[Public_Domain]

Robair Robair:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Robair Robair:

Haven't the shootings all taken place in gun free zones?

I thought they had (at least for the most part).

All of them have taken place in "Gun Free Zones".

Does that not render moot the question at the start of this thread?

Don't get me wrong, I think it should be harder to buy a gun in the United States. It's getting a little nuts down there.

But the question at the start of the thread is pointless given the gun free zones...

They are arguing that no establishment anywhere should place restrictions on gun use; that there should be no "Gun Free Zones", because they are sitting duck targets.

[BartSimpson]

Delwin Delwin:

1 Gun Show:Flashback To 2008: 8-Year-Old Killed While Shooting Uzi At Gun Fair
http://crooksandliars.com/2014/08/flash ... lled-while

Not a mass shooting.

$1:

3 Police Station:
Mark Essex’s campaign of terror against the New Orleans police climaxed on Jan. 7 in an 11-hour rampage at the Howard Johnson’s hotel on Loyola Avenue, where he killed seven people, including three police officers, and wounded eight.
http://www.nola.com/175years/index.ssf/ ... d_joh.html

That wasn't at a police station, dipshit. It took place at a hotel. FFS Read your own fucking link.

$1:

4.Gun shop:
Owner Killed, Three Shot in Attempted Robbery at Gun Shop
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/own ... op-n283326

Wrong again:

$1:

A business owner in Kansas was killed in an attempted robbery at his gun store, but the shop's two owners also shot and injured three of the four suspects, police said.

$1:

5. Shooting range:Ex-Navy sniper, another military vet killed at Texas gun range
http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/03/justice/t ... er-killed/

All very safe places, im sure...

And not one of them a mass shooting. But yeah, you posted a bunch of stuff that had nothing to do with refuting my point and I'm sure you felt a smug satisfaction as you did so.

And now you don't. Sucks to be you.

Oh, and you can't count worth shit.

[Delwin]

Mark Essex was a mass shooting, the police at fort hood were armed. Shooters didnt seem to care.

[PluggyRug]

Seems to me.....if there are more good guy's with guns, the bad guy's would think twice about being a bad guy.

[Delwin]

Right, like" I feel like going out and killing dozens with my assault rifle but hey, since gun ownership went from 65 - 70%, I think I'm going to take up philanthropy.

[BartSimpson]

Delwin Delwin:

Mark Essex was a mass shooting, the police at fort hood were armed. Shooters didnt seem to care.

Your Mark Essex example does not refute any of my points and your example of Fort Hood is also a failure as it was and remains a gun free zone despite there now having occurred two mass shootings on the base.

IOW, your example of Fort Hood supports my point, not yours.

If we were formally debating your coach would be slapping you on the head right about now.

[PluggyRug]

Delwin Delwin:

Mark Essex was a mass shooting, the police at fort hood were armed. Shooters didnt seem to care.

None of the soldiers at Fort Hood were armed, your point is moot and also mute.

Edit...sorry Bart, was too late.

[PluggyRug]

Delwin Delwin:

Right, like" I feel like going out and killing dozens with my assault rifle but hey, since gun ownership went from 65 - 70%, I think I'm going to take up philanthropy.

No such thing as a raving Liberal who's also a philanthropist. They are all as tight as a fishes asshole.

[Delwin]

Umm, if there armed police on the grounds, then your definition of gun free must differ from mine. Anyhow, Mark essex had it out for the cops, stationed in front of a police station and opened fire on cops, I would say an armed populace was not a deterred.

Also, every single shooting that occurs outdoors, is in a no gun-free zone. There are very few mass shootings that occur in gun-free zones.

A study including all mass shootings between January 2009 and July 2014 determined:

$1:

Seventy-seven of the 110 incidents (70%) took
place wholly in private residences. Of the 33
incidents in public spaces, at least 18 took place
wholly or in part where concealed guns could
be lawfully carried. All told, no more than 15 of
the shootings (14%) took place entirely in public
spaces that were so-called “gun-free zones.”

http://3gbwir1ummda16xrhf4do9d21bsx.wpe ... alysis.pdf

So your talking point is really just a bunch of BS. The study breaks down every single one within those dates.

In most cases the locations are selected because of a connection to the spot, Columbine students shoot up columbine.

Fort hood psychiatrist shoots up fort hood.

Umpqua Community College student shoots up Umpqua Community College.

Man dressed like joker shoots up theater during batman filming.

They are chosen for reason having nothing to do with how "gun free" the spot is.

[BRAH]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

BRAH BRAH:

One armed civillian could stop a mass shooting but is that person trained to respond? That's the concern.

Over on the US Police Misconduct page you can see that the "trained" people aren't all that hot themselves.

That's true but at the moment when the adrenaline's rushing not sure if an untrained civilian could handle the situation.

[andyt]

BRAH BRAH:

That's true but at the moment when the adrenaline's rushing not sure if an untrained civilian could handle the situation.

Bart is sinking his own argument here. If a trained police officer already has trouble shooting straight and shooting the right person when something is going down, how much worse will a civilian without training be.

Anyway, Delwin nailed the argument - the US already is already saturated with civilian guns, yet far exceeds other countries with far fewer guns in mass shootings. Trying to make an argument for more guns after that point is just silly.

[Public_Domain]

This skit is making the rounds...

[fifeboy]

http://youtu.be/cPN3Fv2aJhE

[Public_Domain]

fifeboy fifeboy:

http://youtu.be/cPN3Fv2aJhE

[fifeboy]

Public_Domain Public_Domain:

fifeboy fifeboy:

http://youtu.be/cPN3Fv2aJhE

I guess what I mean is : this argument is going nowhere. Bart truly believes what he says. We disagree, and that's our privalage. We want American gun culture to stay south of the frontier. That dog guy would argue ANYTHING if he thought it would make "progholes" look bad in his eyes. It's a stupid exercise to argue with either man. Bart actually believes what he says and the woofer is just looking to score points in his own mind.