Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: Explaining how gun free zones work

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Arizona, ,
    Posts
    431

    Post imported post

    Whenever I get into a conversation with a friend or whomever about these zone and how they just dont work, and the whole concept is a joke, I have a hard time putting it into words.

    The whole Idea is laughable, but can anyone explain them in a couple sentences about how they are intended to work, and how they clearly do not.

    I usually say they dont work because criminals do not obey the law, so you are only keeping out law abiding citizens who were able to defend themselfs and others, but cant in these zones.


    Freedom isn't free, but this is America! We will find a way to outsource it and save some money - Jeremy

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    , Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,715

    Post imported post

    School shooter arrives in parking lot... gets out of his car with his 9 guns and 10,000 rounds of ammo, ready to do some serious killing... walks up to the middle of the campus, sees a "gun free zone" sign "no firearms permited"...damn... not allowed to have guns here... turns and gets back in his car and drives away.

    /story

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Hickory, NC, ,
    Posts
    1,025

    Post imported post

    Distille this down to fit your needs.

    At some point, you would think the media would notice that something is going on here, that these murderers aren’t just picking their targets at random. And this pattern isn’t really too surprising. Most people understand that guns deter criminals.

    If a killer were stalking your family, would you feel safer putting a sign out front announcing, “This home is a gun-free zone”? But that is what all these places did.

    Even when attacks occur, having civilians with permitted concealed handguns limits the damage. A major factor in determining how many people are harmed by these killers is the amount of time that elapses between when the attack starts and someone is able to arrive on the scene with a gun.

    For years I would tell news people about the fact that every single multiple victim public shooting in the US involving more than three people killed took place in one of these gun-free zones. The response was they might include this information as part of the story if I could get it to them fast enough so that it could be included as part of the news story. But when I started to do that I was told that it would be editorializing to include that information. My response has been that if news stories can contain long (often inaccurate) discussions of the type of gun used in the crime, why isn’t it also newsworthy to note one common characteristic that occurs in attack after attack?

    When will this simple fact about gun-free zones become part of the news coverage itself? How different would the political debate about guns be if even once in a while a news story mentioned that there has been another multiple victim public shooting in a gun free zone?

    John Lott is a senior research scientist at the University of Maryland and the author of Freedomnomics.



    http://foxforum.blogs.foxnews.com/20...n-binghampton/

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , Tennessee, USA
    Posts
    129

    Post imported post

    jeremy05 wrote:
    Whenever I get into a conversation with a friend or whomever about these zone and how they just dont work, and the whole concept is a joke, I have a hard time putting it into words.

    The whole Idea is laughable, but can anyone explain them in a couple sentences about how they are intended to work, and how they clearly do not.

    I usually say they dont work because criminals do not obey the law, so you are only keeping out law abiding citizens who were able to defend themselfs and others, but cant in these zones.

    If your friends have never seen this, it might help them to understand:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7pGt_O1uM8

    It is satirical, but it may get the point across better than "dry facts."
    If the public are bound to yield obedience to laws to which they cannot give their approbation, they are slaves to those who make such laws and enforce them.--Samuel Adams as Candidus, Boston Gazette 20 Jan. 1772

    Veteran--USA FA
    NRA Benefactor Life
    Tennessee Firearms Association Life

  5. #5
    Regular Member stuckinchico's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Stevenson, Alabama, United States
    Posts
    506

    Post imported post


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •