posted August 12, 2019 10:07 PM            

Consider this excerpt from the “manifesto” issued by the shooter who murdered 22 people Saturday in an El Paso, Texas, Walmart store:

Remember: it is not cowardly to pick low hanging fruit. AKA (sic) Don’t attack heavily guarded areas to fulfll (sic) your super soldier COD [Call of Duty first person shooter video game] fantasy. Attack low security targets. Even though you might out gun a security guard or police man, they likely beat you in armor, training and numbers. Do not throw away your life on an unnecessarily dangerous target. If a target seems too hot, live to fight another day......

Similarly, in the Dayton, Ohio, mass shooting on Sunday, which immediately followed the El Paso murders, the victims were attacked as they exited a nightspot that was a gun-free zone. And, in the Garlic Festival shootings in Gilroy, California last week, the victims were trapped inside a fenced area after going through metal detectors to make sure that they were disarmed. The shooter avoided the metal detectors by cutting through the fence and then attacking a victim pool that the Gilroy authorities had rendered incapable of defending themselves.

So it is that these most recent massacres share the one common element of almost all mass casualty shootings: gun-free zones.

According to the Crime Prevention Research Center, between 1950 and 2018 97.8 percent of all mass public shootings occurred in gun-free zones. Similarly, in the 20 states that allow teachers to be armed, there have been no school shootings (as well as no accidents or injuries caused by firearms possessed by teachers).

In addition to the El Paso shooter’s “manifesto,” there is abundant anecdotal evidence that mass casualty shooters prefer gun-free zones. For example, in 2016, Dearborn Heights, Michigan, ISIS supporter Khalil Abu Rayyan had an online discussion with an undercover FBI agent in which he discussed his plan for a “martyrdom operation” by attacking a Detroit church. He told the agent that this would be an easy target because “people are not allowed to carry guns in church.” Fortunately, Abu Rayyan was arrested before he could achieve martyrdom.

Similarly, in 2015, Elliot Rodger murdered six people in a Santa Barbara, California, gun-free zone. In his 141-page “manifesto,” he explained that in planning his attack he had decided against launching it in other locations where someone with a gun might be present to cut short his killing spree.

In the 2012 Aurora, Colorado, theater massacre, the killer’s diary showed that he had decided against attacking an airport because of its “substantial security.” And, out of the seven movie theaters within 20 minutes of the shooter’s home, he chose the only one that had posted signs declaring it to be a gun-free zone.

posted August 13, 2019 10:59 AM            

Every American has to compulsorily be armed with a high power assault rifle or a deadly revolver, and must travel with it at all times to prevent being massacred by a White Supremacist Terrorist.

posted August 13, 2019 01:01 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by iQ:
Hence NRA's recommended solution to stop mass shooting deaths:

Every American has to compulsorily be armed with a high power assault rifle or a deadly revolver, and must travel with it at all times to prevent being massacred by a White Supremacist Terrorist.

Brilliant. Awesome. Epic.

---

Don't remember that statement as an NRA recommendation.

Care to share the link to that alleged NRA recommendation?

posted August 13, 2019 01:08 PM            

perhaps we should have armed guards EVERYWHERE. Tanks in the streets. Cowboys shooting it out at High Noon!

Oh, but wait! El Paso -and the recent scene of shooting@Walmart were not gun free zones. There was armed presence at the biggest shooting of all, in Las Vegas. And then there was the shooting at a military venue. Somehow i don't think gun free zones are really the issue.

Nor are video games the problem. A president who advertises conspiracy theories about others to deflect from the large number of people who think he instigated violence/bumped off a threat.. who bragged that he could shoot someone in broad daylight and get away with it..what a role model!

the proliferation of conspiracists encouraging paranoia and rage in the isolated who want to think they are "woke" while they sit in front of their screens

The insistence that we are under threat of extinction by "people who hate our culture".

The only people i know who have been shot were gun owners. The Confederates were armed, with the result of not less, but more bloodshed.

But by all means comfort yourself that having a stockade will protect you.

