Columbine happened during the federal assault weapons ban, the killer with the cheap carbine and ten round mags shot more bullets than the killer with the 'high cap' mags. The limited size of his magazine didn't prevent him from killing people, nor did the prohibition on murder.
The VT killer used two pistols, one had a ten round mag and the other a 13 or 15 round mag. The limited size of his magazines didn't prevent him from killing people, and again, nor did the prohibition on murder.
CT has had an assault weapons ban since the 90s and the rifle the killer used was compliant with the law. The AWB didn't prevent the killer from killing people, and as I pointed out before, neither did the prohibition on murder.
Assault weapons bans won't stop anything. You gun control advocates should just step up to the plate and instead of trying to ban features, just ban semiautomatic firearms, oh, and confiscate them, too.
"The VT killer used two pistols, one had a ten round mag and the other a 13 or 15 round mag."
And those were only the two magazines that came with the gun. All the additional Glock magazines were ten rounders. Out of 18 total magazines used, 16 were ten rounders.
Most locations that spree killers have targeted became "gun free zones" around the year 2000. So I believe the rapid increase in "gun free zones" explains the numerous spree killings. If you were a spree killer, wouldn't you choose a location where you know for certain that the good guys will be unarmed?
Remember, criminals who don't care about murder laws don't care if some place is a "gun free zone" either. This is obvious because spree killers have taken guns into several gun free zones and killed people.
No, if I were a spree killer I'd do what every one of those lunatics did. I'd go to the place of my grievance or the place I just wanted to shoot up, regardless of anything, least of all the exact status of gun control at that particular place.
People like you do just that Mike, and it happens to be a minority of instances. They also get shot down before they cause much damage as opposed to gun free/victim rich zones.
Mike, you list significant factors as well when spree killers decide where to go. Keep in mind that most work places -- a popular choice for spree killers -- are "gun free zones" as well as a matter of policy. So whether it is a law or policy, most places are "gun free zones". (Most businesses prohibit their employees from being armed at work. As for customers, policies vary greatly of course.)
What is incredibly significant is that you recognize a spree killer doesn't care if some place is a "gun free zone" -- they will go in armed anyway if that is the place that they choose. So why do we have "gun free zones" when they clearly do not work? All a "gun free zone" does is encourage good guys to leave their guns outside. And that means there are no good guys with guns inside to stop a spree killer.
I don't know about you, but I would much rather have a good guy with a gun already inside the building where I am if a spree killer shows up ... versus waiting for several minutes for police to show up. And yes, I'll gladly take my chances that the armed good guy inadvertently shoots me while trying to shoot the spree killer. Why? Because random* shots are rarely lethal and spree killers have already shown us that they can kill dozens of people in the time it takes for police to show up.
*If an armed good guy inadvertently shot me while trying to stop a spree killer, he would not be purposely aiming at me and thus his shot would be random with respect to me.
My point is, the fact that some or most of the mass shootings happen in gun free zones is incidental. The shooters don't even consider it. They go where they go for other reasons. They are not the calculating, rational, killing machines you make them out to be. THEY'RE NUTS. And nuts don't operate like that.
Mikeb, some nuts are too wacko to walk out their doors in the morning. Those aren't generally the ones we have to worry about. The really dangerous ones are fully capable of putting a plan together. They just get their plans from the neighbor's dog or the like.
What grievance did the wacko in Aurora have? That was a target-rich environment where the good guys were told to disarm. This is the point. Whatever goes on in the minds of wackos isn't likely to make sense to the rest of us. But gun-free zones only disarm the potential victims. They do nothing to stop the people who are a problem. You can whimper all day long about someone snapping or having an accident, but for every one of those cases, there are plenty of thugs and nut-jobs who come in with a plan.
How would we know what grievance Holmes had against that particular theater? Maybe that's where he tried to kiss his first girlfriend and got rejected, who knows?
I read today there are diaries or statements of his that haven't been released yet. Maybe we'll find out. How much you wanna bet that he DID NOT write that he selected that place because it was a gun free zone?
Mikeb, I wouldn't trust you to pay up on a bet even if you showed me a line of credit bigger than Germany's. And I'm not going to bet on the state of mind of a wacko. He could just as well have written that the street address of the place is code for the Devil's name. As always, the point here is that no matter why he chose that theater, the people inside were unable to shoot back.
Columbine happened during the federal assault weapons ban, the killer with the cheap carbine and ten round mags shot more bullets than the killer with the 'high cap' mags. The limited size of his magazine didn't prevent him from killing people, nor did the prohibition on murder.
ReplyDeleteThe VT killer used two pistols, one had a ten round mag and the other a 13 or 15 round mag. The limited size of his magazines didn't prevent him from killing people, and again, nor did the prohibition on murder.
