Another mass shooting...

let's test his logic:

school shootings happen because it's a gun free zone.
if teachers and students had access to guns, then school shootings wouldn't happen.



then we say it out loud, hear it said out loud, and think actual thoughts with our brains.

A lot of these school shooting morons have a death wish anyway. They choose schools for the infamy. Teachers being armed won't stop them. In fact it could help facilitate them as people who wouldn't ordinarily have access to a gun, now can find one on every teacher.

Lets make schools gun zones again.

So anyone can walk in with a backpack full of guns and have the local cop stop them and say "excuse me sir... You dropped your pencil."

The Uvdalen schol shooting is exactly what it would look like.

Guy walks in, armed.  No one stops him.  Everyone waves.
Then he pulls his guns out, still fine.
Then he aims.  Apprehension.
Then he shoots.

Maybe he dies.  But if cops are too scared to engage, I'd bet others would be too.  Even armed others with no police training.

Yes
Its the 1st of many expectdd gish as you cant defend the 22-433 statistic.

So now we re on to gun free zones.
And once again - chicago.
Criminals have guns.
They draw on others with guns.
My point - gun free zone is as meaningless as gun zone.

Feel free discuss.

Discuss what?

Criminals not giving a fuck about the law?

Your desire to control what law-abiding citizens can or cannot own?

Your desire to see criminals run rampant in the streets, inflicting more harm on innocents?

Typical pro-death.

You missed the point
Lets try again.

How will a gun no-free zone prevent death?

You missed the point
Lets try again.

How will a gun no-free zone prevent death?

Nothing prevents death.

You AI are really showing your tendency toward syllogistic fallacy.

Quote from: WISHTOLAUGH on July 26, 2022, 12:08:03 PM

Quote from: Stash on July 26, 2022, 11:15:25 AM

Quote from: WISHTOLAUGH on July 26, 2022, 03:43:55 AM

Quote from: Themightykabool on July 18, 2022, 04:49:13 PM

Its amazing to see the armchair warriors "if i was there idve ended it".

Yes it is good to see them ending things right away.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenwood_Park_Mall_shooting

There were at least 433 active shooter attacks — in which one or more shooters killed or attempted to kill multiple unrelated people in a populated place — in the United States from 2000 to 2021. The country experienced an average of more than one a week in 2021 alone.

But armed bystanders shooting attackers was not common in the data — 22 cases out of 433. In 10 of those, the “good guy” was a security guard or an off-duty police officer.

“The actual data show that some of these kind of heroic, Hollywood moments of armed citizens taking out active shooters are just extraordinarily rare,” Mr. Lankford said.

Good guys with guns: 12 out of 433.

Active shooter attacks occur in places designated as "gun-free zones."

Are you actually saying that all active shootings only ocurred in some sort of "gun free zone"?

Quote from: WISHTOLAUGH on July 26, 2022, 12:08:03 PM

Your stats are meaningless because they are skewed.

Why don't you go ahead and explain how they are skewed rather than just claiming they are with zero foundation to support your claim.

Quote from: WISHTOLAUGH on July 26, 2022, 12:08:03 PM

You really struggle with basic understanding, don't you?

Apparently not, considering you're making up something about gun free zones & skewed data.

Quote from: WISHTOLAUGH on July 26, 2022, 12:08:03 PM

Good guys obey the law.

Active shooters desiring to harm people do not operate where the odds of getting shot themselves are high.

How would you know this? What are you basing this on?

From an FBI report regarding active shootings:

The 5 incidents that occurred on military property resulted in 27 killed and 43 wounded (including 5 law enforcement officers). The shooters ranged in age from 23 to 63. Most incidents occurred on Mondays (3) with the rest occurring on Thursdays (2). In all, police killed 3 shooters at the scene and apprehended 2 shooters at the scene. Two shooters had prior military service, 2 shooters had no military experience, and 1 shooter was an active duty member of the military.

Another incident amid cops, people who would shoot you, and out on the streets of Dallas which are certainly not "gun free zones" as you claim:

On July 7, 2016, Micah Xavier Johnson ambushed a group of police officers in Dallas, Texas, shooting and killing five officers, and injuring nine others. Two civilians were also wounded.

