What do the PRO Gun Control people think no-gun zones actually do?

[Logical]

Hopefully you realize criminals do not follow the "no guns allowed" rules anyway. Just like they do not go through background checks to buy guns.

So how do you think it prevents any shootings or crime? Please list your reasons.

I think the law should be that gun are allowed anywhere where there are not metal detectors that keep criminals from having guns.

This would make criminals less confident that no-gun zones are a safe haven

[Travis_0004]

1. I am pro gun, and I support concealed carry, but I don't support your idea.

I think businesses should be allowed to decide if guns are allowed in their business or not.

If they don't allow guns, then you are free to not shop there.

[Logical]

2. OK, I agree also. I meant public locations. If a business owner has a sign I always honor it. but...

I know many gun owners do not.

[cbrer]

3. I agree with your point

And maybe by you not being there, it becomes a personal non-issue. But that doesn't address the OP's question.

The logic behind a decision to make a place "non-carry" is probably made with the best of intentions. As was already pointed out, criminals are going to do whatever they want to do. Ignoring law is a prerequisite of criminal intent.

So in the final analysis it doesn't make much sense.

But that doesn't stop some folks from getting a little shiver when considering a disgruntled worshiper (it's coming, wait and see). Or handguns in a bar.

[AtheistCrusader]

4. If you're going to ask an honest question, don't load the question with your own answer and opinion.

Just ask the damn question.


I can think of one beneficial effect: fewer accidental shootings of the variety of dropped guns, in these locales.

Granted these shootings are a tiny goddamn fraction of a itty bitty less than whole number percent of all shootings, but there you have it.

[Logical]

5. How about I ask the damn question anyway I want. If you want to whine about it then alert the post.

[AtheistCrusader]

6. That's fine, but know that people see right through the 'question' as you aren't asking one at all.

[Logical]

7. It was a question with a comment. Wow, just because you have no valid answer do not get snippy.

[AtheistCrusader]

9. I gave a valid answer.

I don't believe it rises to the justification of having these zones. I believe these zones are counterproductive.

I also believe in reasoned, mature debate. You aren't setting up one here. You are going to immediately offend and close the minds of any person who might have come here supporting gun free zones, that we might have had a reasoned debate with.

You're asking a relevant question, and at the same time poisoning the well of discourse.

And yes, I call others out for it as well, usually on the pro-gun-control side.

[Logical]

11. Jesus, this is a discussion board not a courtroom. And I have no issue....

with questions that also have facts behind them.

At this point I have no idea what you are actually saying.

[AtheistCrusader]

15. I'm saying (again) that your initial question wasn't a question at all.

That it is counter productive to frame a question in that manner.

That you will get a monkey shit fight, not a debate, as a result. Just watch and enjoy the responses you get. It will be self evident.

[Logical]

16. LOL...I am not sure at this point if you are serious or just being funny.

[ellisonz]

52. This a debate society, get it straight mister. n/t

[Loudly]

8. Was the Tuscon promenade where Rep. Giffords got shot

a No-Gun Zone?

Or was it just a place where someone who shot first with the most withering fire accomplished what he set out to do?

How was anyone "safer" having unfettered access to guns and ammo?

[AtheistCrusader]

10. No, it wasn't a no-gun zone.

Nor would it have stopped Loughner if it had been.

[Loudly]

12. So the real problem is access to the means of destruction.

And the real solution is fewer guns and less ammo. Shut down availability.

[AtheistCrusader]

13. A very different discussion.

[friendly_iconoclast]

14. "Shut down availability." How?

[Loudly]

17. Refer to the crusade against child pornography.

It's called public policy.

[Simo 1939_1940]

20. And we've *shut down* child pornography with public policy?

Seriously?

[rrneck]

22. So how often

do people use child pornography for self defense?

[friendly_iconoclast]

23. Are you *quite* sure you're not sharesunited?

The 'child pornography' analogy was part of his schtick. Do you also want the Canadian and Mexican armies (unarmed) to help confiscate gun in the US?

