Permabanned
Err, I thought that you had to have a special license, that you can't get without reason, to carry a gun in public anyway? So gun free zone or no gun free zone, people couldn't walk around with pistols =\
12 dead in New York Shooting.
- Thread starter Energize
- Start date
Man of Honour
Put the telly on, channel "x".
Soldato
- Joined
- 18 Mar 2008
- Posts
- 12,751
why dp?I blame Video games
Removes the risk of being stopped by resistance.
When you make weapons illegal, only criminals have weapons.
and the police who are trained in their use...
please tell me how you expect a bunch of scared people with guns to react to seeing other people running round with guns?
A handgun licence in New York state allows you to carry (concealed or open) unless specific restrictions have been placed on it.
http://www.nysrpa.org/nygunlaws.htm
And are a responsive force who will not be available to prevent a crime, but investigate it after the fact.
You miss the point of a deterrant factor...
what deterrent factor?
most of these people end up shooting themselves at the end of their rampage. it's not like they're exactly concerned about dying.
http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp#Right-To-Carry Laws
Then wouldn't it be better to have a means to stop them sooner...
http://www.lewrockwell.com/lott/lott61.html
Caporegime
Oh yeah, because that's always worked every other time, hasn't it?
Your rationale is nonsensical. People who really, really want to kill other people won't be deterred by the fact that some of those other people may be armed. Countless police shootouts attest to this fact.
But weapons haven't been made illegal in the USA, so what's your point?
Oh yeah, because that's always worked every other time, hasn't it?
Most massacres in recent years have been commited in gun free zones...
But the death toll is likely to be lower.
But they are in gun free zones...
thats not a deterrent to some one who intends to die though.
but untrained people panicking with a load of semi automatic weapons with no way of knowing who the gunman is, and unable to ell him/.her apart from every wannabe hero with a gun = lots of idiots shooting other idiots/ getting shot by the police, and hampering any real intervention attempt.
But the death toll is lowered, which is surely a good thing.
Now go back and read the article, and provide counter examples that support the statement you've just made. (Mine was written by John Lott Jnr, so make sure it's a known author). Alternatively, you can just admit you're making statements that may seem sensible but have no actual basis in facts.
Correlation does not imply causation though, the columbine massacre for example being in a school had nothing to do with it being a gun free zone, a lot of these places are ideal killing zones because of the high density of people.
I'd be interested in a response to my earlier post on your assumptions.
Permabanned
Associate
Why have we not undergone the rule-written OcUK ritual of typing RIP that swamps other death-related threads?
Oo I'll start: RIP
Oo I'll start: RIP
I'm assuming nothing, just noting that most of these events occur in free target, sorry gun free zones.
The other points might come into it if push comes to shove, but given that the alternative (waiting for the police to eventually turn up) is worse, because it has zero prospect of altering the situation, I'd argue that the gun free zone is both unnecessary (no historical evidence to suggest that people with CCW permits have ever caused problems in areas that are now gun free) and dangerous (because there is historical evidence to support that people with CCW permits have helped solve problems in areas that are now gun free).
Hence why I posted a link to show that it does... because CCW holders have stopped people in other areas.
Missed it before, replied now.