Victim Disarmament Zones and Ideas to Prevent Mass Shootings

mlmpetert · 09-19-2013, 03:11 PM

Every mass shooting since 1950 where at least 3 people have been killed, except for one, has taken place in a “gun free zone”. Does that scare anyone else????

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/335739/facts-about-mass-shootings-john-fund

9 Potential Mass Shootings That Were Stopped By Someone With A Personally Owned Firearm

I personally believe its rare a mass shooter specifically targets a gun free zone for committing a killing spree in order to easily kill as many as possible (save for Sandy Hook); although I think it’s more than reasonable to assume that the safety/control of the location (for the shooter) is often factored into the decision of where he commits his rampage. And not surprisingly, when you look at the most horrific and deadly mass shootings it’s impossible to dismiss the fact that almost all of them are at places where individuals are not allowed to carry firearms (schools, malls, designated areas of military bases, churches, post offices, govt. buildings, etc.). Gun free zones don’t work. They may reduce the amount of gun accidents, but only at a cost that is far greater and consequential. The reality is that gun free zones are actually victim disarmament zones, at least in our society.

We live in a country with limited morals and where being famous is glamorized, treating people like shit and bullying is the norm, mental illness is commonplace, hateful speech is free speech, ownership of firearms is a protected and cherished right, and extreme violence has become desensitized through media, video games and movies. Most importantly we live in a country where I cant envision ANY of those things changing for the better anytime soon.

So because our societal issues are here to stay and will likely get worse in time, what do you think can be done in the near future to reduce mass killings? No liberal or conservative idealist type BS, but what do you think are some real solutions that can actually help prevent mass slayings?

I say this partly because I think the whole “let’s do something about mental health laws” is a VERY tricky thing that isn’t going to produce many results. You’re talking about possibly violating a whole bunch of individual liberties and rights when you start tinkering with mental health laws and rules. I think some mental health things can and will change in the near term, but I don't think they are going to have a significant impact in keeping deadly weapons out of the hands of the deranged.

I have 2 suggestions that I think can actually happen in the near term that could also have a meaningful impact on reducing mass shootings/stabbings/attacks:

1) Allow people to carry firearms for personal protection in places where guns have traditionally not been allowed.

I’m not saying every teacher should be walking around with a gun on their hip starting tomorrow. At this point I think caution should be used towards social “sensitivity”, and that additional safety requirements and mental health reviews should be required. I think different organizations and areas should be able to enforce basic firearm carrying restrictions that are unique to their needs/social climates. Meaning it may make sense for an authority figure at a school to only conceal carry, while any officer of an Naval shipyard can open carry. Likewise, a teacher open carrying in a Montana HS may be easier to digest than a teacher doing the same in a elementary school in Maryland or California.

2) Media blackout of who the shooter is and why he did it.

We do this for victims of rape and sexual assault in order to make it easier for those victims to come forward. Why cant the media jointly agree to stop providing any details / information about a shooter? Or for that matter any criminal that commits a horrific crime if there is even a remote chance they are doing it for notoriety or to be memorialized in some sort of sick way? For the idiots that need to find out the identity of a killer or his manifesto, I’m sure they will be able to find the info on the internet, but at least the image, name and reason will be removed from the consciousness of the general public.

What things do you think can GET DONE in the next 5 or so years that will actually have an impact on reducing mass killings?

mlmpetert · 09-19-2013, 06:31 PM

Just saw this and I think it goes along with what I am trying to say to some extent:

Quote:

If our lawmakers, including the President, won’t step up and make significant changes in gun laws, in gun registration, background checks, mental health, if gun purchases continue to grow and flood the streets, it makes me wonder that by some of us not owning a gun, or at least embracing the idea of one, are we setting ourselves up to be victims in a movie theater, a school, a public building, most of all in our streets, in our own neighborhoods, and in our own homes.

And armed with just our cellphones, our fists and our wits, are we setting ourselves up to be sitting ducks, defenseless in the face of a sane, or an insane person, armed to the teeth and bent on killing.

REALITY CHECK: Let’s Talk About Guns | Black America Web

As much as some people may love to dream about background checks for private sales that make you feel good but do nothing, assault weapon bans that ban guns based only off of they way they look, amazing mental health laws that stop every nut bag from getting a gun, and other emotionally charged ideas of saving everyone from guns, the reality is our gun laws probably wont change that much over the next 50 years.