[Callisto32]

33. Was?

One of the primary reasons the SCOTUS allows something like child pornography to be totally restricted is that it is considered impossible to produce without harming someone. Merely allowing a demand for child pornography means that if the demand is met, crimes are committed.

It is entirely possible for a firearm to be produced, shipped, transferred, owned privately, shot, shot, shot, shot, shot (n rounds, really), and NEVER HAVE ANYBODY BE HARMED.

This is the primary distinction.

[Loudly]

81. That doesn't wash.

If not another picture was taken, the existing supply of unlawful images would exist to meet demand, and the crusade to eradicate them would continue.

Images are unlawful because of their *potential* to do harm.

A thing considered harmful in itself.

Images are considered vile while guns and ammo are considered wholesome. Despite the latter's very real potential to inflict physical injury and death upon the same innocents.

This is compartmentalization of a magnitude to boggle the rational mind.

[Glassunion]

82. Yes it does wash.

You are confusing the picture with the camera.

[friendly_iconoclast]

83. This has gone beyond "fighting drunk driving by restricting the sober", and into...

..."fighting drunk driving by banning cars".

[Loudly]

85. Speaking of driving...

There was a drive-by shooting here yesterday which killed 2 and wounded 6.

Other than the clear violation of initiating gunfire from a moving vehicle, all traffic laws were apparently obeyed.

[Loudly]

87. The image is what is deemed to harm.

The image is what has been declared impermissible.

I'd say the confusion is all your own.

[Glassunion]

91. Your still confusing the picture with the camera.

Camera is to Illegal Picture as Firearm is to Illegal Shooting

You can have a camera without an illegal picture.
You can have a firearm without an illegal shooting.

As you say, "The image is what is deemed to harm", I agree. "The image is what has been declared impermissible." Again, I agree.

Illegally shooting someone is what is deemed to harm.
The illegal shooting of someone has been declared impermissible.

So let's recap: You can own a camera and never take an illegal picture. You can own a firearm and never illegally shoot it.

[Loudly]

92. You can possess an unlawful image and never go near a child.

Yet protection to society is presumed to be achieved by stamping the thing out in its entirety.

Harmful in and of itself.

Likewise guns and ammo.

[gejohnston]

93. but harm was done

in the making of the image.
Not like guns and ammo.

[Loudly]

96. Guns used in crimes are auctioned off by police.

And put back into the hands of the general public.

Harm was done, but the gun is forgiven and welcomed back.

Kooky America.

[gejohnston]

99. gun is forgiven?

Christine was a fictional movie about a car, not a documentary about a gun.

[friendly_iconoclast]

84. Do you own any cameras? If you do, better destroy them all.

Cellphones, webcams, camcorders, SLRs, point-and-shoot...if you have one, practice what you preach and trash it.

After all, any camera has the *potential* to be used to create child pornography, yours included...

[Loudly]

86. You've zoomed out too far.

I'm not against the metal, plastic and silica from which cameras are made, either.

What is the thing which is harmful in and of itself?

The pornographic image. The gun and its bullets.

[friendly_iconoclast]

88. The gun and its bullets can do nothing without human intervention.

[Loudly]

89. And the pornographic image though never viewed?

Mere possession of the image on a disk or drive-- or more correctly, the mere possession of computer code which translates to such an image when decoded-- is sufficient for its possessor to receive some pretty severe punishment.

Is this consistent treatment among things deemed harmful in and of themselves?

[beevul]

90. Its you that has zoomed out too far.

"And the pornographic image though never viewed?"

Someone is inherently HARMED by the taking of an image such as the one in discussion here. The image is proof positive that HARM was inflicted on someone.

Unfired guns and/or bullets, on the other hand?

Your move.

[Loudly]

97. Photographs of crimes are generally not contraband.

Photographs of this crime are.

Why?

Because the image is deemed to cause continuing and future harm (re-victimization, grooming, etc.)

We're oddly much more forgiving and tolerant of deadly guns and ammo.

