digg

Join DiggAbout

The Digg Crew wants to hear your thoughts!
Please take our short survey about Digg and potential feature ideas.

See the original image at divisionoflabour.com —

Why do mass shootings happen in "gun free zones"?

divisionoflabour.com — Gun Free Zones, so admired as a tool by the anti-gun lobby, are dangerous to us all.

show profanity settings
expand all
  • thotpoizn, on 12/16/2007, -121/+77In a quite similar vein, a lot of really bad, bad people will no doubt soon be relocating to New Jersey from various neighboring states. Because NJ is repealing the death sentence. I feel safer already, knowing that the very worst of the fsckin' worst will feel that it would be a lot safer to commit their atrocities where I live. Idealists will call this "an end to barbarism". Realists will call this a pretty damned good reason to short stock in NJ real estate. Good thing we still have sane gun ownership and self defense laws here - oh, wait.
    • lgfaphile, on 12/16/2007, -25/+88Good point. When you couple that with the fact that the Supreme Court has held that police have no duty to protect us (that is, it isn't negligent of them to wait until the danger passes), it is amazing to me that people don't realize how important it is to be able to defend oneself, and how ridiculous things like 'gun free zones' are. Literally, only the outlaws will have guns.
      • jspegele, on 12/16/2007, -47/+17You're absolutely right. There's no reason to have 'gun free zones'. I think every kid in school should be packin heat. Their teachers too. This way if a kid talks back to you ... BAM! I guarantee the next kid will think twice.
        • AnarkeIncarnate, on 12/16/2007, -7/+46Having a gun and using it for the stupid ***** you posted is not what is being discussed. However, why shouldn't a teacher who has been granted a license to carry by their state/community have the right to carry in a school? They would then be better equipped to protect those kids if a tragedy would strike.

          No, we should just ask them to close their eyes and hide under their desks as some madman goes room by room killing the defenseless. That is so much better, right? I mean, your scenario is more likely to play out, right?
          • moore, on 12/16/2007, -33/+11I find it hilarious that you're like, envisioning this scenario in your mind. Some 7 year old kid goes to school with his uncle's handgun, shoots Betty because she called him fat, then Mrs. Smith pulls out her revolver and caps the kind in the middle of the class room before he can kill again. What a great thing, right? She stopped that killer dead in his tracks?

            Absolute insanity.
          • NozE8, on 12/16/2007, -8/+3You know, its amazing that the human race has survived this long. I mean how did we survive growing up with all these "tragedies" striking us every day.
          • EditorResponse, on 12/16/2007, -1/+8This is a modern phenomena. For the most part it started in the 1980's after the drive toward a greater liberalism in the 1970s. If you don't believe me then go look it up. Compare the numbers for inner city African America, white or Hispanic deaths before and after 1980 in high schools due to gun violence.
          • ShrimpCrackers, on 12/16/2007, -1/+18@Moore

            Tell that to the VT students who watched their friends die while they scampered around helplessly. Yes I tell you right now that probably something near all of them would've be relieved if there was a teacher to cap off Cho before he continued with his killing spree.

            A defenseless sheep are just waiting for wolves to rule them.
          • ibuprofane, on 12/16/2007, -1/+14@moore
            Have you been living in a cave for the last decade? The situation that you and AnarkeIncarnate described has happened on more than one occasion. Different circumstances were involved, but the outcomes could have been better if any licensed person had a way to defend themselves and the kids.
          • rumagin, on 12/17/2007, -8/+0guns suck
          • coyote1284, on 12/17/2007, -1/+2@rumagin
            no, guns blow... your mother-lovin head off!
      • sanman, on 12/16/2007, -26/+10So the way to prevent Columbine is to send kids to school packin heat!
        Oh gee, how clever -- WHAT COULD GO WRONG?
        • republicker, on 12/16/2007, -5/+18No, one lock box in the teachers lounge w/ a .40 cal in it would have sufficed.
          • moore, on 12/16/2007, -9/+12But what if a teacher goes crazy with that .40 cal? Surely we need even more weapons to stop that person!!
          • sanman, on 12/16/2007, -11/+9So that just tells the trenchcoated kids to raid the lounge first. Then you'll complain that lockboxes are as deadly as waiting periods for licenses. So then we get rid of lockboxes. Then some kids grab the gun from the lounge. Then you'll complain that teachers need sidearms, like Sky Marshalls. Or maybe Hall Monitors do? Etc, etc, etc.
            Sounds like a slippery slope -- where does it stop?
          • elninja, on 12/16/2007, -3/+10It could stop with teachers who are not trained, licensed, or responsible enough to use a firearm.
            As surprising as this may sound, there really are many people who can use a gun responsibly. Unfortunately, they don't make for entertaining news stories.
          • IpecacNeat, on 12/16/2007, -7/+6I'm sure most of you people are very intelligent, but you are absolutely nuts about this gun issues. Europe seems to function just fine, without letting people wield guns everywhere they go. The human race is unpredictable, the last thing I would trust any of you with is a gun.
          • AnarkeIncarnate, on 12/16/2007, -1/+7Yeah, if the teachers can get to the lounge... What scares me is that the people who are in charge of the life of your child EVERY DAY are feared as though they would go nuts and kill everybody. If that is the case, why are they teaching your children?
    • benitojuarez, on 12/16/2007, -21/+11meh i need a nice shiny delete button
    • Salviati, on 12/16/2007, -8/+109I doubt many murderers would re-locate to commit their crimes. If most of them were thinking rationally enough to make that choice, I doubt they would be considering murder in the first place.

