversation.
Plus, I have yet to actually hear a solution from you. All you propose are things that are unconstitutional and ineffective
I haven't proposed anything. What I have told you is I don't want to give up the second amendment. I'm starting to see why you're so confused by my points, you're not reading my comments in their entirety. You are right, however, that I don't have a solution. I also don't have a gun. You, however, are in danger of losing your rights, so I suggest you get to thinkin'.
Did I ever say "everybody have guns?" If so, show me where. I don't remember saying that. How much easier to attack people if you can invent things that they say.
Oohhhhh the irony of that statement, Mr. Venezuela, fiery seatbelts, and pool banishment. The difference is I have some grounding in what I said. You've expressed disgruntlement against existing gun laws, and you've expressed the desire to do whatever you want without anybody sticking their noses in. Unless you're proposing you get your own personal set o
Huh. I thought this conversation was over. Well, okay...
I have kids. That is why I keep a lock on my drill press, and I keep a lock on my guns.
And how would you react if I let your kids play with my drill press unsupervised?
Yes, and guns need to be LOCKED UP if you have kids in the house. Simple enough.
But but but shouldn't they have the freedom to choose whether they lock up their guns?
Guns are doing a remarkably bad job then, since for every gun used in a murder, over 30,000 guns hurt nobody.
So what are they being used for then, changing the channels on the TV?
What is uniform across the globe?
Violence in general.
Exclude the gang-related homicides that happen in high-poverty areas. With what is left, you are as safe here as pretty much anywhere in Europe. It is a sad fact that most of the violent crime is concentrated in a few areas.
Where are the guns in those areas coming from?
3) Avoid gun-free zones. This will keep you safe from mass shootings.
... I still cannot believe the wide-spread brain-damage people must have to believe this. Weird sort of confusion about cause and effect. You do know that guns are banned in most workplaces, right? If you don't believe me then try bringing yours to work tomorrow. If that logic actually prevailed we'd have a lot more 'postal' situations.
How, exactly?
How are you part of that group? By owning a gun. You're part of the reason other people want to own guns. Your ownership of that gun creates the potential to have it taken from you and misused, either by a criminal or possibly even someone in your own family. You could one day fire on an unarmed intruder. Or maybe you could be shot by a police officer coming to your rescue, not realizing you're not a bad guy because you're holding your gun in defense.
In what way is that wrong?
It's not wrong. What is wrong is too many people are dying. You're offering obstruction without a solution.
More gun laws is clear, simple, and wrong.
The "Let everybody have guns!" approach is simple, clear, and also wrong. But, hey, at least we'll get to repeat this again in a month or so when the next mass-shooting happens. Within a year or two it could even reach once-a-week! Aren't you looking forward to this endless debate?
No, I didn't. I asked about how you felt about giving chainsaws to toddlers. Next question: How would you feel about somebody handing a chainsaw to your child at say the age of 4?
You know that having a pool at your house greatly increases the chance of drowning, right?
Actually your pool is a lot less dangerous right now than it would have been if not for regulations about how it's constructed and maintained. By your own admission gun ownership requires a great deal of responsibility, even moreso than a pool since it's singular purpose is to kill. You're thriving in that world, not suffering from it. It's the same reason the fish you get at the supermarket doesn't land you in the hospital.
I am all for giving people as much freedom as they want, as long as they don't hurt anybody else. You are apparently for taking away somebody's freedom based on fear of what the MIGHT do.
What you're describing here is exactly the scenario in the drunk driving example. It is a crime enforced specifically to prevent harm from occurring. I'm pretty confident if gun ownership was suddenly a crime you wouldn't immediately go "welp, then I believe gun owners should be arrested!". Instead you'd be upset, and rightly so, at your rights being taken away.
And once again, comparing places with different levels of poverty, different languages, blah blah blah, means that things are DIFFERENT. You can't directly compare apples to oranges, as you always want to do.
Well you can and I cannot apparently. But it doesn't matter since it's roughly uniform across the globe. But you are correct that you can create a rant that doesn't make sense by intentionally misunderstanding the point being made. I humbly admit that I have no idea what bearing that has on our discussion.
Why is it asking too much to just be allowed to live my life the way that I see fit?