You can have guns which were actually used in crimes be auctioned off by police and back in the hands of the general public.

A thing harmful in and of itself.

Kooky America.

[beevul]

98. Uh huh.

"Because the image is deemed to cause continuing and future harm"

Precisely. THAT specific image, is guaranteed for 100 percent certain, to cause continuing and future harm.

"You can have guns which were actually used in crimes be auctioned off by police and back in the hands of the general public."

A. The gun did not perpetrate any crime. A person did. One can own vehicles that were previously used to run drugs, drive drunk, or rob banks, too. No deaths involved in any of those things though, right?


B. You CAN NOT accurately point to any specific gun and accurately claim that it is guaranteed for 100 percent certain, to cause continuing and future harm. Apples and pickup trucks, is what youre talking here.


A word of advice:

You aren't coming up with anything new here. Gun haters/gun grabbers/anti-gun types, have been getting their asses kicked on this topic both here and in the courts, and especially in the court of public opinion, for many years now, after leaning on such ridiculous arguments (and I'm being overly generous labelling them as "arguments&quot . You might try actually coming up with something new and/or untried, or at the very least browse the archives before making such absurd comparisons.

[AtheistCrusader]

35. Hi, Shares, how's it going?

[hack89]

76. Can we also refer to the crusade against illegal drugs?

or then ... maybe not.

[Loudly]

95. Drugs at least are willingly consumed.

Bullets into your body not so much.

[hack89]

100. Considering how much gun violence is associated with illegal drugs

I question your assertion - the demand for drugs has killed many innocents.

US murder rates are skewed by drug violence. Want to reduce violent crime - decriminalize drugs. Stop wasting billions on prisons and also reduce gun violence. Win -win and no one's civil liberties are restricted.

[cleanhippie]

43. Wow, what familiar rhetoric. Sharesunited, is that you?

It's like you cut-and-pasted from one of his posts.




Sockpuppertry?

[msongs]

18. all gun crimes are committed by...ta da...gun owners. they are the cause of the crimes.

if it's in your hand you own it, and possession is intent to use.

[Logical]

19. No, all of them are committed by criminals.

[gejohnston]

21. so are you equating

gangsters killing other gangsters or market share the same as the average target shooter? So the Olympic pistol team are contract killers in training? That is the problem with the gun control lobby, astro turf with no valid arguments.

http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/kates/Myth_of_the_Virgin_Killer-Kates-Polsby.pdf

[AtheistCrusader]

24. Possession is not ownership.

If someone steals my firearm and uses it, I am still the owner.

[Scootaloo]

26. Every gun used in crime is stolen, don't you know

Every.
Single.
One.

At least the ones that aren't hand-delivered to the "criminals" by satan and his imps, I guess.

[Callisto32]

30. WTF are you talking about?

[Scootaloo]

53. It's not rocket science

Look at the responses to Msong's post, above.

Logical argues on the basis that gun owners and criminals have absolutely zero overlap

AtheistCrusader argues that if a gun is used in a crime, it must be stolen

You actually do seem to avoid this properly - angling on msong's apparent attempt to say every crime is committed with a legally-owned firearm. Good for you, you get a banana sticker.

Ex500 attempts derail by missing the point utterly - if you buy a gun, it's because you want to shoot it. or, I guess, because you want to waste money, but still, "What if you buy a gun and never shoot it, HUH?!" is a really lame argument. it goes more toward another idiotic myth perpetrated by hte gun advocacy - that guns aren't actually weapons. They are sports utensils, like a badminton birdie, or objets d'art, but never a weapon designed to drive a pellet of lead into something at the far end of the barrel.

Fortran reprises AtheistCrusader and Logical's argument that if a gun is used in a crime, it must not have been owned by the person committing the crime.

Three fifths of the responses to msong's post amount to "if a gun is used in a crime, then it must have been stolen." I find this argument to be very stupid. I'm sure you can understand why; it's pretty much the same reason you found msong's point to be stupid.