      FYI - Most European countries have abolished the death penalty, and yet their violent crime rates are incredibly lower than the US. This doesn't mean their is a relationship, but it goes to show that out current policy doesn't seem to be that effective.
      • grr74, on 12/16/2007, -2/+23No European country have the death penalty. And no European country got life senteces. Of the first world countries, the US and Japan have the death penalty (Japan extremely rarely use it).
        • DarkSamus, on 12/16/2007, -4/+7the only way to get death penalty in japan is if you mock the president of toyota
        • Yokohamalion, on 12/17/2007, -0/+3Japan uses it all the time. Plus Japan still hangs it's criminals.
      • theOster, on 12/16/2007, -3/+23i don't know about hte rest of the world, but it seems that people born in america from the 70's and later have grown up with a constant sense of entitlement. you now have several generations that have been handed everything and have internalized that everyone should treat you with "respect". so now, if anything ANYTHING does not go their way, they become completely derailed and freak out. and what a ***** mess it's become (and it's going to get worse before it gets better)
        • coyote1284, on 12/17/2007, -0/+3Ding ding ding, we have a winner!
      • kb9vgr, on 12/16/2007, -13/+4your English teacher just quit on you didn't they
      • Wartz, on 12/16/2007, -4/+8Europe's violent crime is still very high, with huge amounts of muggings, stabbings, beatings. etc going on every day. It is also climbing rapidly in several counties like England and Holland. The US's violent crime rate, while still significantly higher on the average than Europe's, has been steadily declining since 1994, dropping by almost 50%.
        • EditorResponse, on 12/16/2007, -3/+8They use an awful lot of knives in the EU. A lot of stabbings even at a very young age. So the killings still go on they just don't use as many guns.
        • IpecacNeat, on 12/16/2007, -6/+4I would rather someone use a knife than a gun.
          • gyrfalcon, on 12/27/2007, -0/+1Dying from a knife attack, or being punched to death is quite a bit more painful then being shot according to most people who have been wounded.
        • ibuprofane, on 12/16/2007, -2/+6Well, now that Britain has banned replica Samurai swords, there will never ever be any Samurai sword stabbings again. Ever.
          /Wakes up from fantasy world
    • HerbSolo, on 12/16/2007, -3/+69Yeah, right - and the war on drugs lowered drug abuse rates.
      I think most murderers don't plan to get caught when they're killing someone.
    • zeblith, on 12/16/2007, -5/+11Um, many murderers/other heinous criminals are looking for the government to end their lives so they don't have to. Not that that's why they would commit such crimes, but it's a good ending for them, from their perspectives. Imagine if they were forced to live with their decisions, locked away in a jail cell for decades. Sure, this won't stop people with the balls to kill themselves after they're finished with their crimes, but we can't really stop them. The death penalty is an easy way out for most of the bastards who earn it.
    • Sinten, on 12/16/2007, -8/+43this is the worst reasoning i've read on digg in a while
      • atticus8, on 12/16/2007, -4/+2You want "worst reasoning"?
        "bad people will no doubt soon be relocating to New Jersey... because NJ is repealing the death sentence." = -41 diggs
        "Good point." (referring to the above comment) = +48 diggs
    • ElAssoWipo, on 12/16/2007, -15/+31The death sentence has absolutely no impact on crime rates. The only thing it reduces are recidivists. Which is why I think child molestors (highest rate of repeat offenders aside from theft) should get the death penalty and so should murderers.

      However, the system is flawed. People have been wrongfully accused and convicted. Which is no better than preventing honest citizens from getting murdered. So, since the system cannot guarantee that not one single honest person will ever be sentenced to death and since we know it happened, it would be morally wrong to allow it.

      However, in certain cases, there is no doubt that the person comitted the crime. Video proof + DNA evidence = no possible doubt. 5-6 unrelated witnesses with the exact same account of events = no possible doubt. So I think that the death penalty should still apply in some cases.

      This, btw, is the only reasonnable argument you can make against or for the death penalty. Anything else is an appeal to emotions. You can't compare financial costs of the death penalty to the cost of a human life so that argument is a fallcy. You can't deny that these people present a danger to society, rehabilitation is even more uncertain than the ruling. You can't deny that they represent a huge cost to society when they could be dead and cost nothing.

      The only argument against the death penalty is that killing people is bad. And that's a fallacy too.
      • BrainInAJar, on 12/16/2007, -5/+18"I think child molestors (highest rate of repeat offenders aside from theft) "

        You'd think that, wouldn't you. As it turns out, not so much...
        ww2.ps-sp.gc.ca/publications/corrections/pdf/199670_e.pdf

        Also, if you have the death penalty for child molesters, don't you think that would remove the disincentive for the criminal to kill the victim to cover up the evidence? After all, if the state's going to murder you if they find out anyways, why not make sure little jonny can't tell on you ever.

        What would you rather have, dead molester and dead child, or imprisoned molester and living child?
        • ElAssoWipo, on 12/16/2007, -6/+7"The initial follow-up of the child
          molesters found that 42% were reconvicted
          of a sexual or violent crime during the 15-
          30 year follow-up period.

          In contrast,
          child molesters had much higher rates of
          sexual recidivism (35%) than did the
          nonsexual criminal group (1.5%).

          You should've read your own link...
          • BrainInAJar, on 12/16/2007, -6/+3Read it again. That part is saying that child molesters get re-convicted of molesting children, and carjackers don't tend to get convicted for molesting children.
          • ElAssoWipo, on 12/16/2007, -2/+4I read the whole thing. There's nothing that contradicts my statement. They made a comparison between child molestors and absolutely all types of criminals.
      • ElAssoWipo, on 12/16/2007, -6/+5You jump to the conclusion that because pedophiles fear getting caught, they will be ready to kill a child. I'll make the exact opposite argument and provide equal proof:

        They won't moslest children at all for fearing death instead of TWO years in a minimum security prison, in a separate ward.