Because you're part of a group of people who have ruined it for everybody. Get that rate down and your freedoms will be preserved. Sit there with your arms crossed and you can expect the worst for you to happen.
Where were you when they were passing out common sense? You DO know that you have to be 18 to buy a rifle and 21 to buy a hand gun, right?
That's a weird response that doesn't answer my question in any meaningful way. "Look! There's a distraction!"
Did you know that some Olympic sports even use guns?
Are you training right now? Is the hope that you'll win a Gold Medal and that it's worth the increased risk to your loved ones?
Simple. Driving drunk is a crime. Convict the criminal. Making cars illegal isn't the solution. Making alcohol isn't the solution either. Ban the BEHAVIOR.
Actually drunk drivers are often arrested before they've caused any damage. By your logic their freedoms have been taken away. You're against that, right? They shouldn't be put in handcuffs until there's a collision, right?
The numbers HAVE been going down -- 50% since 1993. Once again, DUH!
They went down everywhere else at that rate as well, we're still way higher in the rankings. "DUH!"
Once again, different countries, different economy, different poverty levels, different social services, different cultural values, different mental health care system. But, yeah, you can ignore all those differences and instead focus on the ONE difference that you care about.
Heh. Yeah, Australia is great until it's used against you, then it's too different to use as a point of reference.
Yeah, criminals. Pretending that they don't exist won't make them go away.
Pretending you live in Robocop's "Old Detroit" doesn't put you or your family in a better position, either. Extremes suck. Sorry.
So, I assume that you also want background checks for chainsaws too.
Nope. Shall I assume you'd be okay with toddlers playing with chainsaws?
Sorry, but gun accidents are remarkably low given how common they are.
Heh. So if they were less common, there'd be less accidents, right?
I don't go around looking for a reason to interfere in the lives of others.
Nah, you've just armed yourself because you live in fear of others. In doing so you've increased the risk of you or a family member being seriously harmed.
This does make me curious about your views on the 'freedom of being allowed to drive drunk'.
Explain to me how a law could disarm criminals and not honest people.
This is part of the discussion we actually agree on. I don't have an answer to this question. What I do know is that the answer isn't: "Everything's just fine right now.", because it isn't. It's just easy to hide behind the words. You really should spend time finding an answer to that question for the simple reason that one day, one person too many will be shot, then your rights will be gone. I don't want to give up the second amendment either, but every incident we have here is more power to make that happen. You can bitch about what should or shouldn't happen until you're blue in the face, until the numbers go down you're going to perpetually have this problem.
The USA still showed better improvement WITHOUT taking away freedoms.
So our rate is now as low as Austalia's, right?
If it is your assertion that NOT having a gun makes you safer, then convince the FBI and police first. Once they give up all of their guns, I will do the same.
No. The bullet will be stopped by his head. No problem.
...
So, you want to control the behaviors of OTHERS based on the fact that they MIGHT hurt your feelings?
Oh I love this debate style. Here, I'll mimic it: "So you want to kill people who don't want to die by giving them too much easy access to dangerous equipment? Go back to your gun safe and clutch your penis extension until your aggressions die down. You will feel better after a while."
Anyway, let's detour back to the point, here...
The number of people WILLING to COMMIT violence is actually a pretty fixed number. For violence to happen, there also has to be a CRIMINAL! I would think that this would be common sense, but I guess not.
Common sense is knowing that opportunity is an element of crime. Actually, you said it yourself: " Yes, it will REDUCE, but not eliminate homicides." Your own common sense seems to be at odds with your agenda.
Did you know that guns are used to prevent or deter crime in close to a million incidents per year?
Did you know that most of those incidents involve the criminal having a gun in the first place? In fact, that's the reason you would prefer to have a gun over a knife or a baseball bat in your house.
By the way, did you know that homicide is down by 50% since 1993? You are safer now that you have ever been in your entire life. Quick! We need to do something to reverse this horrible trend.
It's down a lot further in many other places. Also the rate of decline is constant in those places too, meaning we have a lot of fully-preventable deaths happening in this country. Yes, we do need to do something about it. You've already demonstrated you feel this way, not sure why you're suddenly in denial about it.
