Just A Quick Question On Keeping Children Safe

[Phatscotty]

Honestly though, let me ask you something. Do you take it as common sense that these murderers intentionally target places that they know are gun free zones?

No I don't think they target these places because they are gun free zones. I mentioned in one of the other threads that I think most of these killers in the schools were either students or teachers. I don't have any studies to back me up on that.

You familiar with the situation in Colorado, concerning the movie theaters....that guy passed on 7 theaters that were closer to his home, and shot up the only 1 of the 8 theaters that banned guns

Any thoughts on that as related to the previous question?

And you have proof that he passed up the other theaters only because they had signs banning guns?

All that can really be proven is that geographically, from his residence he just rigged with booby traps, there were 7 theaters closer to him than the one he chose. Why exactly he chose that one? I suppose he is the only one who can say, and even then it doesn't mean he is telling the truth. We are gonna have to speculate.

However, if it is only a coincidence that he picked the only theater that bans guns to pull off his rampage, then that is one heck of a coincidence. Can we agree on that?

[stahrgazer]

And you have proof that he passed up the other theaters only because they had signs banning guns?

No, he didn't pass up the other theaters that did NOT have signs banning guns. But according to what the police in Colorado said they believed: he deliberately chose the only theater that DID have a sign banning guns. I heard the officers discussing it on the radio a few weeks back, not sure if they were on a talk show or if it was a snippet on the news portions.

The recent Colorado and Sikh Temple shootings are by no means the first times that killers targeted gun-free zones. We have witnessed mass public shootings in such places as the Westroads Mall in Omaha, Nebraska and the Trolley Square Mall in Salt Lake City, Utah. In both cases, guns were banned at those particular malls, but not at other similar venues that allowed guns and were spared. With just one single exception, the attack in Tucson last year, every public shooting since at least 1950 in the U.S. in which more than three people have been killed has taken place where citizens are not allowed to carry guns.

And remember the 1999 Columbine attack in Colorado. Few appreciate that Dylan Klebold, one of the two Columbine killers, was following Colorado legislation that would have let citizens carry a concealed handgun. Presumably, he feared being stopped during his attack by someone with a weapon. In fact, the Columbine attack occurred the very day that final passage was scheduled.

Gun-free zones are a magnet for those who want to kill many people quickly. Even the most ardent gun control advocate would never put “Gun-Free Zone” signs on their home. Let’s stop finally putting them elsewhere.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/09/ ... z2GmAbHlXf

[Evil Semp]

Honestly though, let me ask you something. Do you take it as common sense that these murderers intentionally target places that they know are gun free zones?

No I don't think they target these places because they are gun free zones. I mentioned in one of the other threads that I think most of these killers in the schools were either students or teachers. I don't have any studies to back me up on that.

You familiar with the situation in Colorado, concerning the movie theaters....that guy passed on 7 theaters that were closer to his home, and shot up the only 1 of the 8 theaters that banned guns

Any thoughts on that as related to the previous question?

And you have proof that he passed up the other theaters only because they had signs banning guns?

All that can really be proven is that geographically, from his residence he just rigged with booby traps, there were 7 theaters closer to him than the one he chose. Why exactly he chose that one? I suppose he is the only one who can say, and even then it doesn't mean he is telling the truth. We are gonna have to speculate.

However, if it is only a coincidence that he picked the only theater that bans guns to pull off his rampage, then that is one heck of a coincidence. Can we agree on that?

No I can't agree on that. There were 7 theaters between his home and the theater that he did the shootings in. Did he go there from home? Was he on his way home? Was he familiar with that particular theater? My comment was about the school shootings where they might have had a grudge against someone at the school and they would be familiar with the area.

[stahrgazer]

No I can't agree on that. There were 7 theaters between his home and the theater that he did the shootings in. Did he go there from home?

Yes.

Was he on his way home?

No.

Was he familiar with that particular theater?

Yes, because he planned his target.

My comment was about the school shootings where they might have had a grudge against someone at the school and they would be familiar with the area.

Except, this doesn't explain why so many other public shootings occur in "gun free zones."

For that matter, how bad can a "grudge" against 7-year-olds be? What happened, they stole the maniac's Halloween candy so he copped a "grudge" and decided to massacre the class?

If it was one teacher and maybe one other who'd jumped in to try to help the one teacher, I might see your "grudge" point - as far as the schools. For the theatre, if it was the theatre owner or the ticket seller or maybe even the pimple-faced dude who handles the Concessions stand, maybe I could see your point about "grudge."

But when it's mass targets at random, it really makes more sense that they chose targets that were as helpless as could be; besides, even law officers agree that "gun free" is a maniac magnet. But go ahead, continue to disagree, Semp, it's your right to be silly.

[HapSmo19]

I wonder why banks haven't adopted this gun free zone thing to keep from being robbed.
You know, cuz it works so well?

[Evil Semp]

No I can't agree on that. There were 7 theaters between his home and the theater that he did the shootings in. Did he go there from home?

Yes.

Was he on his way home?

No.

Was he familiar with that particular theater?

Yes, because he planned his target.

He planned it there because it was a gun free zone?

My comment was about the school shootings where they might have had a grudge against someone at the school and they would be familiar with the area.