Our lawmakers wont "step up" and save us all because they cant. Not even our lord and savor Obama. And since they cant.... doesn't that mean we are setting ourselves up to be sitting ducks with these no gun zones? The reality of the world we live in means guns are always going to be around no matter how much you like it or don't like it. Armed with that information, why would it ever be a good idea to have a "no gun zone"?

Chico23231 · 09-19-2013, 07:33 PM

How about we just take every nra member and devout gun enthusiast, take them and there families and let them live next to every diagnosed mental case who owns a fire arm. Lets have them be neighbors, abide the law and attempt to live in peace. Id like to see how people react when its literally in their own back yard, because that's the true test when your protecting the same nutcases and their gun rights.

That Guy · 09-19-2013, 08:59 PM

the problem is you don't have background checks. just go to a gun show.

and the ATF is completely neutered. they can't force gun shops to keep track of who they've sold to, so the 6% of bad shops that sell the majority of guns found in street crime are allow to stay open and keep selling.

there's already multiple threads on this stuff, but the simple truth is if guns are easy to get and you're planning on killing people, the gun charge isn't going to dissuade you all that much.

mlmpetert · 09-19-2013, 11:02 PM

@ Chico - sure, in an idealistic dream world we could have people see what we want them to see and walk in the shoes we prescribe them. They would have to understand, because... well..., they would have to.

@ ThatGuy - I mean, because background checks on private sales would have stopped most,... or.. some,....um.. well,.... maybe one.. mass murder, right? Right? Wait.... omg, it wouldn't have made a difference at all. At all????? Background checks ARE (or are not????) the problem? Wait....

My bad, my question/thread was poorly worded.

What im trying to say is that guns, even the scary looking ones, are here to stay. You may think that's a great thing. You may think that's a horrible thing. But if you think that major gun legislation restricting gun ownership is going to happen across the country within the next 20-40 years you got another thing coming, imho. I just don't see it happening (if you do id love to hear your views why).

So what I am asking is that, in consideration to the world we live in with 300+ million guns in our country (regardless of how you feel about that), and gun rights likely here to stay (regardless of how you feel about that) how do you prevent mass killings?

Chico - would moving nuts and gun nuts next to each other help with the reduction of mass slayings, or just with illustration to your personal ideals?

Thatguy - would background checks imposed on individuals help with reducing mass killings, or would it just suppress the poor/those most needing of defensive protection from owning guns? Do you have any legit reasons to back that up or just idealist opinion?

You guys are both smart and thoughtful guys. Outside of major (and unlikely) gun control what other things do you think we could do to reduce gun violence, and in particular mass killings?

Im just trying to say that guns are here to stay; they are part of the world we live in. So how do we live in a world with guns?

That Guy · 09-20-2013, 05:59 AM

well, australia passed gun legistlation (the conservatives lead the charge) after one of these types of things and hasn't had a mass shooting since. smaller country, more cooperative government etc.

and i wasn't really debating anything. i'd rather not get sucked in. i just mentioned that the ATF doesn't work thanks to government interference on the NRA's behalf, which IS significantly increasing gun deaths in this country by allowing bad players the ability to continually sell guns to people they know are using or reselling them specifically for street violence.

and that as long as gun shows don't require checks, then there really aren't any controls in place at all (and if you think a place where there are hundreds of buyers and hundreds of sellers with thousands of guns meeting for the express purpose of exchanging them for money should be classified as a "private sale," well, um... that's seems stupifying to me).

this guy passed a background check though, even with his problems with reality (the microwave is sending vibrations through me!) and 2 prior shooting incidents (shot the tires out from someone else's car and something else), so those checks obviously don't work anyways.

I mean, if you think giving guns to the mentally unstable and people who continue to shoot at other people or their stuff in anger, that's cool i guess, but it seems ridiculous to me.

again, there's plenty of threads here already, and arguing in them has proven to be pretty pointless.

as far as your last line, you can make that non-argument about anything "I'm just saying neo-nazis are here to stay: so how do we live in a world with neo-nazis?

easy, continue to advocate for sanity. if you keep bashing your head into a wall, sooner or later the wall will give way :P

(also, how would background checks suppress the poor? why do they need guns more than other people? what's the current and proposed future ownership among the poor when you start denying guns to the mentality unstable or those with a history of angry rage induced shooting incidents?)

if we're just going to be completely dismissive, then we might as well not bother.