Any neighbor of mine firing his gun in his place certainly is endangering me. Not only just by the travel of the bullet, but also by the fact that I am friends with my neighbor and it would hurt to find that he had used his gun in a weak moment. You overestimate how resolute suicide attempts are, it can happen just by a change in medication.
Oh and thank you for pointing out how much more effecitve guns are to knives, it spared me from having to explain to you why they are not even close to being equal in effectiveness. Now you're a big step closer to spotting the fallacy in your argument that violence is a fixed number and not connected with the capabilities of the weapon.
Do you think that a suicidal person, lacking a gun, will be too dumb to find other methods?
Actually many suicides are rather spur-of-the-moment. There have been countless tales of aborting a suicide through intervention, that's why suicide hotlines exist. Guns make an attempt far more opportunistic, that's one of the reasons they're linked with gun ownership.
Guns are banned, so suddenly there are NO gun murders, but instead 100 murderers with knives.
Would you feel just as comfortable protecting your home with a knife instead of a gun?
Slashdot Mirror
I've noticed that the Conservatives on my Facebook feed are particularly prone to spreading these stories without any sort of verification. Most recently a story about how left-handed people will be elidgible for disability benefits starting Feb. 1st was shared by multiple people. It's like people, when they believe something to be true, they look all over the place for anything that supports it.
I'm guilty of this, too, but I do wonder why after the miracle of Google we don't aim to verify more.
Servers outnumber personal computers...? Wha?
. I've been hearing about it for (at least) the last 20 years and it's still not in widespread use. Sometimes technologies just don't catch on.
Nah. The issue is that the technologies haven't caught up. The reason this round has more traction than the one back in the 90's is the tracking and the displays have gotten significantly better. This could be fad, it could fade out, but people will still want it. So a few years later a new innovation in technology will raise it all over again. This will keep happening until the right ingredients come along to make it a hit. Just like what happened with mobile phones, PDAs (smart phones to all you youngsters out there), and now smartwatches.
Here's a fun fact: We'll see more talk about 3D TVs in the years to come. Not because people just like to babble about it, but because we do see in stereo. It'll never go away. We'll always want volumetric imaging, commonly referred to around here as holograms. We'll always want voice control of our appliances. It's a matter of technology, not a flaw in the premise.
I don't have any friends and my contact list is empty.
Coincidentally you hate anything Social Media related with a passion.
Force vendors ...? It should force Google to design an OS that doesn't require vendor approval to get an update. Even Windows manages to do that!
I can tell you that this bug hit my wife's phone yesterday. I turned Search Suggestions off and now everything's fine. I can tell you I've witnessed it, but I have no idea how widespread it is. I am going to turn off that feature on my phone for now.
Yeah, no kidding. If this happens 99 more times then I might as well be using Windows!
What bugs me is that I don't run an ad-blocker because ads exist, I run it because they're abusive. For example, a couple of sites I like to visit started breaking up their articles into smaller and smaller pieces. I ran across more than a few that actually wanted 42 clicks for 10 individual pieces of content. (btw that approach hurts ad-services, they're inflated ad-views...). Since you cannot detect what I don't do, ie avoiding certain sites, my only effective avenue of protest is to actively block the ads. The upside for the Ad-Czar is now they're finally understanding just how valuable my contribution really is. That information is vital to avoiding another ad-bubble.
No no, 'console games' as in "games you want to play when you're finally bored with shooters".
So, yeah. AFTER THE FACT, the college clarified that they legally could not do anything about concealed permits, even though they wanted to.
After the fact, being 3 years before the shooting.
So, if YOU were a student there and without the benefit of hindsight, what would YOU think about the policy there.
If I were the shooter at that college with the same interest in guns that he had who felt that an actual enforced gun policy is all that's standing in the way of me killing anybody, even though in those circumstances I'd be willing to die myself so it really doesn't matter, I'd full well be aware that there were armed students on campus. At best I would have followed it as it happened in 2012-2013, at worst I would have looked it up and found it rather easily. I'd also probably have my fellow gun-loving friends to trade notes with on the topic.
Also, some of those shootings that you listed were apparently WERE gun free zones. According to this site, the Hartford and Accent Signage ones were gun free zones.