Obviously, not every gun used in a crime is a stolen gun. That's logical (but, not according to logical himself, go figure). If even a majority of such guns were stolen property, then that would make forensics testing pretty much useless, first off. And I think we can agree that the methods used to determine which gun fired which bullet are actually pretty useful for catching the perpetrators.

Second, if all these guns are getting stolen, well, that sort of exposes the lie of the "responsible gun owner," doesn't it? After all by definition, a stolen item has to come from its legal owner, correct? And if every gun used in a crime - or even most! - were stolen property, then that would kind of imply that legal owners of guns are pretty prone to losing the fucking things. What, do you set it on top of the speaker at the drive-thru and just forget to pick it back up? Do you loan it out to people you met two days ago? What the world is going on that there is this epidemic, this plague of gun theft, putting stolen weapons in the hands of everyone who uses a gun in a criminal act?

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

55. In light of the OP...

...do you have a point here, somewhere?

[Scootaloo]

58. Here's a link that may help you understand better

http://www.hookedonphonics.com/

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

59. Kind of you :)

Here's one for you: http://www.sesamestreet.org/

BTW: feel free to answer my question in #55 or not.

[Scootaloo]

62. In case you're not catching on...

If you want to know my point, try reading what I wrote. It's all there, laid out nice and neat. If you have an actual question about what I put to text, why not ask it?

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

64. I'll rephrase for you...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=16157

[Scootaloo]

66. See, was it so hard to find my point? You even agree with it!

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

70. clearly...

...http://www.eslgo.com/ is needed

have a nice day

[AtheistCrusader]

34. Yawn.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

63. Bullshit

[DWC]

106. Actually, FBI stats show...

With the exception of premeditated murder and domestic violence, over 80% of guns used in violent crime have been stolen at some point since manufacture.

Semper Fi,

[Callisto32]

31. No.

It is not.

Demonstrably false.

You'd get MURDERED on cross-exam with a statement like that.

[EX500rider]

38. "and possession is intent to use"

Really? It's impossible then to buy a gun and never fire it? How's that work? Does it force itself magically into your hand and make you pull the trigger or what?

[one-eyed fat man]

41. "...and possession is intent to use."

Does that mean you are sitting on a gold mine?

[Fortran]

49. So...if someone takes my car without my permission, he is the "owner"?

[Scootaloo]

25. What a weird perception of reality you have, there

Your angle seems to hinge on the idea that there's an "us" and a "them" that never ever overlap - "gun owners" and "criminals."

Allow me to explain. A "gun owner" can easily become a criminal. People lose their cool all the time. otherwise sane, rational people have a few drinks, or something happens, and they get all "rargleblargleblargh!" and do who-knows-what.

No, a no-gun zone isn't going to help against the Anders Brievik sort. But it does keep two parents screaming at each other over a soccer match from suddenly and unexpectedly getting a whole lot worse. it doesn't keep an assassin from blowing away a statesman, but it does keep some dumb yahoo from firing off a round in the air in celebration and accidentally injuring someone a half mile away or something.

it's not a criminal deterrence system, it's a prevention system to keep dumbasses with guns from accidentally (or not so accidentally) doing something really unpleasant.

[Callisto32]

29. Those would be crimes....

jeeze.

[gejohnston]

36. that is not really true

Allow me to explain. A "gun owner" can easily become a criminal. People lose their cool all the time. otherwise sane, rational people have a few drinks, or something happens, and they get all "rargleblargleblargh!" and do who-knows-what.

that is very rare.

[Scootaloo]

51. So are mass murders in gun-free zones

But that seems to be the crux of the argument against them.

However, I'm simply making the point that a person can stop being "responsible" with their weapon. Sure, most often it's a conscious decision, someone has their gun and decides, for whatever reason, to break the law or otherwise behave like a dipshit with it. I'm just noting that it's also possible for it to happen as a "spur of the moment" thing.