Hardly "gun-free zones" and hardly a place where you wouldn't get shot.

^AI trying to peddle off a military base as an area where everyone can walk around armed if they like.

Quote from: Themightykabool on July 27, 2022, 03:50:42 AM

You missed the point
Lets try again.

How will a gun no-free zone prevent death?

Nothing prevents death.

You AI are really showing your tendency toward syllogistic fallacy.

Fine
Why would a gun no-free zone be beneficial?

Quote from: Stash on July 26, 2022, 02:53:54 PM

Quote from: WISHTOLAUGH on July 26, 2022, 12:08:03 PM

Quote from: Stash on July 26, 2022, 11:15:25 AM

Quote from: WISHTOLAUGH on July 26, 2022, 03:43:55 AM

Quote from: Themightykabool on July 18, 2022, 04:49:13 PM

Its amazing to see the armchair warriors "if i was there idve ended it".

Yes it is good to see them ending things right away.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenwood_Park_Mall_shooting

There were at least 433 active shooter attacks — in which one or more shooters killed or attempted to kill multiple unrelated people in a populated place — in the United States from 2000 to 2021. The country experienced an average of more than one a week in 2021 alone.

But armed bystanders shooting attackers was not common in the data — 22 cases out of 433. In 10 of those, the “good guy” was a security guard or an off-duty police officer.

“The actual data show that some of these kind of heroic, Hollywood moments of armed citizens taking out active shooters are just extraordinarily rare,” Mr. Lankford said.

Good guys with guns: 12 out of 433.

Active shooter attacks occur in places designated as "gun-free zones."

Are you actually saying that all active shootings only ocurred in some sort of "gun free zone"?

Quote from: WISHTOLAUGH on July 26, 2022, 12:08:03 PM

Your stats are meaningless because they are skewed.

Why don't you go ahead and explain how they are skewed rather than just claiming they are with zero foundation to support your claim.

Quote from: WISHTOLAUGH on July 26, 2022, 12:08:03 PM

You really struggle with basic understanding, don't you?

Apparently not, considering you're making up something about gun free zones & skewed data.

Quote from: WISHTOLAUGH on July 26, 2022, 12:08:03 PM

Good guys obey the law.

Active shooters desiring to harm people do not operate where the odds of getting shot themselves are high.

How would you know this? What are you basing this on?

From an FBI report regarding active shootings:

The 5 incidents that occurred on military property resulted in 27 killed and 43 wounded (including 5 law enforcement officers). The shooters ranged in age from 23 to 63. Most incidents occurred on Mondays (3) with the rest occurring on Thursdays (2). In all, police killed 3 shooters at the scene and apprehended 2 shooters at the scene. Two shooters had prior military service, 2 shooters had no military experience, and 1 shooter was an active duty member of the military.

Another incident amid cops, people who would shoot you, and out on the streets of Dallas which are certainly not "gun free zones" as you claim:

On July 7, 2016, Micah Xavier Johnson ambushed a group of police officers in Dallas, Texas, shooting and killing five officers, and injuring nine others. Two civilians were also wounded.

Hardly "gun-free zones" and hardly a place where you wouldn't get shot.

^AI trying to peddle off a military base as an area where everyone can walk around armed if they like.

If they like?
Maybe check out the marine gunner videos where they debunk that claim.

Quote from: WISHTOLAUGH on July 27, 2022, 04:24:57 AM

Quote from: Themightykabool on July 27, 2022, 03:50:42 AM

You missed the point
Lets try again.

How will a gun no-free zone prevent death?

Nothing prevents death.

You AI are really showing your tendency toward syllogistic fallacy.

Fine
Why would a gun no-free zone be beneficial?

What is a gun no-free zone?

The UK is massive Gun Free Zone.
It does not have alot of mass shootings.

Airports are Gun Free Zones.  Almost no mass shootings there.

Libraries are Gun Free Zones.  Almost never get shot up.

Maybe the problem isn't if an area is or isn't a gun free zone. 

The UK is massive Gun Free Zone.
It does not have alot of mass shootings.

Airports are Gun Free Zones.  Almost no mass shootings there.

Libraries are Gun Free Zones.  Almost never get shot up.