Chico23231 · 09-20-2013, 09:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mlmpetert

@ Chico - sure, in an idealistic dream world we could have people see what we want them to see and walk in the shoes we prescribe them. They would have to understand, because... well..., they would have to.

@ ThatGuy - I mean, because background checks on private sales would have stopped most,... or.. some,....um.. well,.... maybe one.. mass murder, right? Right? Wait.... omg, it wouldn't have made a difference at all. At all????? Background checks ARE (or are not????) the problem? Wait....

My bad, my question/thread was poorly worded.

What im trying to say is that guns, even the scary looking ones, are here to stay. You may think that's a great thing. You may think that's a horrible thing. But if you think that major gun legislation restricting gun ownership is going to happen across the country within the next 20-40 years you got another thing coming, imho. I just don't see it happening (if you do id love to hear your views why).

So what I am asking is that, in consideration to the world we live in with 300+ million guns in our country (regardless of how you feel about that), and gun rights likely here to stay (regardless of how you feel about that) how do you prevent mass killings?

Chico - would moving nuts and gun nuts next to each other help with the reduction of mass slayings, or just with illustration to your personal ideals?

Thatguy - would background checks imposed on individuals help with reducing mass killings, or would it just suppress the poor/those most needing of defensive protection from owning guns? Do you have any legit reasons to back that up or just idealist opinion?

You guys are both smart and thoughtful guys. Outside of major (and unlikely) gun control what other things do you think we could do to reduce gun violence, and in particular mass killings?

Im just trying to say that guns are here to stay; they are part of the world we live in. So how do we live in a world with guns?

My comment is purely for perspective. We as a country and people seriously lack it. We are so tunnel-visioned over emotional issues and we cant seperate the logical layers of these subjects. Its quite pathetic imo. We lack the ability to stand in others shoes and understand these are complex issues. There is no black and white and "only one way is the right way" to solve a problem in our society. People rather not see from the other side because they a) lack effort or b) they cant handle it mentally. Its easier just to pick a side and sound like an dumbass; to not want to understand the other side of an issue is plain ignorance.

So I put it the easiest way to understand, in order to support something you need to live with it everyday. You and your family live side by side with a diagnoised mentally ill person who is armed 24/7. Not just you but your community as well. He's at the school picking up kids, up at the local bar drinking, or at the park. As long as you can live with it, I can respect it.

RedskinRat · 09-21-2013, 02:30 PM

“Never go to clubs with metal detectors. Sure it feels safe inside. But what about all those n***** waiting outside with guns? They know you ain't got one.”

Chris Rock - Philospher

firstdown · 09-23-2013, 11:50 AM

This is interesting.

He noted that the Aurora shooter, who killed twelve people earlier this year, had a choice of seven movie theaters that were showing the Batman movie he was obsessed with. All were within a 20-minute drive of his home. The Cinemark Theater the killer ultimately chose wasn’t the closest, but it was the only one that posted signs saying it banned concealed handguns carried by law-abiding individuals. All of the other theaters allowed the approximately 4 percent of Colorado adults who have a concealed-handgun permit to enter with their weapons.