CT has had an assault weapons ban since the 90s and the rifle the killer used was compliant with the law. The AWB didn't prevent the killer from killing people, and as I pointed out before, neither did the prohibition on murder.
Assault weapons bans won't stop anything. You gun control advocates should just step up to the plate and instead of trying to ban features, just ban semiautomatic firearms, oh, and confiscate them, too.
"The VT killer used two pistols, one had a ten round mag and the other a 13 or 15 round mag."
DeleteAnd those were only the two magazines that came with the gun. All the additional Glock magazines were ten rounders. Out of 18 total magazines used, 16 were ten rounders.
Well, Clinton's relationship with the truth has always been strained:
ReplyDeletehttp://news.discovery.com/history/mass-shootings-history-121220.htm
Most locations that spree killers have targeted became "gun free zones" around the year 2000. So I believe the rapid increase in "gun free zones" explains the numerous spree killings. If you were a spree killer, wouldn't you choose a location where you know for certain that the good guys will be unarmed?
ReplyDeleteRemember, criminals who don't care about murder laws don't care if some place is a "gun free zone" either. This is obvious because spree killers have taken guns into several gun free zones and killed people.
- TruthBeTold
No, if I were a spree killer I'd do what every one of those lunatics did. I'd go to the place of my grievance or the place I just wanted to shoot up, regardless of anything, least of all the exact status of gun control at that particular place.
DeletePeople like you do just that Mike, and it happens to be a minority of instances. They also get shot down before they cause much damage as opposed to gun free/victim rich zones.
DeleteMike, you list significant factors as well when spree killers decide where to go. Keep in mind that most work places -- a popular choice for spree killers -- are "gun free zones" as well as a matter of policy. So whether it is a law or policy, most places are "gun free zones". (Most businesses prohibit their employees from being armed at work. As for customers, policies vary greatly of course.)
DeleteWhat is incredibly significant is that you recognize a spree killer doesn't care if some place is a "gun free zone" -- they will go in armed anyway if that is the place that they choose. So why do we have "gun free zones" when they clearly do not work? All a "gun free zone" does is encourage good guys to leave their guns outside. And that means there are no good guys with guns inside to stop a spree killer.
I don't know about you, but I would much rather have a good guy with a gun already inside the building where I am if a spree killer shows up ... versus waiting for several minutes for police to show up. And yes, I'll gladly take my chances that the armed good guy inadvertently shoots me while trying to shoot the spree killer. Why? Because random* shots are rarely lethal and spree killers have already shown us that they can kill dozens of people in the time it takes for police to show up.
*If an armed good guy inadvertently shot me while trying to stop a spree killer, he would not be purposely aiming at me and thus his shot would be random with respect to me.
- TruthBeTold
My point is, the fact that some or most of the mass shootings happen in gun free zones is incidental. The shooters don't even consider it. They go where they go for other reasons. They are not the calculating, rational, killing machines you make them out to be. THEY'RE NUTS. And nuts don't operate like that.
DeleteMikeb, some nuts are too wacko to walk out their doors in the morning. Those aren't generally the ones we have to worry about. The really dangerous ones are fully capable of putting a plan together. They just get their plans from the neighbor's dog or the like.
DeleteThat's right and it usually has nothing to do with the gun control status of the target.
DeleteWhat grievance did the wacko in Aurora have? That was a target-rich environment where the good guys were told to disarm. This is the point. Whatever goes on in the minds of wackos isn't likely to make sense to the rest of us. But gun-free zones only disarm the potential victims. They do nothing to stop the people who are a problem. You can whimper all day long about someone snapping or having an accident, but for every one of those cases, there are plenty of thugs and nut-jobs who come in with a plan.
DeleteHow would we know what grievance Holmes had against that particular theater? Maybe that's where he tried to kiss his first girlfriend and got rejected, who knows?
DeleteI read today there are diaries or statements of his that haven't been released yet. Maybe we'll find out. How much you wanna bet that he DID NOT write that he selected that place because it was a gun free zone?
Mikeb, I wouldn't trust you to pay up on a bet even if you showed me a line of credit bigger than Germany's. And I'm not going to bet on the state of mind of a wacko. He could just as well have written that the street address of the place is code for the Devil's name. As always, the point here is that no matter why he chose that theater, the people inside were unable to shoot back.
DeleteWhich got three "pinocchios".
ReplyDeletehttp://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/bill-clintons-over-the-top-fact-on-mass-shootings/2013/01/10/7040d61e-5b7a-11e2-9fa9-5fbdc9530eb9_blog.html
It's only false if it opposes gun control--that's the rule around here.
Delete