        • staticneuron, on 12/16/2007, -0/+9Pedophiles are some sick people. If you hear about how most build up the courage to commit the act or how some just do it then you would realize that they aren't worried about the act just what happens afterwards. So fear of getting into trouble for doing what they are doing doesn't come into the equasion because they wouldn't be thinking it if not so inclined. A death penalty for molesters WILL leave many of them to kill their victims unless they have some semblance of humanity left.
          • ElAssoWipo, on 12/16/2007, -4/+4Explain how they would decide to keep molesting kids and kill them to not get caught instead of just not doing it.

            That's a huge behavioural leap. Being mentally prepared to molest a child is far from being prepared to kill a child. And it's not like they want to get caught as it is.

            If you want to make this argument, you have to demonstrate the pedophiles are prepared to kill a child in order to preserve their own life. And that would be demonstrating something that is contrary to any study that has been made on pedophiles.

            It's like that "to catch a predator" show. They all tried to get away, but none one of them was ready to kill to achieve that. And their faces were to be shown on national television.

            But if you can make this argument, I'll agree. But you can't just decide that this is what they'll do.
        • BrainInAJar, on 12/16/2007, -1/+2Maybe it would deter some, maybe not ( these people are sick in the head, who knows how to predict their behavior ).

          Point being that no matter what penalty you have on a crime, some people are going to do it anyways ( hence why states with a death penalty still have murder rates ). Would you rather those people try to cover up their "evidence" in the most gruesome way imaginable , or would you rather the child who might tattle to it's parents or teachers or someone else continue to live ?
          • ElAssoWipo, on 12/16/2007, -1/+8Would you rather having the death penaltiy or the apocalypse?

            I can come up with a thousand false dilemmas too.

            Sandwhiches with mayonnaise or getting mauled by a bear?
      • thcobbs, on 12/16/2007, -6/+4"The death sentence has absolutely no impact on crime rates. "

        Depends on who you listen to.

        http://www.dpinfo.com/death_penalty_as_a_deterrent ...

        "(2003) Emory University Economics Department Chairman Hashem Dezhbakhsh and Emory Professors Paul Rubin and Joanna Shepherd state that "our results suggest that capital punishment has a strong deterrent effect. An increase in any of the probabilities -- arrest, sentencing or execution -- tends to reduce the crime rate. In particular, each execution results, on average, in eighteen fewer murders -- with a margin of error of plus or minus 10." (1) Their data base used nationwide data from 3,054 US counties from 1977-1996.
        "

        Most specifically: "In particular, each execution results, on average, in eighteen fewer murders -- with a margin of error of plus or minus 10."

        • ElAssoWipo, on 12/16/2007, -4/+2Yeah, but these studies are always near sighted and always ommit coherent information such as the fact that on average, the crime rate is lower in non- death penalty states than in death-penalty states.

          What they say is true, but incomplete. There are so many factors that affect the crime rate, the death penalty is just one of many. As a single element, it changes pretty much nothing.

          See Vhold's link above my comment.
          • thcobbs, on 12/16/2007, -3/+4Near sighted? It covered two DECADES of crime data.

            Care to reference your "fact that on average, the crime rate is lower in non- death penalty states than in death-penalty states. "
          • ElAssoWipo, on 12/16/2007, -3/+3http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=16 ...
            http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=16 ...
            http://www.studyworld.com/newsite/reportessay/soci ...
          • CARHINO, on 12/16/2007, -3/+4The 2 States with the lowest murder rates have the death penalty. Therefore I can use your chart to say "states with death penalty have lowest murder rates" It's called lying with statistics, by averaging you take out other factors. Also notice MI is one of the worst, with the rate increasing after our recent decision to Abolish justice for murderers.
          • ElAssoWipo, on 12/16/2007, -3/+3"It's called lying with statistics"

            Thank you for defeating all arguments made in this thread. The 3rd state with the lowest murder rate beats many states that have the death penalty.

            So, with or without: no impact on crime rate. It's just one of many factors.
      • f54280, on 12/17/2007, -1/+2> The only argument against the death penalty is that killing people is bad. And that's a fallacy too.

        Your opinion would probably have more weight if you had the slighest idea of what a fallacy is, or some average reasoning skills.

        For instance, in that thread http://digg.com/world_news/Air_Canada_Passenger_Ta ... you are showing your inculture by patronizing me about what a straw man is. Of course, I was reading Schopenhauer while you were probably still sucking on your mother's *****, and you are just circling around name-calling people when you are dead wrong.(For information, you were building a straw man by mis-representing my position as if I made the reasoning that in Canada [or the US, because it seems you are pretty mis-guided about the original article] convicts are flying in regular flights because they do in France. You then attack the straw man you built by pointing how stupid such a reasoning would be).

        Your comment here is equally clueless. A moral argument against death penalty is that a modern society should not kill it own members. One may agree, disagree or don't care, but there is no fallacy in that, as to be a fallacy you need to have a flaw in the logic form of the argumentation. There is no argumentation, hence no fallacy.

        Spewing "fallacy" or "appeal to emotion" every other sentence doesn't make you a master in dialectic.
        • ElAssoWipo, on 12/17/2007, -2/+2Actually, I am a master of dialectic, logic, semantics and debate.

          Your first argument is an ad hominem. You start by assuming that I'm ignorant. You follow by crying about the other time I demonstrated how ignorant you were.

          You then make the unfounded argument that a modern society should not kill it's own members. That's not a fallacy, you are right. Because it's not even an argument. It's just a statement of ideology. It's the equivalent of barking. You are an idiot.

          If this were an actual debate, you would've been disqualified in a single sentence. That's because you're an ape.

          See, the only thing that distinguishes us from the rest of great apes, cognitively, is logic, reason and abstraction. So, since you lack these things, you are not human, you are an ape.
          • f54280, on 12/21/2007, -0/+0> Actually, I am a master of dialectic, logic, semantics and debate.