Fear truly is the mindkiller. If being armed makes you feel big and strong, it is out of fear of your fellow man. Will people find other ways to kill each other? Sure. But it won't be as easy to pretend you're john Wayne, Rambo or whoever.. and you might have to actually face your victim.. if you can't buy a gun online from the comfort of your armchair.

Meanwhile your chest thumper in chief is looking into pretty much all the moves you claimed were "coming for your guns" when Obama put them forward.

posted August 13, 2019 04:53 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by BlueRoamer:
Guns are also deadly, especially in the wrong hands

---

So are sticks, clubs, rocks, knives and automobiles...in the wrong hands.

posted August 13, 2019 05:15 PM            

The Simon Mall chain is well known for banning permitted concealed handguns in Texas.

“Possession of any weapon at Simon malls, whether concealed or displayed openly, is in violation of mall policy. This policy is intended first and foremost to maintain a safe, secure and comfortable environment at our malls, which has always been our top priority, and to avoid any situation that could potentially place at risk the safety of our shoppers and employees.

Strike two
Similarly, in the Dayton, Ohio, mass shooting on Sunday, which immediately followed the El Paso murders, the victims were attacked as they exited a nightspot that was a gun-free zone. And, in the Garlic Festival shootings in Gilroy, California last week, the victims were trapped inside a fenced area after going through metal detectors to make sure that they were disarmed.

Strike three
"The only people i know who have been shot were gun owners."
So, are you attempting to allege those people wouldn't have been shot...if they didn't have a gun? You allege they were shot...because they owned a gun?

Leave it to leftists to take it to absurd lengths in defending their positions.

"Tanks in the street?
"Armed guards 'everywhere'"

posted August 13, 2019 05:17 PM            

Prove it!

posted August 13, 2019 08:49 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by iQ:
Hence NRA's recommended solution to stop mass shooting deaths:

Every American has to compulsorily be armed with a high power assault rifle or a deadly revolver, and must travel with it at all times to prevent being massacred by a White Supremacist Terrorist.

Brilliant. Awesome. Epic.

---

i really don't understand why people act as if being armed and capable of defending yourself is negative

i find it so strange that the idea of being fully capable of protecting yourself and others has become something some people treat like this dirty negative thing that we as a society should strive to take away

the reality is if more people were able to defend themselves and arm themselves and take that personal responsibility upon themselves to protect themselves and others in potentially dangerous situations things would be better

we shouldn't treat that as a negative just because sometimes tragedies happen, because statistically speaking those tragedies aren't the norm and they're not killing most people

we can't react to them as if that's the case

as a society treating self defense as a negative is honestly the worst possible thing we could be instilling in future generations

it says don't protect yourself, don't fight back, take it and if someone isn't there to save you who's allowed to (nevermind that cops have been guilty of killing more unarmed citizens in a year than these mass shooters do) you're ******

personal responsibility and responsibility towards each other is a much better example

we should be as armed as we would allow small groups of people with power over us to be, and if they have weapons you wouldn't allow your neighbor to have then maybe that says something about where your taxes go that you should be concerned about (and this is true of people the world over who are a part of nations with massive weapons programs, because you know what civilian casualties are always a huge number of people who ******* die when these small groups of people make decisions to bomb each other's countries not just their soldiers or the people making the calls) instead of whether or not someone else has an assault rifle that they use responsibly (like most gun owners do)

not to mention gun deaths in places where guns are illegal come from illegal weaponry, because when you can't walk into a store and get something that doesn't at all mean that you can't go somewhere on the street to buy it

illegal is not unavailable, and people need to stop equating the two because it's a dangerous mentality to have

the 2nd amendment isn't at all about mass shooters, and most people will never have to worry about one

but just like you look when you cross the street instead of depending on the drivers to just notice you and stop, having something on you just in case isn't negative at all

it's also completely dishonest to blame all of these shootings on white supremacists because dayton ohio was someone on the far left who did not hold those views

the civil unrest on all sides is real and it's legitimate and that needs to addressed because taking away guns doesn't stop it

you have to understand that not only are there plenty of other ways to kill people (just look at the uk they have plenty of those down) but that what's causing the violence is the social and political climate

these mass shootings are happening as a result of that not guns being legal because if it was just about the guns then they'd be sprinkled all throughout our history at about the same rate

what the uk did was ban weapons and not address the social issues and now people are running each other over and throwing acid on people in the street

is that preferable? or do you think maybe we should find the real problem and find real solutions instead of treating self defense like it's this dirty thing we should shun as a society

posted August 13, 2019 08:56 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by BlueRoamer:
Guns are also deadly, especially in the wrong hands