In either case, we have a former "responsible gun owner" suddenly morphing into the "criminal," owing to circumstances and shitty decision-making. While i'm sure you realize that possibility, it seems to be something often... avoided, in preference for the myth that there are two separate "kinds" of people, the eternally-good, born-that-way, never-changing "gun owner" and the eternally-evil, born-that-way, never-changing "criminal."

[Straw Man]

69. Not even close.

Allow me to explain. A "gun owner" can easily become a criminal. People lose their cool all the time. otherwise sane, rational people have a few drinks, or something happens, and they get all "rargleblargleblargh!" and do who-knows-what.

that is very rare.

So are mass murders in gun-free zones

But that seems to be the crux of the argument against them.

No. It's not. The crux of the argument against them is that they do absolutely nothing to prevent or even hinder mass killings or any other kind of gun crime. They are ludicrous feel-good laws that have no effect whatsoever on criminal behavior. At best they allow the judicial system to add an absurdly insignificant charge when a violent incident does occur: "He shot seven people -- and in a gun-free zone!"

In either case, we have a former "responsible gun owner" suddenly morphing into the "criminal," owing to circumstances and shitty decision-making.

OK -- for the sake of argument, let's suppose that this does happen with any meaningful frequency. Are there places where a berserk shooting spree is more acceptable than in others? "Well, he mowed down a dozen people, but at least it wasn't in a church, school, or national park."

There are legitimate "gun-free zones." Courthouses are one. Airplanes are another. Both of these places are trouble-magnets, and in recognition of that fact, the powers-that-be make a good-faith effort to provide a secure and verifiable gun-free environment. Armed guards and metal detectors are the sine qua non. Signs at the mall entrance are a joke to criminals and an insult to the law-abiding.

[Simo 1939_1940]

47. Sigh. Not this bogus "argument" AGAIN.

Read, and learn:

http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/kates/Myth_of_the_Virgin_Killer-Kates-Polsby.pdf

[Scootaloo]

50. Interesting read

And utterly irrelevant, since all it goes on about is "IF YOU BAN GUNS ONLY CRIMINALS HAVE GUNS IF YOU BAN GUNS ONLY CRIMINALS WILL HAVE GUNS IF YOU BAN GUNS ONLY CRIMINALS HAVE GUNS IF YOU BAN GUNS ONLY CRIMINALS HAVE GUNS" page after page. Rather uninteresting, honestly; I was kind of hoping it would tell me something interesting, rather than just catapulting standard lines at me.

The plain fact is, everyone is a law-abiding person, until they break the law. That's our justice system. It seems a lot of pro-gun sorts also accept the "science" of phrenology or something, since, as the replies to my previous post shows, they seem unable to grasp the idea that pretty much anyone can commit a criminal act. It's not limited to persons with "low, sloping foreheads," after all. All that is required is intent to do so.

We're not talking about, as your... piece says, "disarming the law-abiding populace." We're talking about "If you want to come into this locale, leave your weapons somewhere else." While I'm sure you feel this is a violation of your "rights," the plain fact of the matter is... it's not. Your right to be armed to the teeth is never in question. You're just being told that to have the privilege of access to various locations and institutions, you must be disarmed.

Basically, if you find that you have to choose between watching your third-grader in the school play, and having to leave your weapons at home, you're free to skip the play. It's 100% your call, no one is kicking down your door and forcing you, kicking and screaming, to go to a school auditorium without firepower.

And hey. it's not like accidents don't happen.
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2012/02/18/us/AP-US-Accidental-Shooting-Church.html?_r=1&hp

[friendly_iconoclast]

74. I'm certainly glad to know that those who would criminally misuse a gun in a public place...

...will scrupulously obey laws against carrying guns in cerain places...

[safeinOhio]

27. I can see no guns areas in

crowded venues. Stadiums, concerts, etc. Even in crowded restaurants or other places where a defensive gun battle might endanger bystanders. In many of those situations the criminal is usually disarmed by unarmed people close enough to grab the gun man.

[oneshooter]

39. and you are willing, with higherticket prices, topay for the

additional security personel and equipment to assure that the venue is totally gun free. And don't forget the liability if your venue fails to do so.