I looked up Accent Signage to find out if it's gun-free or not and I could not verify whether or not it was actually gun-free. The only claim I could find to it is a site that describes these zones as "Victim Rich Zones", clearly demonstrating their biases. Amusingly I could only find 14 entries on that site and the Oregon College is not among them! I'm not a fan of the source, not sure why you are.
The Modesto shooting was at a PARTY with ALCOHOL. Responsible gun owners do not carry guns while drinking...
HAHAHA, right. Do you really think that shooter would describe himself as responsible? "Me? Nah, I drink while shooting!" In any event, it doesn't matter. An irresponsible gun owner is still a gun owner, and that person is ruining your rights for you.
Wow, you are reaching again. How have I shown that?
It's in one of your early posts in this thread. If you're retracting that statement I'll accept it.
All of those mass shooting, the criminal manages to hit his target...
Umm, no, they don't. In fact this is in direct conflict with your assertion that these shooters go after weak targets. If they're attacking places solely based on lack of resistance, then they don't have 'targets', they have a count. Certainly they're not reaching the count they intend to.
Yeah, morons like Justin Timberlake and Beyonce? I would not trust them on gun policy.
Nah, instead you're trusting a moron that convinced you that the signs came before the shootings and gave you the impression that you have any idea what motivates these shooters.
Anyway, here's a few more:
Ten people killed in Geneva County in 2009. Five killed at Atlantis Plastics in Kentucky, 2008. Eight killed at Westroads Mall in Nebraska, 2007. Five killed at a Salt Lake City Mall in 2007. Six killed at a rave in Seattle 2006. Four killed at a Damage Plan concert in 2004. (Admittedly I'm not sure if concerts are 'gun-free', some have metal detectors out front.) Six killed at Lockheed Martin in Mississippi, 2003.
This is depressing.
You asked me how I would "react" not how I would "feel."
Okay. Your response still wasn't an answer to that. But, fine...
How I would FEEL? I would think that you are an unfit parent.
Unfit, as in I shouldn't be allowed to have kids?
Hmmmm, which one is more trustworthy?
I like how I gave you enough information to verify it on your own but... no you choose to believe what you wish to. Here you go:
http://www.factcheck.org/2015/10/the-oregon-shooting-and-gun-free-zones/
Redell, Oct. 19: The student misconduct policy regarding firearms does not apply to students with a valid concealed weapons permit. There is a general prohibition against the possession of weapons on campus that would apply to College patrons, but this, similarly would not apply to those with valid concealed weapon permits pursuant to Oregon law (ORS 166.170).
Oh and there was a student that went on camera saying he was armed that day, he's still a student there.
Well, *IF* your statement is true, despite evidence to the contrary, you are up to ONE shooting not in a "gun free" zone.
Heh. Two actually, you're intentionally ignoring one I mention, not sure why. Given how hard it's been to get you to read even that It's not suprising you haven't heard of more. There was the Hartford Distributors shooting in 2010, 9 dead. 8 shot, 1 killed in Modesto over the summer. Six killed, 2 injured at Accent Signage Systems in Minneapolis 2012. Six killed one injured in a Seattle Cafe in 2012. Four killed in a spa in Atlanta, 2012. Four killed at an IHOP in Nevada 2011. Four cops killed in a coffee shop in Washington 2009, here they opened fire on clearly armed people. Eight killed in a nursing home in North Carolina, 2009.
Sorry I'm bored with writing these up.
Movie Theaters. Columbine high school, Sandy Hook Elementary, Virginia Tech, Churches in S. Carolina. Military recruiting offices. Yeah, all of those were gun free zones.
With one possible exception they all had a connection to the shooter, important detail in this topic.
...rather than have somebody in the same room be armed and take a chance of stopping the bad guy?
Yes, history ... and YOU.. have shown that guns rarely hit their mark. More shots don't make me safer.
Once again, whom do I believe? Facts, or your opinion?
You wouldn't accept two shootings in a non-gun-free-zone as a rebuttal, so I assume you'll believe the morons you listen to on the radio.
If I can prove what you say is false with 10 seconds of Googling, you aren't doing it right.
Not only am I doing it right, but it's really dumb of you to have such a strong opinion on something if you won't even bother to educate yourself on it. Armed ignorance... lovely.
So, YES, I answered your question. Duh!