Maybe the problem isn't if an area is or isn't a gun free zone.

None of the areas you listed are gun-free zones.

Quote from: Lorddave on July 27, 2022, 05:50:20 AM

The UK is massive Gun Free Zone.
It does not have alot of mass shootings.

Airports are Gun Free Zones.  Almost no mass shootings there.

Libraries are Gun Free Zones.  Almost never get shot up.

Maybe the problem isn't if an area is or isn't a gun free zone.

None of the areas you listed are gun-free zones.

O.o
Ok, just to check... How are libraries not gun free zones?

Quote from: WISHTOLAUGH on July 27, 2022, 05:54:35 AM

Quote from: Lorddave on July 27, 2022, 05:50:20 AM

The UK is massive Gun Free Zone.
It does not have alot of mass shootings.

Airports are Gun Free Zones.  Almost no mass shootings there.

Libraries are Gun Free Zones.  Almost never get shot up.

Maybe the problem isn't if an area is or isn't a gun free zone.

None of the areas you listed are gun-free zones.

O.o
Ok, just to check... How are libraries not gun free zones?

There are no gun-free zones, period.

There a "gun restricted zones." In other words, if you are such and such, you can possess a gun while here.

let's test his logic:

school shootings happen because it's a gun free zone.
if teachers and students had access to guns, then school shootings wouldn't happen.



then we say it out loud, hear it said out loud, and think actual thoughts with our brains.

You cannot actually say anything out loud.

Quote from: Themightykabool on July 27, 2022, 05:24:44 AM

Quote from: WISHTOLAUGH on July 27, 2022, 04:24:57 AM

Quote from: Themightykabool on July 27, 2022, 03:50:42 AM

You missed the point
Lets try again.

How will a gun no-free zone prevent death?

Nothing prevents death.

You AI are really showing your tendency toward syllogistic fallacy.

Fine
Why would a gun no-free zone be beneficial?

What is a gun no-free zone?

oh now we're in avoidance.

troll on you POS.

Quote from: Lorddave on July 27, 2022, 06:04:43 AM

Quote from: WISHTOLAUGH on July 27, 2022, 05:54:35 AM

Quote from: Lorddave on July 27, 2022, 05:50:20 AM

The UK is massive Gun Free Zone.
It does not have alot of mass shootings.

Airports are Gun Free Zones.  Almost no mass shootings there.

Libraries are Gun Free Zones.  Almost never get shot up.

Maybe the problem isn't if an area is or isn't a gun free zone.

None of the areas you listed are gun-free zones.

O.o
Ok, just to check... How are libraries not gun free zones?

There are no gun-free zones, period.

There a "gun restricted zones." In other words, if you are such and such, you can possess a gun while here.

great
we know what gun-no-free-zones are.

now
how will possess a gun while in a such a zone be beneficial?
you brought it up.
you finish the thought.

Quote from: WISHTOLAUGH on July 27, 2022, 05:30:18 AM

Quote from: Themightykabool on July 27, 2022, 05:24:44 AM

Quote from: WISHTOLAUGH on July 27, 2022, 04:24:57 AM

Quote from: Themightykabool on July 27, 2022, 03:50:42 AM

You missed the point
Lets try again.

How will a gun no-free zone prevent death?

Nothing prevents death.

You AI are really showing your tendency toward syllogistic fallacy.

Fine
Why would a gun no-free zone be beneficial?

What is a gun no-free zone?

oh now we're in avoidance.

troll on you POS.

GTFO, you non-sensical piece of AI garbage.
[/quote]

Quote from: WISHTOLAUGH on July 27, 2022, 07:10:56 AM

Quote from: Lorddave on July 27, 2022, 06:04:43 AM

Quote from: WISHTOLAUGH on July 27, 2022, 05:54:35 AM

Quote from: Lorddave on July 27, 2022, 05:50:20 AM

The UK is massive Gun Free Zone.
It does not have alot of mass shootings.

Airports are Gun Free Zones.  Almost no mass shootings there.

Libraries are Gun Free Zones.  Almost never get shot up.

Maybe the problem isn't if an area is or isn't a gun free zone.

None of the areas you listed are gun-free zones.

O.o
Ok, just to check... How are libraries not gun free zones?