            Let's see this in in a syllogistic way:

            You seem to be a dsciple of Gregori Baikov (http://www.somethingawful.com/d/news/gregori-maste ... and that don't makes you a philosopher.

            On the other hand, Schopenhauer said "in Sei persönlich, beleidigend, grob", so maybe you are a philosopher.

            I think the conclusion flow easily. You are just a troll.

            Have a nice day.
    • DephexTwin, on 12/16/2007, -3/+19Wait... wouldn't the murderer have to convince his victim to move to New Jersey too?

      Also, if they did manage to get to New Jersey, isn't there a significant chance that simply being in New Jersey would cause the would-be murderer to turn the gun on himself before committing any atrocities?
    • pintomp3, on 12/16/2007, -12/+19***** you. innocent people have been killed by the state. the death penalty is wrong.
      • fac3less, on 12/16/2007, -12/+3Millions have been killed by people. An eye for an eye.
        • rumorsofdemise, on 12/16/2007, -4/+12makes the whole world blind.
          • Akaji, on 12/16/2007, -1/+4Obviously you don't understand recursion.
          • IpecacNeat, on 12/16/2007, -1/+2LivingHealthy, you, and many others on here, don't seem to understand psychology.
        • drgmdp, on 12/16/2007, -3/+2makes a blind world
      • vhold, on 12/16/2007, -0/+7Agreed, case in point: http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=25 ...

        "Prosecutors in North Carolina on December 11 dropped all charges against Jonathon Hoffman, who had been convicted and sentenced to death for the 1995 murder of a jewelry store owner. Hoffman won a new trial in 2004 because information favorable to Hoffman was withheld from the defense. During Hoffman’s first trial, the state's key witness, Johnell Porter, had received immunity from federal charges for testifying against his cousin. The defense attorneys, jury, and the judge did not know of the deal. Porter has since recanted his testimony, stating that he lied in order to get back at his cousin for stealing money from him."

        Plea bargaining needs to be abolished.
    • vhold, on 12/16/2007, -6/+11I doubt that will happen. If the death penalty scared people straight, then you'd think that states that have a death penalty would have lower murder rates. They don't, they have higher murder rates: http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=16 ...

      Average of murder rates among death penalty states in 2006: 5.1
      Average of murder rates among non-death penalty states in 2006: 3.1

      Why? I don't know, maybe when your society tries to solve its problems with killing, individuals pick up on that?
      • GreyICE, on 12/16/2007, -2/+6Or states with high murder rates implement the Death Penalty in an attempt to lower the murder rate.
        • ElAssoWipo, on 12/16/2007, -1/+8Your argument was made over 400 years ago (by Locke). It was disproven about 200 years ago.

          Climate has absolutely nothing to do with crime. That was the justification of segregationism, btw.
        • vhold, on 12/16/2007, -1/+1That is a possibility, I really shouldn't have even implied there is a link between the death penalty and murder rates at all. I think the only thing that is fair to say is that it would appear that the death penalty, as we have it, isn't a significant deterrent.
          • CARHINO, on 12/17/2007, -1/+3Have to agree with you there. The death penalty, AS WE HAVE IT, is not a deterrent.
            1)Average stay on death row is more than 10 years of endless appeals.
            2)To easy to plea bargain to avoid death.
      • CARHINO, on 12/16/2007, -4/+2The 2 States with the lowest murder rates have the death penalty. Therefore I can use your chart to say "states with death penalty have lowest murder rates" It's called lying with statistics, by averaging you take out other factors. Also notice MI is one of the worst, with the rate increasing after our recent decision to Abolish justice for murderers.
      • CARHINO, on 12/16/2007, -2/+2The 2 States with the lowest murder rates have the death penalty. Therefore I can use your chart to say "states with death penalty have lowest murder rates" It's called lying with statistics, by averaging you take out other factors. Also notice MI is one of the worst, with the rate increasing after our recent decision to Abolish justice for murderers.
    • LordRahl72, on 12/16/2007, -5/+15I bet it may have something to do with the likely hood that more people would congregate in gun free zones (like a mall) than non gun free zones (like a country road)
      • fusama, on 12/16/2007, -1/+8a logical and reasonable argument? This is digg, you should know better than to try that.
      • CARHINO, on 12/16/2007, -5/+8Wow what a profound thought, so using your logic there are lots of deranged shooters standing around on country roads, trying to figure out where all the people are? They go to the malls, classrooms, and churches because thatd where the unarmed victims are. In the cases where an individual with a gun was present, fewer people died. After columbine, two more shootings occurred within a week, both ended quickly when school officials armed themselves and stopped the attackers. In a previous Virginia Tech shooting the scumbag was shot BY AN ARMED student,preventing further bloodshed. In both the VT and recent mall shootings, police waited outside until the dirtbags ran out of ammo and killed themselves. States with concealed carry laws have seen reductions in crime.
        • senatorpjt, on 12/16/2007, -0/+7Yeah, I've never heard about any mass shootings at a gun show. And they're pretty crowded.
        • Iconoclast25, on 12/18/2007, -0/+3Actually, the previous incident was not at VT, but Appalachian Law School - but the perp was stopped by two students who had CCWs and handguns before the perp could hurt very many. Like the church shooter in Colorado, the Appalachian perp had plenty of unexpended ammo when he was taken down.
    • kurttrail, on 12/16/2007, -5/+7It's cheaper to keep murderers locked up for life, than executing them after nearly endless appeals.