You didn't answer my question about how you'd feel if I let your kids use a drill-press, you answered an imaginary question of if you'd ever let me hang out with them. You're dodging, presumably because you know it's a good point.
Once again, LYING. The student who carried a weapon could get expelled for carrying. This is in their rules.
Nope. They tried it and were sued in 2013... and they lost. They cannot supercede Oregon law, all they can do is politely ask that nobody bring their guns.
Sorry, post offices are officially "gun free" zones. http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/us...
Hey, I'll give you credit, you taught me something. I thought the Post Office became gun-free in 93 when schools did, but as near as i can tell it was back in the 70's. Okie doke, you can have that.
So, you would rather take a CHANCE at getting accidentally hit rather than a CERTAINTY of taking a bullet to the head.
According to you: Guns are safe because they don't actually hurt anybody. Anyway, I'd rather wait for police to arrive than have a numbnut who think he's John McClane adding more bullets to the mix. Your fantasies about how heroism works are based on what Hollywood has shown you, not reality.
You apparently do not know what "logic" means. Please explain that one.
Thank you for confirming that your logic doesn't make sense.
Now, I am still waiting for you to list the mass shootings in the last 20 years that are NOT in gun free zones.
I did.
And, no, just saying that a place is gun free does not make it so when I can produce firm evidence to the contrary.
I don't understand this sentence.
Anyways, this has been fun, but I am getting tired of refuting lies.
Apparently when you're misinformed anybody who disagree with you is 'lying'. I bet I know talk show on the radio you listen to. Mega-dittos, man.
Some of us do just fine on 3/768k you entitled, millenial douche.
Heh. I've never seen narrow-band elitism before.
Yes, I did. I did not answer the way you wanted...
That is correct. Instead of answering the question I asked, you answered a question I did not ask. And you are continuing to dodge.
Yeah. He broke the rules.
No, he didn't. The college can frown on it all they like but he did not break any rules.
Yes. Stupid people think that a person who is willing to commit murder will actually obey a sign.
So, no, you don't understand how those signs came into being.
Now, I will ask you ONCE AGAIN... which mass shooting in the last 20 years have NOT been in a "gun free" zone. I am expecting a dodge again.
Oregon Community College. Postal shootings. I don't know why these keep falling out of your head. Since you want more: Planned Parenthood in Texas. The shooting in Arizona that Gabriel Giffords miraculously survived. And so on. Again, most places of business actually ban guns anyway so by your definition everywhere is fair game.
When a mass shooter attacks unarmed victims, it ends badly 100% of the time. Even your supposed 15% of the time is much better than 0% of the time.
Not really. It means more shots fired, broader group of potential victims, and confusion about who the police shoot.
Sorry, but we have seen repeatedly the consequences of gun free zones. It is stupid to think that the answer is more gun free zones.
Going by that logic you can avoid having an unwanted child by not purchasing a mini-van.
Yeah, we learned that at Columbine, Sandy Hook, and Virginia tech. Those "no guns allowed" sign really worked. I can believe you, or I can believe reality.
Ah, reality. Here's reality: Columbine, Virginia Tech, and the school up in Oregon were shot up by actual students attending there. The sign did not attract them. In fact the student that shot up the Oregon school was aware of the local conceal carry laws and knew there were likely armed students around him, that did not deter him. Again, you have your cause and effect reversed about where these signs came from.
You're not choosing reality, you're cherry-picking what you want to hear. I'm just not sure if that's out of laziness or passion about owning guns.
I answered the question that you asked. No dodge.
No, you didn't.
If you are in doubt, I can provide a link to a video of the college president saying that no guns are allowed.
Go ahead, and I'll show you a link to an armed student that was there. He went on to say others were, too, and elected not to engage for fear of shooting innocent bystanders or becoming a target by the police.
So, once again, how many mass shootings in the last 20 years not in gun free zones?
Do you understand how gun-free zones came into being?
And YOU dodge.
Actually, unlike you, I did answer. "2) Let me guess, we should ban seat belts because you MIGHT get trapped in your car, and unable to flee if it catches on fire." "Nah..."
No, I am not eager. I hope it never happens. However, if forced to choose between a criminal or a family member dying, I am going to save my family.
You should have finished reading that paragraph.
More publicized, maybe. More in general? I don't think so.
Yes. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09...
But his victims shouldn't have guns? Yeah, makes sense. That worked out SO well in movie theaters, schools, and churches in S. Carolina. All had a "no guns" policy.
How would people with widely varying skills with firearms somehow end in less bloodshed? We already have statistics that show that, at best, the "Good guy with a gun" only works about 15% of the time. Meanwhile you're opening the door to problems like people rage shooting, accidental discharge, innocent victims, etc.
In fact a woman was shot in a theater just this last weekend. Was the problem that the shooter had a gun or that she wasn't armed?
We protect the President with guns. We protect our kids with plastic signs.
We've already learned that surrounding our kids with more guns doesn't make them safer. That's actually how we got into this in the first place. Remember when I said you got your cause and effect mixed up? Why do you think those signs suddenly appeared? I'll give you a hint: I wasn't from someone predicting the future.
I would not let my kids play at your house.
He dodges! So why don't you want to answer my question?
Gun ownership is a right -- and a responsibility.
Thank you.
Well, putting meat in the freezer, shooting holes in paper targets, killing pests that threaten your crops and/or livestock.
Heh. Yeah this country is just chock-full of hunters protecting their farms.
OK. How many mass shootings can you name in the past 20 years that did NOT happen in gun free zones? Go ahead. I will wait...
Plenty actually, for example all of the postal rampages that happened in the 90's. But I am using your definition of 'gun-free-zone'. Most places of employment do not allow guns. If you don't believe me then try taking your gun to work tomorrow and see how many of your coworkers show you theirs.
More recently there was the community college in Oregon. But I'm not sure why we're talking about this since in nearly all those cases the shooter had ties to the location, as opposed to the 'randomly appeared and started blasting' theory that people like you seem to think.
Generally, from areas with looser gun laws and less crime.
Thank you for supporting my point.
You really think that Switzerland has the same level of violence as Venezuela? Wow. Just.... wow.
I didn't say that, perhaps this message was intended for someone else?
1) I am a danger to NOBODY, unless you break into my house or try to seriously hurt my family. If you don't want to be a victim of my gun, it is simple -- don't be a criminal.
You have a gun in your house. It can be stolen. It can be used by your kids. It can be used by you. Don't act like there's a non-zero risk introduced by your purchase of that weapon, You yourself alluded to how your ownership of that gun has the potential to end up in the inner-city.
2) Let me guess, we should ban seat belts because you MIGHT get trapped in your car, and unable to flee if it catches on fire.
Nah, but you should be pulled over if you're driving drunk. Fiery crashes aren't 100% preventable, but drunk driving is.
3) And wanting to take away my gun because I MIGHT hurt an intruder? What about the fact that the intruder MIGHT hurt me?
You want to have a gun so you can kill anybody the law will allow? Why are you so eager to shoot a living being?!?!?! If you find that to be a mis-characterization of your point, instead of hitting reply instead pause for a moment to let that sink in.
And the number of people dying goes DOWN every year.
Except mass shootings, which are going up rather dramatically. Which is why we're even having this conversation.
Plus, I have yet to actually hear a solution from you. All you propose are things that are unconstitutional and ineffective
I haven't proposed anything. What I have told you is I don't want to give up the second amendment. I'm starting to see why you're so confused by my points, you're not reading my comments in their entirety. You are right, however, that I don't have a solution. I also don't have a gun. You, however, are in danger of losing your rights, so I suggest you get to thinkin'.
Did I ever say "everybody have guns?" If so, show me where. I don't remember saying that. How much easier to attack people if you can invent things that they say.
Oohhhhh the irony of that statement, Mr. Venezuela, fiery seatbelts, and pool banishment. The difference is I have some grounding in what I said. You've expressed disgruntlement against existing gun laws, and you've expressed the desire to do whatever you want without anybody sticking their noses in. Unless you're proposing you get your own personal set o
Huh. I thought this conversation was over. Well, okay...
I have kids. That is why I keep a lock on my drill press, and I keep a lock on my guns.
And how would you react if I let your kids play with my drill press unsupervised?
Yes, and guns need to be LOCKED UP if you have kids in the house. Simple enough.
But but but shouldn't they have the freedom to choose whether they lock up their guns?