There are no gun-free zones, period.

There a "gun restricted zones." In other words, if you are such and such, you can possess a gun while here.

great
we know what gun-no-free-zones are.

now
how will possess a gun while in a such a zone be beneficial?
you brought it up.
you finish the thought.

Statistics show there is less criminal application of a firearm in areas where the laws allow for ordinary citizens to possess and carry firearms.

Statistics show there is less criminal application of a firearm in areas where the laws allow for ordinary citizens to possess and carry firearms.

great
"more guns means less crime."

then back to chicago.
so we have people with guns getting shot at by other people with guns.
why isn't there less crime?

Quote from: Themightykabool on July 27, 2022, 07:25:01 AM

Quote from: WISHTOLAUGH on July 27, 2022, 05:30:18 AM

Quote from: Themightykabool on July 27, 2022, 05:24:44 AM

Quote from: WISHTOLAUGH on July 27, 2022, 04:24:57 AM

Quote from: Themightykabool on July 27, 2022, 03:50:42 AM

You missed the point
Lets try again.

How will a gun no-free zone prevent death?

Nothing prevents death.

You AI are really showing your tendency toward syllogistic fallacy.

Fine
Why would a gun no-free zone be beneficial?

What is a gun no-free zone?

oh now we're in avoidance.

troll on you POS.

GTFO, you non-sensical piece of AI garbage.

Quote from: WISHTOLAUGH on July 27, 2022, 07:10:56 AM

Quote from: Lorddave on July 27, 2022, 06:04:43 AM

Quote from: WISHTOLAUGH on July 27, 2022, 05:54:35 AM

Quote from: Lorddave on July 27, 2022, 05:50:20 AM

The UK is massive Gun Free Zone.
It does not have alot of mass shootings.

Airports are Gun Free Zones.  Almost no mass shootings there.

Libraries are Gun Free Zones.  Almost never get shot up.

Maybe the problem isn't if an area is or isn't a gun free zone.

None of the areas you listed are gun-free zones.

O.o
Ok, just to check... How are libraries not gun free zones?

There are no gun-free zones, period.

There a "gun restricted zones." In other words, if you are such and such, you can possess a gun while here.

great
we know what gun-no-free-zones are.

now
how will possess a gun while in a such a zone be beneficial?
you brought it up.
you finish the thought.

Statistics show there is less criminal application of a firearm in areas where the laws allow for ordinary citizens to possess and carry firearms.
[/quote]

This is actually a false correlation.
There are less crimes in general in areas of lower population density.  Which coincide with areas of less gun restrictions.

Think Vermont, the midwest, and basically areas that aren't major cities.

Quote from: WISHTOLAUGH on July 27, 2022, 09:04:16 AM

Statistics show there is less criminal application of a firearm in areas where the laws allow for ordinary citizens to possess and carry firearms.

great
"more guns means less crime."

then back to chicago.
so we have people with guns getting shot at by other people with guns.
why isn't there less crime?

Because for the most part, law-abiding people do not have guns, and in Chicago you have large population of criminal gangs who use illegally obtained firearms to commit acts of gun violence.

I happen to know of some areas though in the city proper where law-abiding people do have guns.

No gangland shootings taking place there.

This is actually a false correlation.
There are less crimes in general in areas of lower population density.  Which coincide with areas of less gun restrictions.

Think Vermont, the midwest, and basically areas that aren't major cities.

It is actually a true correlation.

If the areas in question allowed for legal ownership and the constitutional right to carry, you would see a drastic drop in gun deaths.

Just as there is in areas where it is allowed.

If people are allowed to protect themselves with instruments of protection, there is less likely a chance of falling victim to lawless thugs.

Quote from: Themightykabool on July 27, 2022, 09:13:18 AM

Quote from: WISHTOLAUGH on July 27, 2022, 09:04:16 AM

Statistics show there is less criminal application of a firearm in areas where the laws allow for ordinary citizens to possess and carry firearms.

great
"more guns means less crime."

then back to chicago.
so we have people with guns getting shot at by other people with guns.
why isn't there less crime?

Because for the most part, law-abiding people do not have guns, and in Chicago you have large population of criminal gangs who use illegally obtained firearms to commit acts of gun violence.