---

a lot of things are deadly in the wrong hands, that doesn't mean the masses need to have them taken away

there's plenty of household chemicals that are dangerous in the wrong hands

**** there's plenty of plants that grow outside that could easily kill people

it's not like mass poisonings or bombs or napalm etc would be very difficult for your average person to utilize

addressing the social issues is far more important than infringing on 2nd amendment rights (which exist for very valid reasons)

posted August 13, 2019 09:20 PM            

funny that you mention armed guards everywhere and tanks in the street as if police with high powered military grade gear (including tanks) has never been a thing in this country (recently and it's still going on)

i agree that it's not just gun free zones being an issue, though i will point out that as violence increases (which is likely due to the current social and political climate) they will be easy targets

it's not video games, and quite honestly it isn't trump these shootings and the unrest have been building even under obama because the underlying pressures have gone regardless of whether or not someone on the left or right has been in charge

if you look back for years now the media (news media not tv shows or video games but the news) has been pushing this narrative of civil war here and there, and getting people riled up when they hear it

obviously i'm not suggesting we stop the press (though it's interesting that only a handful of people actually own these massive broadcasting corporations and churn out all of this for the general public) i'm just pointing out that this sort of unrest has been pushed by politicians and media alike

to blame trump specifically is ignoring the larger issue

it's all divide and conquer **** and the end result is less of a means for citizens to defend themselves against a government that has been increasing its power over them for decades while keeping them blind to it and fighting over passion issues

people are inciting violence because there's a lot going on in the world that's wrong and they don't know who to direct that at, so they scapegoat each other and act violent

it's desperation that's why all of the targets are garbage, it's about coverage and getting out manifestos currently

now i'm not anti-violence for change, but i do recognize that what a lot of these people are failing to see is the common enemy they all have which is the system in place that's aiding in these issues

cultures do shift and change and go extinct when floods of immigrants displace locals, and you can see that even on a small scale in gentrified neighborhoods where people are pushed out and businesses are shut down etc and so on

people being worried about being displaced is perfectly normal, and those fears are catered to

now do they take it too far? they can, but is it baseless? not quite and there's the problem that's how you can get people riled up

having a stockade of weapons might not protect someone, but you know what definitely doesn't do anything? not having any means to protect yourself

it's not a matter of fear to feel like protecting yourself or other people having the means to is perfectly acceptable it's a matter of acknowledging reality

i can go outside without being armed and be fine and not be concerned that's not a big deal to me however is that necessarily as intelligent as always having a means to protect myself if need be? no of course not

you can definitely still buy a gun from the comfort of your armchair online lol just like you can buy all manner of illegal drugs and all kinds of **** off the internet

there's illegal marketplaces online, and there's browsers that are very private and ways to mask your ip etc and so on so essentially that point is completely null and void

so is this idea that you have to stare someone down to use a bomb or napalm or poison etc and so on

i mean i'm sure you've seen that **** with tylenol where quite a few people were dying from an otc drug being toxic, if something like that could happen once well...just saying (if you haven't heard of it, it happened in chicago, our favorite place with harsh gun laws and tons of illegal gun crime)

100% agree that trump is saying exactly what people didn't want to hear in a lot of cases, but i think that would've happened regardless because that's just been the case left or right

over the past few decades mass surveillance, privacy invasions, infringements on the 1st 2nd and 4th amendments, militarization of the police against citizens (in spite of how many unarmed people officers have killed) etc have been going on

so trump or clinton it wouldn't have mattered we'd end up at the same place

it's like picking which road you take to get to the same place

edit: btw when i call these targets garbage i'm referring to them as not being strategic, in no way am i referring to the loss of life of the individuals who die during these shootings

i'm pointing out that these are low grade choices to make because they're only harming innocent people who have nothing to do with larger issues

just to clarify in case people get sensitive or harp on my use of the word