Except, this doesn't explain why so many other public shootings occur in "gun free zones."

To be honest I don't remember seeing "gun free zone" [or similar signs] when I go to the show or the mall. I will try to remember to look.

For that matter, how bad can a "grudge" against 7-year-olds be? What happened, they stole the maniac's Halloween candy so he copped a "grudge" and decided to massacre the class?

Way to twist things there stahr. I never said he had a grudge against the kids. Then again he was a maniac so maybe he did.

But when it's mass targets at random, it really makes more sense that they chose targets that were as helpless as could be; besides, even law officers agree that "gun free" is a maniac magnet.[/qoute]

You can't have it both ways stahr. Was it random or did he plan this attack?

I have a different view point and I am silly. I will stop being silly if you can show proof that being a gun free zone is the reason schools or theaters are chosen.

[stahrgazer]

I have a different view point and I am silly. I will stop being silly if you can show proof that being a gun free zone is the reason schools or theaters are chosen.

Sorry, I'm not in possession of whatever proof made the investigating officers who were interviewed say that a gun free zone made the school and the threatre a target for the maniacs; but since most (almost all) of the public shootings are occurring in gun-free zones, I tend to believe them without needing to see their evidence.

I mean, I never personally saw the evidence that put Ted Bundy away; or caused Charles Manson to be killed; or countless other maniacs. But when the officers in charge say they see the evidence and this is what the evidence shows, I just sort of tend to believe them.

Especially since, as I've said before, I just cannot see what "grudge" the Sandy maniac could have had against those little kids.

But if you want to be silly enough to believe that it's a grudge and not just a maniac trying to show the power of his dickhead when he's actually a powerless dickless coward who picks on those who can't defend themselves... then, like I said, it's your right to be silly.

[Evil Semp]

I have a different view point and I am silly. I will stop being silly if you can show proof that being a gun free zone is the reason schools or theaters are chosen.

Sorry, I'm not in possession of whatever proof made the investigating officers who were interviewed say that a gun free zone made the school and the threatre a target for the maniacs; but since most (almost all) of the public shootings are occurring in gun-free zones, I tend to believe them without needing to see their evidence.

I mean, I never personally saw the evidence that put Ted Bundy away; or caused Charles Manson to be killed; or countless other maniacs. But when the officers in charge say they see the evidence and this is what the evidence shows, I just sort of tend to believe them.

Especially since, as I've said before, I just cannot see what "grudge" the Sandy maniac could have had against those little kids.

But if you want to be silly enough to believe that it's a grudge and not just a maniac trying to show the power of his dickhead when he's actually a powerless dickless coward who picks on those who can't defend themselves... then, like I said, it's your right to be silly.

Maybe it was a power trip for the guy killing the kids. Maybe he targeted the school because it was a bunch of kids. Again I did not say he had a grudge against the kids. It was reported that his mother was a teacher or a volunteer at that school. Maybe when he was younger she spent more time there and he didn't get the attention he wanted. But you go ahead and keep it that he had a grudge against the kids.

And here is a thought. Schools, theaters and malls are probably all gun free zones. Do you think these killers went to those places because there would be a lot of people there? Just possible.

[usernamer]

Children are not being murdered on a regular basis in the UK so I guess its time you let the Brits govern y'all again , clearly our methods are more efficient

define "regular basis"

and....how many countries does the UK share a land border with? Oh, it's an island? How fucking convenient...

Ireland

[stahrgazer]

Maybe it was a power trip for the guy killing the kids. Maybe he targeted the school because it was a bunch of kids. Again I did not say he had a grudge against the kids. It was reported that his mother was a teacher or a volunteer at that school. Maybe when he was younger she spent more time there and he didn't get the attention he wanted. But you go ahead and keep it that he had a grudge against the kids.

And here is a thought. Schools, theaters and malls are probably all gun free zones. Do you think these killers went to those places because there would be a lot of people there? Just possible.

Yes, schools, theaters and malls have a lot of people, but NOT all are gun free zones. The Batman-theatre shooting was the ONLY gun-free-zone theater within 20 miles of that maniac's home, and some were larger (thus more people). Similarly, there are gun-free malls and gun-tolerant malls. Police officials believe that the "gun free" was part of the reason for the target choice in most of these mass cases.

You said "grudge," and I pointed out that most people who have a grudge against a person take it out on that person, not a bunch of innocents.

I simply go further and agree with some of the investigating officials: these maniacs may not have been as tempted to take their "grudge" out on innocents if they had sincere reason to believe the innocents, or those who are nearest to those innocents, could adequately defend themselves.

It wouldn't be as much of a "power trip" if he pulled his gun and someone ELSE went "bang-bang, YOU are dead!" FIRST.

[jonesthecurl]

I wonder why banks haven't adopted this gun free zone thing to keep from being robbed.
You know, cuz it works so well?

Post Offices have.
It's illegal to carry a gun in a Post Office.
Damn cheek. Why should second amendment rights disappear just cos you want to buy a stamp?

[tzor]

Post Offices have.
It's illegal to carry a gun in a Post Office.

Yes, but I believe the reason for that is that Post Office workers are borderline insane and could snap at any minute. There is a reason why the expression is "going postal."

[BigBallinStalin]

Put them in boxes. Use only Amazon-approved packaging.