09-19-2013, 03:11 PM	#1
mlmpetert Playmaker Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Richmond Posts: 3,261	Victim Disarmament Zones and Ideas to Prevent Mass Shootings Every mass shooting since 1950 where at least 3 people have been killed, except for one, has taken place in a “gun free zone”. Does that scare anyone else???? http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/335739/facts-about-mass-shootings-john-fund 9 Potential Mass Shootings That Were Stopped By Someone With A Personally Owned Firearm I personally believe its rare a mass shooter specifically targets a gun free zone for committing a killing spree in order to easily kill as many as possible (save for Sandy Hook); although I think it’s more than reasonable to assume that the safety/control of the location (for the shooter) is often factored into the decision of where he commits his rampage. And not surprisingly, when you look at the most horrific and deadly mass shootings it’s impossible to dismiss the fact that almost all of them are at places where individuals are not allowed to carry firearms (schools, malls, designated areas of military bases, churches, post offices, govt. buildings, etc.). Gun free zones don’t work. They may reduce the amount of gun accidents, but only at a cost that is far greater and consequential. The reality is that gun free zones are actually victim disarmament zones, at least in our society. We live in a country with limited morals and where being famous is glamorized, treating people like shit and bullying is the norm, mental illness is commonplace, hateful speech is free speech, ownership of firearms is a protected and cherished right, and extreme violence has become desensitized through media, video games and movies. Most importantly we live in a country where I cant envision ANY of those things changing for the better anytime soon. So because our societal issues are here to stay and will likely get worse in time, what do you think can be done in the near future to reduce mass killings? No liberal or conservative idealist type BS, but what do you think are some real solutions that can actually help prevent mass slayings? I say this partly because I think the whole “let’s do something about mental health laws” is a VERY tricky thing that isn’t going to produce many results. You’re talking about possibly violating a whole bunch of individual liberties and rights when you start tinkering with mental health laws and rules. I think some mental health things can and will change in the near term, but I don't think they are going to have a significant impact in keeping deadly weapons out of the hands of the deranged. I have 2 suggestions that I think can actually happen in the near term that could also have a meaningful impact on reducing mass shootings/stabbings/attacks: 1) Allow people to carry firearms for personal protection in places where guns have traditionally not been allowed. I’m not saying every teacher should be walking around with a gun on their hip starting tomorrow. At this point I think caution should be used towards social “sensitivity”, and that additional safety requirements and mental health reviews should be required. I think different organizations and areas should be able to enforce basic firearm carrying restrictions that are unique to their needs/social climates. Meaning it may make sense for an authority figure at a school to only conceal carry, while any officer of an Naval shipyard can open carry. Likewise, a teacher open carrying in a Montana HS may be easier to digest than a teacher doing the same in a elementary school in Maryland or California. 2) Media blackout of who the shooter is and why he did it. We do this for victims of rape and sexual assault in order to make it easier for those victims to come forward. Why cant the media jointly agree to stop providing any details / information about a shooter? Or for that matter any criminal that commits a horrific crime if there is even a remote chance they are doing it for notoriety or to be memorialized in some sort of sick way? For the idiots that need to find out the identity of a killer or his manifesto, I’m sure they will be able to find the info on the internet, but at least the image, name and reason will be removed from the consciousness of the general public. What things do you think can GET DONE in the next 5 or so years that will actually have an impact on reducing mass killings? __________________ www.NRABannedGunsRaffle.org

09-19-2013, 07:33 PM	#3
Chico23231 Warpath Hall of Fame Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 33,982	Re: Victim Disarmament Zones and Ideas to Prevent Mass Shootings How about we just take every nra member and devout gun enthusiast, take them and there families and let them live next to every diagnosed mental case who owns a fire arm. Lets have them be neighbors, abide the law and attempt to live in peace. Id like to see how people react when its literally in their own back yard, because that's the true test when your protecting the same nutcases and their gun rights. __________________ My pronouns: King/Your ruler He Gets Us

09-19-2013, 08:59 PM	#4
That Guy Living Legend Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: VA Age: 41 Posts: 17,511	Re: Victim Disarmament Zones and Ideas to Prevent Mass Shootings the problem is you don't have background checks. just go to a gun show. and the ATF is completely neutered. they can't force gun shops to keep track of who they've sold to, so the 6% of bad shops that sell the majority of guns found in street crime are allow to stay open and keep selling. there's already multiple threads on this stuff, but the simple truth is if guns are easy to get and you're planning on killing people, the gun charge isn't going to dissuade you all that much.

09-19-2013, 11:02 PM	#5
mlmpetert Playmaker Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Richmond Posts: 3,261	Re: Victim Disarmament Zones and Ideas to Prevent Mass Shootings @ Chico - sure, in an idealistic dream world we could have people see what we want them to see and walk in the shoes we prescribe them. They would have to understand, because... well..., they would have to. @ ThatGuy - I mean, because background checks on private sales would have stopped most,... or.. some,....um.. well,.... maybe one.. mass murder, right? Right? Wait.... omg, it wouldn't have made a difference at all. At all????? Background checks ARE (or are not????) the problem? Wait.... My bad, my question/thread was poorly worded. What im trying to say is that guns, even the scary looking ones, are here to stay. You may think that's a great thing. You may think that's a horrible thing. But if you think that major gun legislation restricting gun ownership is going to happen across the country within the next 20-40 years you got another thing coming, imho. I just don't see it happening (if you do id love to hear your views why). So what I am asking is that, in consideration to the world we live in with 300+ million guns in our country (regardless of how you feel about that), and gun rights likely here to stay (regardless of how you feel about that) how do you prevent mass killings? Chico - would moving nuts and gun nuts next to each other help with the reduction of mass slayings, or just with illustration to your personal ideals? Thatguy - would background checks imposed on individuals help with reducing mass killings, or would it just suppress the poor/those most needing of defensive protection from owning guns? Do you have any legit reasons to back that up or just idealist opinion? You guys are both smart and thoughtful guys. Outside of major (and unlikely) gun control what other things do you think we could do to reduce gun violence, and in particular mass killings? Im just trying to say that guns are here to stay; they are part of the world we live in. So how do we live in a world with guns? __________________ www.NRABannedGunsRaffle.org

09-20-2013, 05:59 AM	#6
That Guy Living Legend Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: VA Age: 41 Posts: 17,511	Re: Victim Disarmament Zones and Ideas to Prevent Mass Shootings well, australia passed gun legistlation (the conservatives lead the charge) after one of these types of things and hasn't had a mass shooting since. smaller country, more cooperative government etc. and i wasn't really debating anything. i'd rather not get sucked in. i just mentioned that the ATF doesn't work thanks to government interference on the NRA's behalf, which IS significantly increasing gun deaths in this country by allowing bad players the ability to continually sell guns to people they know are using or reselling them specifically for street violence. and that as long as gun shows don't require checks, then there really aren't any controls in place at all (and if you think a place where there are hundreds of buyers and hundreds of sellers with thousands of guns meeting for the express purpose of exchanging them for money should be classified as a "private sale," well, um... that's seems stupifying to me). this guy passed a background check though, even with his problems with reality (the microwave is sending vibrations through me!) and 2 prior shooting incidents (shot the tires out from someone else's car and something else), so those checks obviously don't work anyways. I mean, if you think giving guns to the mentally unstable and people who continue to shoot at other people or their stuff in anger, that's cool i guess, but it seems ridiculous to me. again, there's plenty of threads here already, and arguing in them has proven to be pretty pointless. as far as your last line, you can make that non-argument about anything "I'm just saying neo-nazis are here to stay: so how do we live in a world with neo-nazis? easy, continue to advocate for sanity. if you keep bashing your head into a wall, sooner or later the wall will give way :P (also, how would background checks suppress the poor? why do they need guns more than other people? what's the current and proposed future ownership among the poor when you start denying guns to the mentality unstable or those with a history of angry rage induced shooting incidents?) if we're just going to be completely dismissive, then we might as well not bother.

09-21-2013, 02:30 PM	#8
RedskinRat Franchise Player Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: I'm in LA, trick! Posts: 8,700	Re: Victim Disarmament Zones and Ideas to Prevent Mass Shootings “Never go to clubs with metal detectors. Sure it feels safe inside. But what about all those n**** waiting outside with guns? They know you ain't got one.”* Chris Rock - Philospher

09-23-2013, 11:50 AM	#9
firstdown Living Legend Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: chesapeake, va Age: 60 Posts: 15,817	Re: Victim Disarmament Zones and Ideas to Prevent Mass Shootings This is interesting. He noted that the Aurora shooter, who killed twelve people earlier this year, had a choice of seven movie theaters that were showing the Batman movie he was obsessed with. All were within a 20-minute drive of his home. The Cinemark Theater the killer ultimately chose wasn’t the closest, but it was the only one that posted signs saying it banned concealed handguns carried by law-abiding individuals. All of the other theaters allowed the approximately 4 percent of Colorado adults who have a concealed-handgun permit to enter with their weapons.

Victim Disarmament Zones and Ideas to Prevent Mass Shootings

Debating with the enemy