I happen to know of some areas though in the city proper where law-abiding people do have guns.

No gangland shootings taking place there.

If the areas in question allowed for legal ownership and the constitutional right to carry, you would see a drastic drop in gun deaths.

Just as there is in areas where it is allowed.

If people are allowed to protect themselves with instruments of protection, there is less likely a chance of falling victim to lawless thugs.

all you've done was restate your theory.
but never finished the thought.

your theory is that guns will prevent criminals from shooting at you.
but the criminals don't fear guns.
so why would a law abiding person with a gun prevent a criminal witha  gun, when a cirminal with a gun can't prevent a criminal witha  gun?

who's more lethal prey?
a criminal who's on guard, or a law abider?

Quote from: Stash on July 26, 2022, 02:53:54 PM

Quote from: WISHTOLAUGH on July 26, 2022, 12:08:03 PM

Quote from: Stash on July 26, 2022, 11:15:25 AM

Quote from: WISHTOLAUGH on July 26, 2022, 03:43:55 AM

Quote from: Themightykabool on July 18, 2022, 04:49:13 PM

Its amazing to see the armchair warriors "if i was there idve ended it".

Yes it is good to see them ending things right away.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenwood_Park_Mall_shooting

There were at least 433 active shooter attacks — in which one or more shooters killed or attempted to kill multiple unrelated people in a populated place — in the United States from 2000 to 2021. The country experienced an average of more than one a week in 2021 alone.

But armed bystanders shooting attackers was not common in the data — 22 cases out of 433. In 10 of those, the “good guy” was a security guard or an off-duty police officer.

“The actual data show that some of these kind of heroic, Hollywood moments of armed citizens taking out active shooters are just extraordinarily rare,” Mr. Lankford said.

Good guys with guns: 12 out of 433.

Active shooter attacks occur in places designated as "gun-free zones."

Are you actually saying that all active shootings only ocurred in some sort of "gun free zone"?

Quote from: WISHTOLAUGH on July 26, 2022, 12:08:03 PM

Your stats are meaningless because they are skewed.

Why don't you go ahead and explain how they are skewed rather than just claiming they are with zero foundation to support your claim.

Quote from: WISHTOLAUGH on July 26, 2022, 12:08:03 PM

You really struggle with basic understanding, don't you?

Apparently not, considering you're making up something about gun free zones & skewed data.

Quote from: WISHTOLAUGH on July 26, 2022, 12:08:03 PM

Good guys obey the law.

Active shooters desiring to harm people do not operate where the odds of getting shot themselves are high.

How would you know this? What are you basing this on?

From an FBI report regarding active shootings:

The 5 incidents that occurred on military property resulted in 27 killed and 43 wounded (including 5 law enforcement officers). The shooters ranged in age from 23 to 63. Most incidents occurred on Mondays (3) with the rest occurring on Thursdays (2). In all, police killed 3 shooters at the scene and apprehended 2 shooters at the scene. Two shooters had prior military service, 2 shooters had no military experience, and 1 shooter was an active duty member of the military.

Another incident amid cops, people who would shoot you, and out on the streets of Dallas which are certainly not "gun free zones" as you claim:

On July 7, 2016, Micah Xavier Johnson ambushed a group of police officers in Dallas, Texas, shooting and killing five officers, and injuring nine others. Two civilians were also wounded.

Hardly "gun-free zones" and hardly a place where you wouldn't get shot.

^AI trying to peddle off a military base as an area where everyone can walk around armed if they like.

I can walk around Texas fully armed if I like. You're saying people on military bases are never armed??? There are no weapons on military bases???

Hmmmm...

Quote from: Themightykabool on July 27, 2022, 09:13:18 AM

Quote from: WISHTOLAUGH on July 27, 2022, 09:04:16 AM

Statistics show there is less criminal application of a firearm in areas where the laws allow for ordinary citizens to possess and carry firearms.

great
"more guns means less crime."

then back to chicago.
so we have people with guns getting shot at by other people with guns.
why isn't there less crime?

Because for the most part, law-abiding people do not have guns, and in Chicago you have large population of criminal gangs who use illegally obtained firearms to commit acts of gun violence.