      So do you want lower taxes, or vengeance?
      • ElAssoWipo, on 12/16/2007, -8/+5How much money is too much money to protect your kids from getting raped?
      • rizzo2008, on 12/16/2007, -2/+5actually you are wrong and it can cost a huge amount of money to keep a person alive in prison as terrible as that sounds
      • Iconoclast25, on 12/17/2007, -0/+3Streamline the appeals process - they are entitled to a "speedy trial" under our laws. Fast track murder conviction appeals and the vermin can be exterminated inside of two years.
      • CARHINO, on 12/18/2007, -1/+2BOTH
    • deskimo, on 12/16/2007, -2/+8Surely, you're joking. You think there are diabolical criminals out there, plotting their next homicide, who are thinking to themselves in a dark room somewhere, "Hey, I just heard New Jersey got rid of the DP, let me buy a house or apartment there before I commit this next arbitrary act of violence?"

      The only people who premeditate that extensively before an act of murder are serial killers, and just how many of those do you think there are, realistically? And they are all going to move to New Jersey for their next killing spree, because New Jersey might not kill them 10/20 years post-conviction, post-appeal after a crime of this sort?
    • CARHINO, on 12/16/2007, -6/+5Another faulty argument. Since the average stay on Death row is 14 years, the additional cost is due to the unlimited appeals process pursued by all the left wing lawyers who are getting rich off taxpayer money.
      • colberrep, on 12/16/2007, -3/+2you are douche, buried
      • rgodfrey, on 12/16/2007, -2/+3Public defenders don't get rich.
        • CARHINO, on 12/17/2007, -1/+2Nah, they all live in tarpaper shacks, and do it all for the good of Humanity. The "public" part means taxpayer funded, ie the extra cost mentioned above. Also none of them ever end up on the boards of leftie activist groups? Besides according to OBAMA rich is $90k a year, defenders make less than that?
          • rgodfrey, on 12/17/2007, -2/+1I know several that make less than that, and yeah most of them are pretty damn altruistic.
          • coyote1284, on 12/17/2007, -0/+3TAKE THAT!
        • coyote1284, on 12/17/2007, -0/+2HOLD IT!
    • omgTHEPATRIOTS, on 12/16/2007, -0/+5As someone from New Jersey, I must say you are the biggest idiot to ever live in this state.

      And there's a lot of idiots here.
      • Iconoclast25, on 12/18/2007, -1/+1Lautenberg takes the first ten places and any brain-dead leftard who voted for that maggot would follow along. Correspondent 'thotpoizn' ain't even in the top 60% of idiots in the PRNJ.
    • RossDuprey, on 12/17/2007, -1/+1Death should not be a punishment nor a reward.
  • Trooper77, on 12/16/2007, -104/+502 Why do mass shootings happen in "gun free zones"? Because people can't carry guns for self defense in those zones.
    • ufia, on 12/16/2007, -96/+38So you're telling me the solution to prevent mass shootings, is to bring in more guns?

      To combat arson in school, should we hand matches to all students?
      • Spamcan, on 12/16/2007, -16/+40If firearm basics and safety were a required class in every high school in America then we'd have significantly less accidental gun deaths in this country and zero school shootings. Do you think kids are going to try to pull some ***** when 30 or so of their fellow students are armed at any given point during the day?
        • Fhwqhgads, on 12/16/2007, -8/+23Let's not overestimate the level of thought that goes into posts like ufia's.
        • Scienceisfun, on 12/16/2007, -15/+8I'm not sure if I like applying the strategy of mutually assured destruction to teenage politics.
        • iticu, on 12/16/2007, -19/+10You want to give 1000s of kids guns to go to school with?
          What are you, an idiot?
          • Spamcan, on 12/16/2007, -2/+14yes, that is exactly what I'm advocating, because somehow "30 or so" translates into kids being issued firearms like textbooks? Im talking about highly regulated gun education with a very small number of guns under strict control of the faculty. This is somehow worse then putting 16 year olds behind the wheel of an automobile? Both are deadly weapons, and maybe someone other then the homicidal gun nuts should know how to defend themselves. Gun education isn't a bad thing you know, part of the probelm is people would rather ban and ignore then give those who would use the weapons in self defense a chance to do so.
          • senatorpjt, on 12/16/2007, -1/+7It works in Switzerland, Israel, and Finland.
          • CARHINO, on 12/17/2007, -2/+3The idiot is anyone who jumps to the false conclusion that anyone is talking about arming kids.
        • jspegele, on 12/16/2007, -8/+12Yes. It would happen all the time. Take a look at inner city areas with heavy gang problems. There are gang shootings all the time even though both sides have guns. There would be single shootings all the time rather than a mass shooting every few years.
        • script, on 12/16/2007, -11/+7Ok, but if everyone starts carrying a gun and someone goes on a shooting rampage. I assume that everyone, in response, whips out their piece. At this point, how does an individual determine which one is the one true rampaging shooter?
          • elninja, on 12/16/2007, -3/+3Look for the one shooting at you.
          • senatorpjt, on 12/16/2007, -1/+6You've played too many video games. When someone starts shooting, you don't start circle strafing and fire blindly towards the glowing direction on your radar. You take cover and in this case it should be pretty obvious who's the one doing the shooting.
        • unclemeat, on 12/16/2007, -7/+11I live in the UK, and we don't have school shootings. This isn't because everyone has a gun, it's because no one has a gun.
          • there, on 12/16/2007, -7/+4What? Are you saying you don't believe the "intelligentsia" argument gun ranges are "safe"? http://tinyurl.com/ypdkuk

            You see the problem with the world is there aren't enough weapons. Clearly everyone should be allowed to carry personal thermonuclear devices. Then we'd all be safe. Damn liberty haters are trying to suppress my rights.
          • OverlordXenu, on 12/16/2007, -1/+7You're right, I would feel so much safer living in a country where only the criminals have guns and pointy knives!
          • CARHINO, on 12/17/2007, -3/+3This is also why we kicked your forefathers asses, out of our country in the 18th century, then had to save your asses twice in the last century.
        • natastna2, on 12/16/2007, -10/+8Cars are made to drive. Guns are made to kill.
        • lotsa1s, on 12/16/2007, -3/+8So then why, nata, do cars kill far more people a year then guns do?
        • IllBeBack, on 12/17/2007, -3/+3@ lotsa1s
          Because there are way, way, way more people out there driving cars and not paying attention than there are people actively using guns to kill people.
          Every time I hear this argument, it's a sure sign that an idiotic gun nut is the one that repeated it.
      • mooseofshadows, on 12/16/2007, -2/+24Why would they not? The shootings usually end in suicide anyway.
      • patch6, on 12/16/2007, -5/+30Yeah, fight fire with fire.