Guns are doing a remarkably bad job then, since for every gun used in a murder, over 30,000 guns hurt nobody.
So what are they being used for then, changing the channels on the TV?
What is uniform across the globe?
Violence in general.
Exclude the gang-related homicides that happen in high-poverty areas. With what is left, you are as safe here as pretty much anywhere in Europe. It is a sad fact that most of the violent crime is concentrated in a few areas.
Where are the guns in those areas coming from?
3) Avoid gun-free zones. This will keep you safe from mass shootings.
... I still cannot believe the wide-spread brain-damage people must have to believe this. Weird sort of confusion about cause and effect. You do know that guns are banned in most workplaces, right? If you don't believe me then try bringing yours to work tomorrow. If that logic actually prevailed we'd have a lot more 'postal' situations.
How, exactly?
How are you part of that group? By owning a gun. You're part of the reason other people want to own guns. Your ownership of that gun creates the potential to have it taken from you and misused, either by a criminal or possibly even someone in your own family. You could one day fire on an unarmed intruder. Or maybe you could be shot by a police officer coming to your rescue, not realizing you're not a bad guy because you're holding your gun in defense.
In what way is that wrong?
It's not wrong. What is wrong is too many people are dying.
You're offering obstruction without a solution.
More gun laws is clear, simple, and wrong.
The "Let everybody have guns!" approach is simple, clear, and also wrong. But, hey, at least we'll get to repeat this again in a month or so when the next mass-shooting happens. Within a year or two it could even reach once-a-week! Aren't you looking forward to this endless debate?
Have a good day, man.
If it matters: I don't actually support banning guns, I just feel something needs to change. I hope you and your family stay safe.
You mentioned giving guns to toddlers, not me.
No, I didn't. I asked about how you felt about giving chainsaws to toddlers. Next question: How would you feel about somebody handing a chainsaw to your child at say the age of 4?
You know that having a pool at your house greatly increases the chance of drowning, right?
Actually your pool is a lot less dangerous right now than it would have been if not for regulations about how it's constructed and maintained. By your own admission gun ownership requires a great deal of responsibility, even moreso than a pool since it's singular purpose is to kill. You're thriving in that world, not suffering from it. It's the same reason the fish you get at the supermarket doesn't land you in the hospital.
I am all for giving people as much freedom as they want, as long as they don't hurt anybody else. You are apparently for taking away somebody's freedom based on fear of what the MIGHT do.
What you're describing here is exactly the scenario in the drunk driving example. It is a crime enforced specifically to prevent harm from occurring. I'm pretty confident if gun ownership was suddenly a crime you wouldn't immediately go "welp, then I believe gun owners should be arrested!". Instead you'd be upset, and rightly so, at your rights being taken away.
And once again, comparing places with different levels of poverty, different languages, blah blah blah, means that things are DIFFERENT. You can't directly compare apples to oranges, as you always want to do.
Well you can and I cannot apparently. But it doesn't matter since it's roughly uniform across the globe. But you are correct that you can create a rant that doesn't make sense by intentionally misunderstanding the point being made. I humbly admit that I have no idea what bearing that has on our discussion.
Why is it asking too much to just be allowed to live my life the way that I see fit?
Because you're part of a group of people who have ruined it for everybody. Get that rate down and your freedoms will be preserved. Sit there with your arms crossed and you can expect the worst for you to happen.
Where were you when they were passing out common sense? You DO know that you have to be 18 to buy a rifle and 21 to buy a hand gun, right?
That's a weird response that doesn't answer my question in any meaningful way. "Look! There's a distraction!"
Did you know that some Olympic sports even use guns?
Are you training right now? Is the hope that you'll win a Gold Medal and that it's worth the increased risk to your loved ones?
Simple. Driving drunk is a crime. Convict the criminal. Making cars illegal isn't the solution. Making alcohol isn't the solution either. Ban the BEHAVIOR.
Actually drunk drivers are often arrested before they've caused any damage. By your logic their freedoms have been taken away. You're against that, right? They shouldn't be put in handcuffs until there's a collision, right?
The numbers HAVE been going down -- 50% since 1993. Once again, DUH!
They went down everywhere else at that rate as well, we're still way higher in the rankings. "DUH!"
