June 23, 201610 yr As is blaming the weapon instead of looking for the root cause. For those of you who won't even consider revisiting gun laws in order to TRY to provide more safety to our citizens, you are, IMO, okay with these slaughters as long as you get to keep all your guns. It's pitiful and disgusting.
June 23, 201610 yr Your mixing your questions up. Gun free zones provide the where. Why is a totally different question. It's just that the shooter generally has some sort of connection to the where. Whether it's a school they attended, a former workplace etc. Since there's usually a connection, why do many think the shooter would have chosen a different target if the original target wouldn't have been gun free??
June 23, 201610 yr It's just that the shooter generally has some sort of connection to the where. Whether it's a school they attended, a former workplace etc. Since there's usually a connection, why do many think the shooter would have chosen a different target if the original target wouldn't have been gun free?? I think that is obvious. Gun free zones are the least resistive places and the can do more damage before being confronted.
June 24, 201610 yr Why do we refuse to look at any other possible motive aside from the attacks occurring in a "gun free zone"?? There's almost always a deeper connection to the targets....as well as the fact that most of these mass shooters don't expect to live anyway. There has never been a definitve conclusion of causality....that is the fact that the target being "gun free" is purely the motive. Because mass murderers are trying to accomplish a goal, kill as many as possible and make the front page of all newspapers, they want to be remembered and infamy is the only way they can accomplish it. In order to do this they go to places that prohibit people from defending themselves. You and Papa can try to sell us propaganda, but it's certainly not a coincidence that all of these psychopaths go to gun free zones.
June 24, 201610 yr I think that is obvious. Gun free zones are the least resistive places and the can do more damage before being confronted. Ok.....so it's coincidence that they normally choose a place that they have a connection to that also happens to be gun free?? Again, my question is would they have chosen a different target if the original (that they had a previous connection to) had not been gun free?? Sorry, but I don't think a place being gun free is the primary motive. Especially since these guys aren't worrying about dying. Would the V-Tech shooter have picked a different college campus?? Would the guys from Columbine just shot up another school?? Would the San Bernadino shooter have chosen a place he didn't work at?? Would the Sandy Hook have happened at a different school or location??
June 24, 201610 yr Because mass murderers are trying to accomplish a goal, kill as many as possible and make the front page of all newspapers, they want to be remembered and infamy is the only way they can accomplish it. In order to do this they go to places that prohibit people from defending themselves. You and Papa can try to sell us propaganda, but it's certainly not a coincidence that all of these psychopaths go to gun free zones. Gun free zones that they happen to have a connection to. Is it the connection, or the gun free part that's more important?? Would they have chosen a different target had the one they chose not been gun free?? What part is the coincidence...the gun free part, or that they had a connection to the target and knew it very well?? And remember, there has never been any evidence that proves "gun free" was even considered. And many of these shootes have left detailed notes. Why leave the gun free part out of the planning notes?? You guys are selling just as much coincidence if not more.
June 24, 201610 yr For those of you who won't even consider revisiting gun laws in order to TRY to provide more safety to our citizens' date=' you are, IMO, okay with these slaughters as long as you get to keep all your guns. It's pitiful and disgusting.[/quote'] What laws do you recommend? We certainly don't want to make it harder for Americans to protect themselves with terrorist attacks cropping up everywhere now.
June 24, 201610 yr Gun free zones that they happen to have a connection to. Is it the connection' date=' or the gun free part that's more important?? Would they have chosen a different target had the one they chose not been gun free?? What part is the coincidence...the gun free part, or that they had a connection to the target and knew it very well??[/quote'] So you're going to say that in all of these attacks the shooter had a personal connection too? Making it a coincidence that they just happened to be gun free? France and Germany are gun free countries, not zones.
June 24, 201610 yr Ok.....so it's coincidence that they normally choose a place that they have a connection to that also happens to be gun free?? Again, my question is would they have chosen a different target if the original (that they had a previous connection to) had not been gun free?? Sorry, but I don't think a place being gun free is the primary motive. Especially since these guys aren't worrying about dying. Would the V-Tech shooter have picked a different college campus?? Would the guys from Columbine just shot up another school?? Would the San Bernadino shooter have chosen a place he didn't work at?? Would the Sandy Hook have happened at a different school or location?? No i think gun free zones bread this. Infact in everyone of your examples was a gun free zone. So with that said maybe its the enviorment in gun free zones that creates the issues. Either way gun free zones have an impact.
June 24, 201610 yr What laws do you recommend? We certainly don't want to make it harder for Americans to protect themselves with terrorist attacks cropping up everywhere now. Start putting our armed military in public places like police officers. I bet it stops more of theses events than you think.
June 24, 201610 yr What laws do you recommend? We certainly don't want to make it harder for Americans to protect themselves with terrorist attacks cropping up everywhere now. I don't have any specific laws to recommend, I'm only advocating conversation. Refusing to consider other alternatives is doing nothing to better the situation in this country. Fact.
June 24, 201610 yr For those of you who won't even consider revisiting gun laws in order to TRY to provide more safety to our citizens, you are, IMO, okay with these slaughters as long as you get to keep all your guns. It's pitiful and disgusting. You need to slow your roll there D. Exactly what gun law would have prohibited the Orlando shooting? The Sandy Hook? Ban an the AR-15? They would have used an AK-47 type. Maybe a couple of Glock 19's. If they were Gen 4's they would come with 3 mags each. What I find disgusting and pitiful is the typical knee jerk reaction of those that want to blame an inatimate object for these mass shootings instead of the true reason, the person committing the heinous act. While your busy feeling high and mighty, I'll be looking for REAL solutions.
June 24, 201610 yr For those of you who won't even consider revisiting gun laws in order to TRY to provide more safety to our citizens, you are, IMO, okay with these slaughters as long as you get to keep all your guns. It's pitiful and disgusting. A few elementary school kids and a few churchgoers and a few gay clubbers and a few college students and a few child-care workers and a few moviegoers is a small price to pay. Just as long as most of them are persons of color from the big city.
June 24, 201610 yr Start putting our armed military in public places like police officers. I bet it stops more of theses events than you think. That will never happen in America. We refuse to see armed men and women in public, we rather "feel" safe, than be safe.
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.