[safeinOhio]

46. You can't even be assure that jails are gun free, even with body cavity searches.

I'm sure there is a policy for that as the number of shootings at those venues has been almost none. I just came from a college basketball game. Two armed LEOs for about 1,200 fans. I would hate to be there if there were 50 CCWs to open fire on a lone gun man. I'm more than happy to leave my gun at home. If I wasn't, along with the other 1,199, I would not attend. Seem the odds of my being shot at by a crazy person at the game are lower than being shot at by a road rage CCW holder. So, I do carry on road trips.

[gejohnston]

48. that is pretty low

because how many road rage CCW holders make the news? My concern is not so much inside the stadium, but the health of someone who has had their life threatened, crazy stalking ex etc. in the parking lot.

[Callisto32]

28. Keep me from patronizing the business that post the signs?

[DWC]

37. Insurance companies and lawyers

are the primary reason for no-gun zones. Gun Control prople are just their willing dupes. When there is no logic to an agenda, just follow the money.

Semper Fi,

[rrneck]

44. Bingo. Bullseye dead center. +1000 nt

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

72. While this is a bit of a...

...motivating factor, there is also the rule of thumb that says 'never attribute to conspiracy that which is explainable by just being a dick'.

[DWC]

75. Are "willing dupe" and "dick" synonyms? n/t

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

80. Not exactly....

...but they do go nicely together.

[ileus]

40. no-gun zones help them feel smug.

[Hoyt]

42. "No Gun Zones" send a message that the dang things aren't wanted here so keep em at home.

Last edited Sun Mar 11, 2012, 10:05 PM - Edit history (1)

Yes, criminals might carry them -- but we should view guns the same as smoking stinking cigars, swastikas, confederate flags, etc. If one has to a have a bunch of guns to enjoy life, leave them at home.

[oneshooter]

45. "No Gun Zones"= Target Rich Enviroment, disarmed every one.

[Hoyt]

57. No. Indicates a bunch of people enjoying life and not paranoid about the highly unlikely.

[Scootaloo]

67. The same can be said of pretty much everywhere, though

With or without a posted "no guns allowed" ordinance. 'Cause see, most people don't go around packing weapons. Really, they don't. Your average supermarket? Target-rich environment. A movie theater? Target-rich environment. Church? Target-rich environment. Star trek convention? Ozzfest? Black Friday wal-marts. Airports. Public libraries. Pet stores. Car dealerships. Cub scout meetings. The Oscars. Literally anything you can think of is bound to be a "target rich environment."

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

73. Now this is actually a point.

It has not as much to do with finding a target (since the malls, streets... are full of them) as the it does the obvious wisdom in avoiding return fire.

[DWC]

54. You seriously should read what you write

before you post it.

This is possibly the most absurd anti-gun statement ever posted on this site. It is definitely the most ridiculous I have ever read.

Semper Fi,

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

56. thank you

While I don't agree with your position, your reply is the only real answer given by anyone pro-control.

[DWC]

60. Ironically

While I still hold that "This is possibly the most absurd anti-gun statement ever posted on this site. It is definitely the most ridiculous I have ever read.", I must agree with you that it "is the only real answer given by anyone pro-control."

Semper Fi,

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

61. As such, I can respect that answer. n/t

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

65. As I'm not pro gun control...

...you're not really looking for an answer from me but I thought I would just shed some light on this.

A legally binding "gun free zone" will have only 4 types of people within it.

1- armed criminals
2- armed law enforcement
3- disarmed potential victims
4- actual victims

(note - Any time group 2 or 3 encounters group 1, they stand a good chance of joining group 4 but members group 3 are more likely to join group 4 than are members of group 2.)

[Logical]

68. Great analysis!! n-t

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

71. Such conclusions...

...would not evade a sixth grade graduate such as Jethro Bodine but perhaps some of our resident pro controllers have yet to complete their theses for fifth.