        Seriously though, use a metaphor that actually fits the issue.
      • jjb123, on 12/16/2007, -9/+43Horribly analogy. A good analogy would be to give fire extinguishers to every student.
        • IronTek, on 12/16/2007, -8/+22fire extinguishers that shoot bullets.
        • manitoba98xp, on 12/16/2007, -6/+13I agree, the OP's analogy was poorly thought out. But yours is no better. With guns, the tool used to commit the crime is the same as the one which allegedly deters it. You can't easily start a fire with a fire extinguisher.
      • ThePantsParty, on 12/16/2007, -4/+20yes that makes so much sense...because it's even possible to 'defend' yourself from fire (whatever that even means) with matches....
        • jspegele, on 12/16/2007, -7/+4Do you have that much faith in the people around you that you don't mind everyone having a gun? Sure, most of the people carrying guns would probably only use them for self defense. But you're also giving a the quiet kid in the corner that gets picked on by all the jocks permission to carry a gun. Somebody planning a mass shooting/suicide will not be deterred by the possibility of getting shot.
        • podwich, on 12/16/2007, -3/+12Your fallacy is believing that your quiet kid can't get a gun if you don't give him permission to carry one.

          What doesn't change is bad people getting guns. What does change is good people having access to them as well.
      • gypsynuke, on 12/16/2007, -5/+27When soldiers overseas are shot at they shoot back using guns. They don't hide in a gun free zone. Same thing applies everywhere else on earth because a war zone is just another plot of land on the same planet. If someone is shooting at you it's good to be able to shoot back.
        • pintomp3, on 12/16/2007, -14/+6so let's turn every place into a war zone?
        • DephexTwin, on 12/16/2007, -4/+11To paraphrase: don't hide in gun-free zones like a pussy; whoever and wherever we are, we are at war; try to kill them before they kill you.
        • incandescent, on 12/16/2007, -18/+7Here's an amazing idea for you: don't let ANYONE have guns, especially criminals. Then you won't need to compare your schools and streets with a warzone. Jeez!
          • Mononuclear, on 12/16/2007, -2/+10how do we stop criminals from having guns?
          • NozE8, on 12/16/2007, -7/+1You stop crimminals from having guns by fixing your corrupt government.
          • IllBeBack, on 12/17/2007, -0/+2This sounds oddly like the border fence argument. Those for it know that a fence will definitely stop a lot of illegal immigrants from coming into the USA from Mexico, while those against it say that a fence won't stop anybody. Uh, a fence will absolutely stop people from coming. If that wasn't the case, bank vaults wouldn't have locks and prisons would take their fences down and trust all the inmates to stay inside.

            Criminals can be stopped from having guns. It may take some time, but eventually all of the guns could be collected.

            Oh, but wait. Then the government would have all the guns. That's not good either.
          • gypsynuke, on 12/17/2007, -0/+2The first problem with that is it's our second ammendment right to bear arms. The second problem is, how exactly would you keep firearms away from criminals? The laws preventing criminals from owning firearms already exist but they have them anyway.
          • gypsynuke, on 12/17/2007, -0/+2For some reason I can't reply to IllBeBack, so this is for you.
            The fence analogy doesn't make sense. Fences work immediately.
            This argument that we could collect all the guns on the planet and destroy them ignores a pretty basic truth. We could make more. As impossible as I think it is to collect every gun on the planet let's assume it could be done. How do you stop any more guns from being made?
        • jspegele, on 12/16/2007, -11/+6So going to school = hiding in a gun free zone? We should turn our schools into war zones?
          • gypsynuke, on 12/17/2007, -0/+2No. The point I was making is a gun free zone means nothing. It protects no one.
            My argument is, saying it's okay to be armed in location A because it's a war zone but not in location B because it's a gun free zone is ludicrous. Someone who intends to do harm doesn't make that distinction. When shooting starts, it doesn't matter what the background is, someone should be able to shoot back.
      • Shawn4168, on 12/16/2007, -10/+79"To combat arson in school, should we hand matches to all students?"

        Congratulations, you just won the award for dumbest analogy for 2007. Just in time, too.
        • JackOCat, on 12/16/2007, -3/+1Wow Digg actually dugg up a gun control comment. What is this world coming to.

          There is the digg article, why do mass shootings happen in gun riddled zones?
          • Shawn4168, on 12/16/2007, -0/+5That wasn't a gun control comment. That was a pro-gun comment, ridiculing the gun control comment from above.
      • swiftekho, on 12/16/2007, -9/+6Ufia, you used what we call Reductio ad absurdum...
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum
        • libertao, on 12/16/2007, -1/+5So? Your own link refers to it as a 'logical argument'...

          Maybe you're looking for this:
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_ridicule
          ?
          • swiftekho, on 12/17/2007, -0/+1"where one assumes a claim for the sake of argument, derives an absurd or ridiculous outcome, and then concludes that the original assumption must have been wrong as it led to an absurd result."