Once again, different countries, different economy, different poverty levels, different social services, different cultural values, different mental health care system. But, yeah, you can ignore all those differences and instead focus on the ONE difference that you care about.
Heh. Yeah, Australia is great until it's used against you, then it's too different to use as a point of reference.
Yeah, criminals. Pretending that they don't exist won't make them go away.
Pretending you live in Robocop's "Old Detroit" doesn't put you or your family in a better position, either. Extremes suck. Sorry.
So, I assume that you also want background checks for chainsaws too.
Nope. Shall I assume you'd be okay with toddlers playing with chainsaws?
Sorry, but gun accidents are remarkably low given how common they are.
Heh. So if they were less common, there'd be less accidents, right?
I don't go around looking for a reason to interfere in the lives of others.
Nah, you've just armed yourself because you live in fear of others. In doing so you've increased the risk of you or a family member being seriously harmed.
This does make me curious about your views on the 'freedom of being allowed to drive drunk'.
Explain to me how a law could disarm criminals and not honest people.
This is part of the discussion we actually agree on. I don't have an answer to this question. What I do know is that the answer isn't: "Everything's just fine right now.", because it isn't. It's just easy to hide behind the words. You really should spend time finding an answer to that question for the simple reason that one day, one person too many will be shot, then your rights will be gone. I don't want to give up the second amendment either, but every incident we have here is more power to make that happen. You can bitch about what should or shouldn't happen until you're blue in the face, until the numbers go down you're going to perpetually have this problem.
The USA still showed better improvement WITHOUT taking away freedoms.
So our rate is now as low as Austalia's, right?
If it is your assertion that NOT having a gun makes you safer, then convince the FBI and police first. Once they give up all of their guns, I will do the same.
You're afraid of the same thing they are.
No. The bullet will be stopped by his head. No problem.
...
So, you want to control the behaviors of OTHERS based on the fact that they MIGHT hurt your feelings?
Oh I love this debate style. Here, I'll mimic it: "So you want to kill people who don't want to die by giving them too much easy access to dangerous equipment? Go back to your gun safe and clutch your penis extension until your aggressions die down. You will feel better after a while."
Anyway, let's detour back to the point, here...
The number of people WILLING to COMMIT violence is actually a pretty fixed number. For violence to happen, there also has to be a CRIMINAL! I would think that this would be common sense, but I guess not.
Common sense is knowing that opportunity is an element of crime. Actually, you said it yourself: " Yes, it will REDUCE, but not eliminate homicides." Your own common sense seems to be at odds with your agenda.
Did you know that guns are used to prevent or deter crime in close to a million incidents per year?
Did you know that most of those incidents involve the criminal having a gun in the first place? In fact, that's the reason you would prefer to have a gun over a knife or a baseball bat in your house.
By the way, did you know that homicide is down by 50% since 1993? You are safer now that you have ever been in your entire life. Quick! We need to do something to reverse this horrible trend.
It's down a lot further in many other places. Also the rate of decline is constant in those places too, meaning we have a lot of fully-preventable deaths happening in this country. Yes, we do need to do something about it. You've already demonstrated you feel this way, not sure why you're suddenly in denial about it.
Any neighbor of mine firing his gun in his place certainly is endangering me. Not only just by the travel of the bullet, but also by the fact that I am friends with my neighbor and it would hurt to find that he had used his gun in a weak moment. You overestimate how resolute suicide attempts are, it can happen just by a change in medication.
Oh and thank you for pointing out how much more effecitve guns are to knives, it spared me from having to explain to you why they are not even close to being equal in effectiveness. Now you're a big step closer to spotting the fallacy in your argument that violence is a fixed number and not connected with the capabilities of the weapon.
Do you think that a suicidal person, lacking a gun, will be too dumb to find other methods?
Actually many suicides are rather spur-of-the-moment. There have been countless tales of aborting a suicide through intervention, that's why suicide hotlines exist. Guns make an attempt far more opportunistic, that's one of the reasons they're linked with gun ownership.
Guns are banned, so suddenly there are NO gun murders, but instead 100 murderers with knives.
Would you feel just as comfortable protecting your home with a knife instead of a gun?
On the flip side, many people don't realize how much CG they're actually seeing:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...