[jpak]

77. They keep guns out of places they don't belong - like schools and gov't buildings

yup

[Logical]

78. Like at Virginia Tech? You are really clueless.

[Glassunion]

79. The keep guns out of places they do not belong... No. NO THEY DO NOT!

1. Littleton, Colorado, April 1999: Two teenage boys shoot and kill 12 students and a teacher at Columbine High School before killing themselves. - This was a gun free zone. How could this have possibly happened?

2. Fort Worth, Texas, September 1999: A gunman opens fire at a prayer service, killing six people before committing suicide. - The possesion of a firearm in a church was prohibited at the time of this shooting. Why did the policy fail to protect those inside the church?

3. Washington, DC October 2002: A series of sniper-style shootings, some carried out from the boot of a car, claims 10 lives, mostly in the Washington area. Many of the attacks were carried out with a semi-automatic assault rifle. The entire district is a gun free zone. How could such a thing happened?

4. Chicago, August 2003: A worker who was laid off shoots and kills six of his former co-workers with a semi-automatic pistol. The shooter had a lengthy arrest record, including for weapons offences. - The city of Chicago Bans(at the time) handguns, and the entire state bans CCW, so this work place was indeed a gun free zone. How could such a thing have occurred?

5. Birchwood, Wisconsin, November 2004: A hunter opens fire with an SKS assault rifle, killing six other hunters and wounding two after an argument. - At the time CCW was illegal in the state, yet somehow a shooter was shooting in a gun free zone... UnPossible!

6. Brookfield, Wisconsin, March 2005: A man fires 22 rounds during a church service, killing seven people. - At the time CCW was illegal in the state, yet somehow a shooter was shooting in a gun free zone... UnPossible!

7. Nickel Mines, Pennsylvania, October 2006: A truck driver armed with two rifles, a semi-automatic handgun and 600 rounds of ammunition kills five schoolgirls execution-style in an Amish schoolhouse, and seriously wounds six others before shooting himself. - All K-12 schools are gun free in the state of PA. How could such a thing happen?

8. Blacksburg, Virginia, April 2007: A student shoots 47 people at Virginia Tech, killing 32 before he commits suicide, in the deadliest mass shooting in the United States. - How could such a thing have occurred in a gun free school?

9. Chicago, February 2008: Six women are tied-up and shot at a suburban clothing store. Five of the women die. The gunman has not been found. - The whole state is a gun free zone. How could such a thing have happened?

10. DeKalb, Illinois, February 2008: A man opens fire in a lecture hall at Northern Illinois University, killing five students and wounding 16 before turning his weapon on himself. - The school has a no weapons policy. This could not have happened.

11. North Carolina, March 29, 2009: A heavily-armed gunman shoots dead eight people, many elderly and sick patients, in a North Carolina nursing home. - Hmm... How did this happen? The nursing home had a No-Firearms rule and posting.

12. Binghamton, New York, April 3, 2009: Up to 13 people are killed as a gunman goes on a rampage at a civic centre in the town of Binghamton. - Maybe we need to send out a memo or something?

Please explain how all of these incidents could have possibly occurred in gun free zones?

[guitar man]

102. Aww c'mon

We all know by now that any law, policy and/or sign that says "no guns here" automatically throws up an invisible force field through which no guns can pass.... not even the all plastic ones that are invisible to metal detectors

[iverglas]

103. remind the self-centred jerks with their agendas

that there are at least a few places left in their world where they simply are not welcome.

I consider that to be a very worthwhile reminder, myself.

[Clames]

104. It's all about illusion.

If they think that the magical force field projected by "gun-free zone" signage is keeping them safe then that is all that matters to them....

[BiggJawn]

105. They make true-blue anti gun people feel GOOD about themselves.

Hey, look at all the "Gun-Free Zones" everywhere! Now they'll be SAFE there, because the sign says "No Guns"!
We did a good job here, no more crime in this area, no-siree!

Let's go ask Van Driessen if we can sing 'Oh, fly to me, Lesbian Seagull"!