            It's not logical is the problem... It focuses on the tiniest, worst piece of information and blows it out of proportion
      • AnarkeIncarnate, on 12/16/2007, -0/+6false dichotomy.
      • bolognium, on 12/16/2007, -0/+4god damn why are people so ***** dumb? that's the reason we have shootings - dumb ***** people.
      • PorchSong, on 12/17/2007, -0/+3In Colorado Springs, if it were not for the security guard with her gun, many, many more would have been killed before she took his ass out. She stopped him 60 feet inside the facility after he shot two people. If he had made it into the auditorium who knows how many unarmed church goers he would have killed. He thought a church would be unarmed, or "a gun free zone," but to our luck, it was not. Moral of the story, if guns were not available for self defense in this case, many more people would have been killed. He had on him a backpack with over 1000 rounds in it.

        What a heroine she is.
      • LuaPron, on 12/17/2007, -0/+2We don't have to allow the students to carry any more guns. If a school can either hire security or has staff they can trustits reasonable to permit schools to use firearms to defend against the crazies. If some kid wants to go shoot up the place, a "Gun Free Zone" sign will be just as ignored as every other rule. if a teacher had a gun, that teacher could put a stop to the killing.

        Allowing guns in schools doesn't necessarily mean you make it permissible for all the students to carry anything they please.
    • incandescent, on 12/16/2007, -58/+65I am truly glad I don't live in the USA. You seem to have a real blindspot when it comes to guns. Just look at the number of mass shootings in the US compared to just about anywhere else in the world FGS. Your gun laws are insane.
      • rikwakefield, on 12/16/2007, -26/+15Yeah, but surely having more people with guns is a good thing. Right? /sarcasm
      • jspegele, on 12/16/2007, -22/+11Yea, but I think the worst part is the number of people who think our gun laws are too strict. Look at the comments above: "every kid in school should be allowed to carry a gun", "only pussies hide in gun free zones".

        What country are you from and is hard to get a visa to move there?
        • NozE8, on 12/16/2007, -3/+4Sadly, this is a fine display of the level of indoctrination the American society undergone. If you dont like guns you're a commie! Medicare is for communists as well!
      • rex84, on 12/16/2007, -25/+42I too, am truly glad you don't live in the USA.
      • aikimann, on 12/16/2007, -12/+50Ya, instead mass shootings in the UK you have mass stabbings of unarmed people.

        Man goes on knife rampage stabbing 6 people multiple times. (2004)
        http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1414315, ...

        Man goes on knife killing spree, stabbing and killing 4 people (2004)
        http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,200-206329 ...

        That's just 5 minutes of googling, I'm sure I can find more.

        Now, if only these people had some kind of device that could have killed him before he got close enough to stab them. Something that could have evened the odds a bit. It would have to fire some sort of projectile I suppose, so as to strike from a distance. Maybe it could use gunpowder to launch a small metal object towards the attacker. Oh ya! A gun!
        • Kythas, on 12/16/2007, -1/+9You should never bring a knife to a gunfight.
        • Fozefy, on 12/16/2007, -13/+3However the man with the knife would have been using a gun if guns were legal....and could have easily killed far more people, therefore your point is moot.
        • opiniastrous, on 12/16/2007, -10/+4LivingHealthy, I don't know about the UK, but your commentary on Australia is a load of crap. Clearly, your opinions are uncritical and undeveloped, making you the pawn of the organisations that wish to tell you whatever they like through false advertisements.

          Ever seen 'Idiocracy'? You remind me of those people...
        • dermarr5, on 12/16/2007, -1/+3I was hoping you were going to say crossbow.
        • Backdrifts, on 12/17/2007, -3/+3LivingHealthy, wtf? Where are you getting your 'facts' about Australia from? "Violent home invasions in rural areas where men are often away from home are through the ***** roof." This is a complete load of unsourced *****. Show us some evidence that violent home invasions are "through the roof". Oh wait, you can't because you made it up. I'll never understand how people like you get dugg up for making up lies.
        • Kelmon, on 12/17/2007, -1/+2Yes, that's precisely what we need - more people carrying guns since that will make us all a lot safer. The obvious retort to this statement is that your potential killer in this situation won't be carrying a knife but rather their own gun and they've killed you from distance. Personally, I'd rather take my chances against the knife. Muppet.
      • Wavicle, on 12/16/2007, -1/+11You might want to stop looking at the pathological cases of gun violence that occur in impoverished high crime areas of the inner cities.

        Look at a state that allows just about anyone without a criminal record and without a mental disease to carry a concealed weapon. The gun crime suddenly plummets. Whether this is because anyone might be carrying a gun or because it isn't the high crime slums of a large city, I don't know. However what is certain is that in order to reach your statistics you must include the very high gun crime in a very small portion of the country.
      • CARHINO, on 12/16/2007, -5/+5But we have fewer dictators, and more freedoms, why else does everyone want to move here?
        • carpespasm, on 12/16/2007, -3/+5more freedom isn't nessisarily a lot of freedom. Just more than places with ethnic cleansings and country-wide starvation.
        • NozE8, on 12/16/2007, -7/+1Because a country has more than one dictator at a time? How can a country have fewer than another? Oh and dont look now, your freedoms are slipping away....
          • CARHINO, on 12/17/2007, -1/+2Yeah I notice all the crackdowns on liberties all around me, newspapers being shut down, radio and tv stations being taken over, leaders trying to extend their terms to life in office, shooting anti-govt protesters, Didn't realize you were from venezuala.
      • senatorpjt, on 12/16/2007, -11/+2It has nothing to do with the guns. The USA's love of "economic freedom" has led to cities full of desperately poor people, and that's where most of the violence comes from.
        • CARHINO, on 12/17/2007, -2/+3America's desperately poor people, live on average better than the middle class of third world nations. Our desperately poor have:
          76 percent of poor households AC, Own a car over 80%, cable tv 90%,
          • senatorpjt, on 12/21/2007, -0/+1Yeah, and third world nations are known for their lack of violence.
      • danandre, on 12/17/2007, -4/+7Do you guys really want to live in a world where everyone carries guns?
        Doesn't sound like a good place to live...

