How do we reduce the number of mass shootings?

Nov 2018
5,322
2,820
Rocky Mountains
That study from the anti-gun Bloomberg school is garbage.

It is based on the claim that very few mass shootings occur in gun free zones because police or armed security guards aren't prohibited. How many public events or public places prohibit police officers?
So a gun free zone includes those places that DO have armed individuals? Explain that reasoning to me...
Perhaps you think gun-free zones are zones where everyone has a gun?
 
Jul 2014
15,476
9,559
massachusetts
If mass shootings are a mental health issue, only tangentially related to the availability of firearms, then how do you address it?
Screening the entire population would be too costly.
How about enhanced screening of people who are in the process of acquiring firearms?
 
Nov 2012
41,310
11,878
Lebanon, TN
So a gun free zone includes those places that DO have armed individuals? Explain that reasoning to me...
Perhaps you think gun-free zones are zones where everyone has a gun?

There is an armed person there security well if I was mass shooter who would be the first person that would be shot.. THE ARMED GUY before he can know there is a shooting.

then there is Mr or Mrs CCL holder that as a weapon out of sight sitting in a corner of the room the armed guard is shot.. the CCL holder takes out the shooter.. This is why when there at armed citizens in a shooting area.. there are survivors and fewer killed.
 
Nov 2012
41,310
11,878
Lebanon, TN
If mass shootings are a mental health issue, only tangentially related to the availability of firearms, then how do you address it?
Screening the entire population would be too costly.
How about enhanced screening of people who are in the process of acquiring firearms?
Background checks something the NRA pushed for and finally got passed
Well first you don't attack the rights of LEGAL gun owners.

It is like a Bank saying we no longer allow withdrawals by their customers, because there are bank robbers.
 
Nov 2018
5,322
2,820
Rocky Mountains
I told you I don't know John Lott. Neither do you. So you post your personal opinions of him and it don't impress me.

You are demonstrating a lack of reading skills OR you are deliberately lying about what I said. The only job of the United States Supreme Court is to interpret the law - so you lied about what I said on that count. The United States Supreme Court is NOT authorized to legislate from the bench. pointing out the jurisdiction of the Court was NOT and is NOT "extraneous."

Science does not have anything to do with differing sides interpreting data different ways. You're being a dumb ass. I used one man's work to acknowledge that a problem exists. So, either mass shootings happen in the United States OR they do not. That was the only relevancy of Lott's statement. Lastly, I will leave you with the United States Supreme Court's own opinion that formed the basis of my earlier reply to you:

"The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land, and any statue, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:
The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it.
An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.
Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principals follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it . . .
A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one.
An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law.
Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby.
No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it."
-- Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 177. (late 2nd Ed. Section 256)
You cannot know whether I know Lott or not.

I have presented a critique of Lott's work and you can search the Internet for more if you want. He is not affiliated with any institution of higher learning now and is repeatedly shown to present misrepresentations of data.

SCOTUS actually has other jobs beyond reviewing law on appeal as the supreme court of the land. Read the Constitution.

Science is all about evaluating data in a fashion that everyone can agree is an impartial manner. So, science has everything to do with eliminating bias to the extent possible in every collection of data reported.

Your quotes, out of context from the Constitution Society, only apply to law that reaches SCOTUS on appeal and is judged to be constitutional or unconstitutional. You cannot decide that a law is unconstitutional merely because you think it is unconstitutional. The law exists as valid until it is proven invalid (unconstitutional).

Try not to get worked up about all this...
 
Nov 2018
5,322
2,820
Rocky Mountains
There is an armed person there security well if I was mass shooter who would be the first person that would be shot.. THE ARMED GUY before he can know there is a shooting.

then there is Mr or Mrs CCL holder that as a weapon out of sight sitting in a corner of the room the armed guard is shot.. the CCL holder takes out the shooter.. This is why when there at armed citizens in a shooting area.. there are survivors and fewer killed.
I understand that the fantasy is as you claim, but you cannot claim that a venue is a "gun free zone" if there are guns. It is either gun-free or it is not.

Otherwise please define what is "not gun-free" zone or what is a "gun-free zone" with guns...

You might like to comment on what do you think is going to happen when everyone in a dark theater is CCW permitted and has a weapon and shots are fired?
 
Nov 2012
41,310
11,878
Lebanon, TN
I understand that the fantasy is as you claim, but you cannot claim that a venue is a "gun free zone" if there are guns. It is either gun-free or it is not.

Otherwise please define what is "not gun-free" zone or what is a "gun-free zone" with guns...

You might like to comment on what do you think is going to happen when everyone in a dark theater is CCW permitted and has a weapon and shots are fired?
Gun free zone

 
Nov 2012
41,310
11,878
Lebanon, TN
this is the reality of Gun free zones



Best example of this is the Aurora CO Theater shooting, Batman was showing at 12 theaters that were bypassed by the shooter on the way to his killing field.. Why were they passed, the 12 he bypassed did not have a ban for CCL holders. The theater he chose was the only theater that did not allow firearms.

The shooter was a crazy man, not a stupid man.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LTP
Nov 2018
5,322
2,820
Rocky Mountains
Gun free zone
Maybe I should simplify it for you. what is the opposite of a "gun free zone" and try to be specific.
You seem to believe that guns may or may not be present in a "gun-free zone" so you must understand what exactly would constitution a NOT gun-free zone.
 
Nov 2018
5,322
2,820
Rocky Mountains
this is the reality of Gun free zones



Best example of this is the Aurora CO Theater shooting, Batman was showing at 12 theaters that were bypassed by the shooter on the way to his killing field.. Why were they passed, the 12 he bypassed did not have a ban for CCL holders. The theater he chose was the only theater that did not allow firearms.

The shooter was a crazy man, not a stupid man.
So, what do you think would have happened if EVERYONE in that theater had a firearm and shooting started. Play that out for me.