I happen to know of some areas though in the city proper where law-abiding people do have guns.

No gangland shootings taking place there.

Please state these areas.  I'd like to do my own research.
Because, well... being vague about such information is often a sign of... lies.

Quote from: WISHTOLAUGH on July 27, 2022, 04:26:38 AM

Quote from: Stash on July 26, 2022, 02:53:54 PM

Quote from: WISHTOLAUGH on July 26, 2022, 12:08:03 PM

Quote from: Stash on July 26, 2022, 11:15:25 AM

Quote from: WISHTOLAUGH on July 26, 2022, 03:43:55 AM

Quote from: Themightykabool on July 18, 2022, 04:49:13 PM

Its amazing to see the armchair warriors "if i was there idve ended it".

Yes it is good to see them ending things right away.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenwood_Park_Mall_shooting

There were at least 433 active shooter attacks — in which one or more shooters killed or attempted to kill multiple unrelated people in a populated place — in the United States from 2000 to 2021. The country experienced an average of more than one a week in 2021 alone.

But armed bystanders shooting attackers was not common in the data — 22 cases out of 433. In 10 of those, the “good guy” was a security guard or an off-duty police officer.

“The actual data show that some of these kind of heroic, Hollywood moments of armed citizens taking out active shooters are just extraordinarily rare,” Mr. Lankford said.

Good guys with guns: 12 out of 433.

Active shooter attacks occur in places designated as "gun-free zones."

Are you actually saying that all active shootings only ocurred in some sort of "gun free zone"?

Quote from: WISHTOLAUGH on July 26, 2022, 12:08:03 PM

Your stats are meaningless because they are skewed.

Why don't you go ahead and explain how they are skewed rather than just claiming they are with zero foundation to support your claim.

Quote from: WISHTOLAUGH on July 26, 2022, 12:08:03 PM

You really struggle with basic understanding, don't you?

Apparently not, considering you're making up something about gun free zones & skewed data.

Quote from: WISHTOLAUGH on July 26, 2022, 12:08:03 PM

Good guys obey the law.

Active shooters desiring to harm people do not operate where the odds of getting shot themselves are high.

How would you know this? What are you basing this on?

From an FBI report regarding active shootings:

The 5 incidents that occurred on military property resulted in 27 killed and 43 wounded (including 5 law enforcement officers). The shooters ranged in age from 23 to 63. Most incidents occurred on Mondays (3) with the rest occurring on Thursdays (2). In all, police killed 3 shooters at the scene and apprehended 2 shooters at the scene. Two shooters had prior military service, 2 shooters had no military experience, and 1 shooter was an active duty member of the military.

Another incident amid cops, people who would shoot you, and out on the streets of Dallas which are certainly not "gun free zones" as you claim:

On July 7, 2016, Micah Xavier Johnson ambushed a group of police officers in Dallas, Texas, shooting and killing five officers, and injuring nine others. Two civilians were also wounded.

Hardly "gun-free zones" and hardly a place where you wouldn't get shot.

^AI trying to peddle off a military base as an area where everyone can walk around armed if they like.

I can walk around Texas fully armed if I like. You're saying people on military bases are never armed??? There are no weapons on military bases???

Hmmmm...

You can't walk around a military base in Texas fully armed.

Shove your hyperbole up your rectum where it belongs.

Quote from: WISHTOLAUGH on July 27, 2022, 12:14:12 PM

Quote from: Themightykabool on July 27, 2022, 09:13:18 AM

Quote from: WISHTOLAUGH on July 27, 2022, 09:04:16 AM

Statistics show there is less criminal application of a firearm in areas where the laws allow for ordinary citizens to possess and carry firearms.

great
"more guns means less crime."

then back to chicago.
so we have people with guns getting shot at by other people with guns.
why isn't there less crime?

Because for the most part, law-abiding people do not have guns, and in Chicago you have large population of criminal gangs who use illegally obtained firearms to commit acts of gun violence.

I happen to know of some areas though in the city proper where law-abiding people do have guns.

No gangland shootings taking place there.

Quote from: WISHTOLAUGH on July 27, 2022, 12:18:21 PM

If the areas in question allowed for legal ownership and the constitutional right to carry, you would see a drastic drop in gun deaths.