        I know you've got the right to protect yourself, and you should be able to, but still ...

        edit: wrong thread
    • stinger666, on 12/16/2007, -11/+64Because everyone wants to live in a country where only gangsters and the police can carry guns. That's freedom.
      • jopsen, on 12/16/2007, -11/+6Absolutely... !
        Seriously no sarcasm..
      • moliver000, on 12/17/2007, -1/+2I'll never understand the American mentality about guns. First off, the comic is rediculous, the reason there aren't shootings at a gun range isn't because everyone has a gun, it's because everyone there is educated about their use. In Canada the laws are such that no one ever needs to own a gun for any reason other than sport. The only time you're allowed to transport a handgun is on your way to or from your shooting range, which you have to be a member of to even own a handgun. So if everyone owning a gun is safer, then why is it that in a nation where there are definitely more guns gun deaths are so much more common?
        • NinjaBass, on 12/18/2007, -0/+1They aren't. If you would have actually researched it, gun deaths are "common" everywhere. Just because guns are illegal in, say, England, you think that's going to stop people from smuggling them in? Drugs are illegal in the US, but does that stop people from smuggling them in from Mexico? Nope.
          • moliver000, on 12/24/2007, -0/+1Uh yeah, I never said that gun control = zero gun violence. Look at the numbers for America versus any other country.
      • Iconoclast25, on 12/18/2007, -0/+1Not everybody, pal. What you just described is Russia. The criminals, the cops and the Federal Service (previously known as KGB, NKVD, the Cheka, etc.). Notice what happens to people who oppose Putin? They end up dead or in jail. Thanks, I'm quite happy right here in the USA taking personal responsibility for my own safety and ready to take up arms - my own if need be - to resist foreign invasion or domestic tyrants.
    • andrewcod, on 12/16/2007, -4/+18Maybe this will happen if everyone has a gun:
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AKryy-DdnCE
      ...only with real guns.
      • FutureGuy, on 12/16/2007, -9/+3Good one. Mass shootings happens more often is gun free zones only because most places where people gather are gun free. I am sure the gun lobby paid heavily to pump this article up. The real questions should be why is US homicide rate highest in the developed world (even including many developing countries)? Anything to do with the liberal gun laws and the powerful gun lobby?
        • CARHINO, on 12/17/2007, -2/+1How about the liberal courts and prison system? Ever been to a gun show? Your local bass pro shop? Cabelas? Large number of people, lot's of guns, no dirtbag killers, why they know they will be shot before they do maximum damage. (Cool I get paid for every post!) Damn you figured it out the NRA pays us to monitor DIGG. WE use the same guys who planted the bombs in the twin towers.
        • Iconoclast25, on 12/18/2007, -0/+2You need to replace that foil beanie, FutureGuy, because it obviously has developed holes. Yeah, right, "the gun lobby paid heavily to pump this article up."

          ROFLMAO!

          "The gun lobby" manufacturers spend the bulk of their advertising budget on its products and darn little on lobbying except when there are specific legislative bills which affect those products. They may 'pay' some writers to produce puff pieces about new products by taking them on fancy hunting trips or giving them the firearms used for evaluation, but they don't PAY people to participate in operations like digg. Now, there is another component to "the gun lobby" - a vast sea of individual firearms owners, some 60 million or so. We aren't paid to defend our rights in these venues, but that doesn't mean we are not passionate about those.
      • asforme, on 12/17/2007, -1/+2Should I digg you up because that video was funny and I'd never seen it before, or digg you down because that would only happen in your wildest fantasy? I guess I'll leave you alone.
    • jopsen, on 12/16/2007, -21/+11How can a 107 people be stupid enough to digg you up...
      No seriously where I come from 99 / 100 people would consider you completely insane!

      Please tell me you're joking cause I'm seriously trying not to laugh...
    • Stevethegreat, on 12/16/2007, -3/+5Why? But of course because *others* have little to no chance to possess a gun -so that defend themselves- in those areas. But I have a different question in the same vain: Why does the countries with negative gun culture have (by far) the most gun crimes? Obviously (gun crimes) are not a matter of state policy but a matter of mentality.

      What many of us, in the -gun-free societies- find it disquieting in the American society is not the 2nd amendment's rights of the American constitution, but this whole gun culture that seems to be abundant over the Atlantic, it seems that there's certainly more than a correlation between that and criminality than people's rights on gun possession.....
      • terminal157, on 12/16/2007, -2/+7I agree with that. There's a culture of violence and, to some degree, madness in America, and that's what's truly behind the high violent crime rate. It's not at all related to the second amendment, which I support.
      • tobtoh, on 12/16/2007, -4/+6@Stevethegreat: Why does the countries with negative gun culture have (by far) the most gun crimes?

        Um I may be misunderstanding what you are saying, but my understanding is the US has the most gun crime of any developed nation in the world. And it's significantly higher than other nations too (on a per capita basis).

        "What many of us, in the -gun-free societies- find it disquieting in the American society is not the 2nd amendment's rights of the American constitution, but this whole gun culture that seems to be abundant over the Atlantic,"

        Wouldn't you say the whole reason the gun culture is so ingrained is because they allow guns everywhere in society? To me, that's the whole reason you would ban guns, so that this culture gets discouraged.
        • Stevethegreat, on 12/17/2007, -0/+5Switzerland have them minus the gun culture. I don't see many crimes happening on Switzerland...
          • mbradbury, on 12/17/2007, -0/+1Switzerland is a rich country with a good social safety net so there are less desperate people. The gun laws are tighter as well you have to be trained and past tests to own a gun.
    • Psythik, on 12/16/2007, -3/+10Wow, and all this time I though Digg was filled with gun-hating liberals...
      • