So. Much. This.

1) Most of these shooters pick places that have some special significance to them, so I'd be willing to bet that that significance plays a much higher role in determining the location of the shootings than whether or not a spot was a gun free zone.

Also:

2) I haven't seen any of the "but they always shoot up the gun free zones" people talk about the ratio of "public places where lots of people congregate that are gun free zones" vs. "Public places where lots of people congregate where guns are permitted" in different parts of the country. I'm not familiar with the carrying laws everywhere in the country, but most of the laws that I'm familiar with either specifically exclude all of the big places where large numbers of people get together and spend significant periods of time (bars, malls, movie theaters, schools, etc), or at least allow private landowners to prohibit weapons on their property. So, if for example, 75 percent of the places where large groups of random people gather happen to be gun free zones, we would expect that most mass shootings would happen in gun free zones even if the shooters were not specificially choosing the target based on whether or not it was a gun free zone, right?

the point isn't necessarily that the shooter has chosen a gun free zone, it's that because the place is a gun free zone no good citizen is armed to take down the shooter.

The fact that taso is half trolling in this thread, and yet his position basically mimics the NRA's prepared stance on the Connecticut shooting, is absolutely mind-boggling.

Love that you guys keep having to qualify what kind of citizen you're talking about. I wonder what you would've considered Adam Lanza on november 1st.

The manufacturers could collect this data on their own though and be completely fine.

It might not be your point, but many people ITT are making that exact claim. I was replying to BTirish - who really only suggested the point - but it is a commonly asserted one here and in the general public discourse. Nobody has ever backed it up with any evidence, though.

carry on

So? Legally requiring them to would not

How many of the Sandy Hook teachers are trained gun owners with concealed carry permits who would have been carrying if it weren't a gun-free zone?

And could/would have done anything about it?

In a let-anyone-carry-a-gun-anywhere America, do I have the right to go the park, the mall, the movie theater, a university campus without worrying that some armed boy-scout is in the position to make life and death decisions in marginal situations with a firearm?

Not sure. It would probably depend upon how the statute was worded, what it specifically required. I'm more interested in figuring out ways to give gun manufacturers incentives to be proactive in reducing gun crime. As you point out, the state is extremely limited with what type of direct action they can take to effectively deal with this problem (no, I don't think eliminating gun free zones and making sure every "good" citizen is armed and capable are effective solutions to the problem of gun violence) short of outright bans. Therefore some indirect action looks like the best option.

As I said I think gun manufacturers are in the best position to innovate ways to effectively reduce gun violence/homicides while still allowing responsible ownership by citizens. I think the best way to create those incentives is by opening them up to liability either criminally or civilly for certain types of criminal gun use. I know they can't currently be held liable in civil court for negligent distribution (I think its because of a duty issue, they don't have a duty to prevent 3rd parties from doing bad things with their guns). I think this needs to change.

I actually like guns. I don't want outright bans, even though I think they would ultimately be effective at severely reducing the problem in the long run. I think there is enough utility in using guns for stuff like hunting/sport and home defense that they should be kept around. I just hate most of the pro-gun arguments. I think they are, for the most part, stupid and/or dishonest.

you are so all over the map. the civil rights actions did involve guns and other tactics, but not by joe handgun. you have spun yourself into another sink hole of ikesism.

1) I'm not going to go back and read every post you've made itt to see if you personally have made the "shooters pick gun free zones BECAUSE they're gun free" argument, but, as other have pointed out, lots of people have.

2) The NRA certainly seems to be making that argument when they say things like this (from the recent press conference):

" Politicians pass laws for Gun-Free School Zones. They issue press releases bragging about them. They post signs advertising them.

And in so doing, they tell every insane killer in America that schools are their safest place to inflict maximum mayhem with minimum risk.

[Snip ]

...when it comes to the most beloved, innocent and vulnerable members of the American family — our children — we as a society leave them utterly defenseless,and the monsters and predators of this world know it and exploit it. That must change now!"




So, no, the progun argument isn't just about claiming that more armed people will stop the attack more quickly once it starts, it's also based on the premise that the fear of being confronted by an armed response will deter the attack from occurring in the first place... And, personally the deterrence argument seems kinda shaky in the absence of evidence that the shooters pick their targets based on whether or not it is a gun free zone.

You have the right to go to those places, the boy-scout has the right to be armed and potentially make life and death decisions while you're there (hopefully he got his shooting badge.) Try not to worry about it, or become a shut-in, whatever.

Just out of curiosity, I looked up the number of police officers in the US currently.

As of 2010, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that there are slightly less than 800,000 police officers and detectives in the county.

http://www.bls.gov/ooh/protective-se...detectives.htm

I've seen some estimates that there are 100,000 schools in the country.

So, even if we felt like 1 officer could provide adequate security for an entire school (unlikely, IMO), having an armed LEO at every school would either require us to divert over 10% of our current police force to schools or recruit, hire, and train 100,000 new officers. Now, I'm sure some will argue that we should just divert them away from traffic enforcement or the drug war, but, I'm not sure that the NRA and it's ilk really understands what a massive undertaking it really would be to have an armed officer at every school...

Let freedom ring!

M2b there's no unsure about it. Forcing a private company to spy is not constitutional

I've already posted an article with multiple acts of self defense in that time period. You simply have no idea what the hell is going on.

Our population is like 1/17th the size of yours and we already owned far less guns. Port Arthur was an aberration really. I don't think you can mount any arguments about gun control in Australia from a statistical point of view.

"Possible"? It seems pretty clear that's what happened.

Requiring a manufacturer of dangerous weapons to be able to produce an accurate accounting of where their products end up and how they are used? That's not spying.

Not what you said, like at all. This is simple registration, and fairly standard. What you proposed earlier was some technology to track where every gun was so if a crime was committed we would know who to find.

You really couldn't make it clearer you have no interest in an honest discussion.

Why do you think I said this:
That would accomplish what I intended. It's all that's needed, probably.

Lol @ your projection though.

Dude you clearly stated that you want some sort of tracking technology that would allow police to know who committed a crime. This is only doable if you can track the real time position of each gun. You are completely wrong.

So when pesticide applicators are required to keep records of when, what types, and how much chemicals they are applying to crops, is the government forcing pesticide applicators to spy on farmers? Is this unconstitutional? If you think it is, perhaps you should sue the EPA. I'm sure there are a ton of monied interests that would LOVE to get that **** overturned.

Can you track the movements of every single farmer based on where their pesticide is? Does using your second amendment right give up your fourth or fifth? That's a no.