Just as there is in areas where it is allowed.

If people are allowed to protect themselves with instruments of protection, there is less likely a chance of falling victim to lawless thugs.

all you've done was restate your theory.
but never finished the thought.

your theory is that guns will prevent criminals from shooting at you.
but the criminals don't fear guns.
so why would a law abiding person with a gun prevent a criminal witha  gun, when a cirminal with a gun can't prevent a criminal witha  gun?

who's more lethal prey?
a criminal who's on guard, or a law abider?

Law abiding people who own guns are more effective with using a gun than are criminals, and better trained on proper and effective use.

Quote from: WISHTOLAUGH on July 27, 2022, 12:14:12 PM

Quote from: Themightykabool on July 27, 2022, 09:13:18 AM

Quote from: WISHTOLAUGH on July 27, 2022, 09:04:16 AM

Statistics show there is less criminal application of a firearm in areas where the laws allow for ordinary citizens to possess and carry firearms.

great
"more guns means less crime."

then back to chicago.
so we have people with guns getting shot at by other people with guns.
why isn't there less crime?

Because for the most part, law-abiding people do not have guns, and in Chicago you have large population of criminal gangs who use illegally obtained firearms to commit acts of gun violence.

I happen to know of some areas though in the city proper where law-abiding people do have guns.

No gangland shootings taking place there.

Please state these areas.  I'd like to do my own research.
Because, well... being vague about such information is often a sign of... lies.

Stating you would like to do your own research is the biggest lie you ever wrote.


You have the location - Chicago.

Buy a goddamn ticket and go there and look around.

Quote from: Themightykabool on July 27, 2022, 12:30:51 PM

Quote from: WISHTOLAUGH on July 27, 2022, 12:14:12 PM

Quote from: Themightykabool on July 27, 2022, 09:13:18 AM

Quote from: WISHTOLAUGH on July 27, 2022, 09:04:16 AM

Statistics show there is less criminal application of a firearm in areas where the laws allow for ordinary citizens to possess and carry firearms.

great
"more guns means less crime."

then back to chicago.
so we have people with guns getting shot at by other people with guns.
why isn't there less crime?

Because for the most part, law-abiding people do not have guns, and in Chicago you have large population of criminal gangs who use illegally obtained firearms to commit acts of gun violence.

I happen to know of some areas though in the city proper where law-abiding people do have guns.

No gangland shootings taking place there.

Quote from: WISHTOLAUGH on July 27, 2022, 12:18:21 PM

If the areas in question allowed for legal ownership and the constitutional right to carry, you would see a drastic drop in gun deaths.

Just as there is in areas where it is allowed.

If people are allowed to protect themselves with instruments of protection, there is less likely a chance of falling victim to lawless thugs.

all you've done was restate your theory.
but never finished the thought.

your theory is that guns will prevent criminals from shooting at you.
but the criminals don't fear guns.
so why would a law abiding person with a gun prevent a criminal witha  gun, when a cirminal with a gun can't prevent a criminal witha  gun?

who's more lethal prey?
a criminal who's on guard, or a law abider?

Law abiding people who own guns are more effective with using a gun than are criminals, and better trained on proper and effective use.

How you figure?
Licensing dont require certification or being a part of a well regulated militia or gun club.


And if you REEEAALLY want to try that line of thought, i can give you a bjnch of quick youtubes of PROFESSIONAL law ENFORCING citizens unable to priperly handle a gun in a tense (and many normal!) situation.


So again.
Since you dodged it.
How will law abiding citizens deter a criminal from shooting at them?

To cut to the chase - they wont - because chicago.
So the best you have is a reactive scenario.
And in that rwactive scenario the 22:400 greatly out numbers your claim.

Active shooter attacks occur in places designated as "gun-free zones."

Your stats are meaningless because they are skewed.

You really struggle with basic understanding, don't you?

Good guys obey the law.

Active shooters desiring to harm people do not operate where the odds of getting shot themselves are high.

Actually ill agree
Stats are meaningless.
22:400 is nonsense unless we compare gun no-free zones with outcome.
320 have no repevance if they werent any armed good guys.

However - Chicago
So the point stands.