The Asininity of "Gun-Free" Zones

[Revoltingest]

For the life of me I'll never understand why anybody thinks that everybody having a gun makes everybody safer. It doesn't help that the people who usually push this belief are from a country that suffers from mass shootings on practically a weekly basis.

Who proposes that everyone have a gun?

 

[McBell]

Who proposes that everyone have a gun?

strawmen.
they propose all manner of things.

 

[Sunstone]

Please list the mass shootings that did not happen in gun free zones.

As it happens, mass shootings that did not happen in gun free zones accounted for the overwhelming majority of mass shootings in a study of 133 mass shootings between 2009 and 2015. Only 13% of mass shootings took place in gun free zones. (Please see my earlier post number 28 for the source.)

 

[SkepticThinker]

Who proposes that everyone have a gun?

Gee, I don't know. Aren't we talking about not having "gun-free zones?"

I have an issue with the "more guns make everybody safer" type of arguments. Like the one in the OP.

 

[Revoltingest]

Gee, I don't know. Aren't we talking about not having "gun-free zones?"

I have an issue with the "more guns make everybody safer" type of arguments. Like the one in the OP.

I favor the right to self defense.'
But I also favor that some people don't get to have guns.
And those who do should store them securely, & be well trained.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No, I think you missed the point.
Crimes prevented seldom become statistics.
Let me illustrate....
List the murders cops have prevented.
Can't? Then they serve no useful purpose.

I got your point: counterfactuals are hard to figure out. You think that this means the preventative effect of armed citizens might be understated.

I was getting at a related point: if we can infer that someone who's armed in a public place has bad intent, we have more opportunity to prevent whatever he's planning to do than if we give him a free pass until he starts shooting.

Personally, I think more murders would be prevented if *anyone* carrying an AR-15 on a college campus is detained and has his gun taken away than by finding out whether he's planning to do a Charles Whitman impression by waiting to see if he actually does it.

 

[McBell]

I favor the right to self defense.'

As do I.
Thus the reason I carry a Public Defender.

But I also favor that some people don't get to have guns.

Again I agree.
There are some people who simply do not have the discipline/mental state for carrying a fire arm.

And those who do should store them securely, & be well trained.

Once more I am in agreement.
I do not like the idea of just anyone carrying a firearm.
I disagree with states like Indiana who will give a handgun license to anyone of age who can pay for it and pass a background check.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

There is an appreciable chance that "deranged lunatic" is someone with a permit to conceal carry:



To repeat: "Concealed carry permit holders have been responsible for 29 separate mass shootings which took the lives of three or more people."

[Source]

[An Even Better Source]

So, do you think that ending concealed carry laws will prevent violent criminals from getting their hands on guns?

 

[Rational Agnostic]

Gee, I don't know. Aren't we talking about not having "gun-free zones?"

I have an issue with the "more guns make everybody safer" type of arguments. Like the one in the OP.

That's not my argument. What I am saying boils down to this: Deranged violent criminals don't care about signs that say "no guns allowed." The only people who care about such signs are those that could potentially prevent mass shootings. Therefore, by placing such signs on buildings without the means to enforce what they state, the building is effectively opened up to potential shooters and closed to potential preventers of shootings.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

what statistics are you basing this post on?

As far as I can find out there are no cases where a gun carrying civilian has prevented a mass shooting.
As a result there are no statistics. So statistically insignificant.

 

[McBell]

As far as I can find out there are no cases where a gun carrying civilian has prevented a mass shooting.
As a result there are no statistics. So statistically insignificant.

Post #10.

Not "statistically insignificant".
Just statistically avoided.

Four Concealed Handgun Permit Holders use their guns to stop violent crimes in the last week - Crime Prevention Research Center

UPDATED: Compiling Cases where concealed handgun permit holders have stopped mass public shootings and other mass attacks - Crime Prevention Research Center

 

[SkepticThinker]

I favor the right to self defense.'
But I also favor that some people don't get to have guns.
And those who do should store them securely, & be well trained.

I know you do and I agree.

 

[Sunstone]

So, do you think that ending concealed carry laws will prevent violent criminals from getting their hands on guns?

Well, that ball was certainly tossed from left field.

What, if anything, has that got to do with your argument in the OP that ending gun free zones in public places will reduce the incidence of mass shootings and murders?

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

This poses an interesting question.....
If someone shot a violent perp, how could it possibly be known that a mass shooting
was prevented? There might be a few cases where the perp was heavily armed,
& it could be said he (always a he) was bent on mass mayhem.
But this approach doesn't appear to be amenable to disproof by statistical analysis.

That beggars the question, how many violent perps have been shot except by police.
The background of these cases are always thoroughly investigated for motive, and for criminal or terrorist links. If such potential mass killing cases existed, they would be public knowledge by now.

There does not seem to be a single case to even establish any sort of statistic.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

So, do you think that ending concealed carry laws will prevent violent criminals from getting their hands on guns?

No - but banning handguns altogether would go a long way. Remember: every criminal firearm started as a legal firearm. The criminals' source of guns is those "lawful" gun owners.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Post #10.

Not "statistically insignificant".
Just statistically avoided.

Four Concealed Handgun Permit Holders use their guns to stop violent crimes in the last week - Crime Prevention Research Center

UPDATED: Compiling Cases where concealed handgun permit holders have stopped mass public shootings and other mass attacks - Crime Prevention Research Center

What's the ratio of those sorts of cases to ones like this?

Woman who shot at Home Depot shoplifters enters plea

(for those who don't want to read the link: it's a story about the case of a CPL-holder who opened fire on shoplifters in a Home Depot parking lot, putting a number of lives in jeopardy in the process)

 

[McBell]

What's the ratio of those sorts of cases to ones like this?

Woman who shot at Home Depot shoplifters enters plea

(for those who don't want to read the link: it's a story about the case of a CPL-holder who opened fire on shoplifters in a Home Depot parking lot, putting a number of lives in jeopardy in the process)

no idea.

However, the point I presented is that there are crimes and mass shootings prevented by armed civilians.

as I already posted in this thread:

I do not like the idea of just anyone carrying a firearm.
I disagree with states like Indiana who will give a handgun license to anyone of age who can pay for it and pass a background check.​

 

[metis]

Concealed carry laws in my opinion should also prohibit public establishments from declaring themselves gun-free UNLESS the establishment has a system to enforce the "no gun" sign. An example would be a major public event, in which security screens every individual who enters. In this case, I agree that guns should be banned, but only because of security screenings.

IMO, that is simply hypocritical on their part. If open-carry is "good" for the general public, then it should be good enough for them as well.

An example of this hypocrisy is the SCOTUS itself, whereas they opened the door wider on this for the general public and yet they do not allow the public to bring guns into their building. I know as I've been in there and had to go through screening.

So, let me know if and when these politicians decide to be less than hypocritical, OK?

 

[McBell]

no idea.

However, the point I presented is that there are crimes and mass shootings prevented by armed civilians.

as I already posted in this thread:

I do not like the idea of just anyone carrying a firearm.
I disagree with states like Indiana who will give a handgun license to anyone of age who can pay for it and pass a background check.​

She should have been charged with assault with a deadly weapon.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

no idea.

However, the point I presented is that there are crimes and mass shootings prevented by armed civilians.

And there are shootings enabled by armed civilians. What's the net effect?

as I already posted in this thread:

I do not like the idea of just anyone carrying a firearm.
I disagree with states like Indiana who will give a handgun license to anyone of age who can pay for it and pass a background check.​

How is this relevant to the post you quoted?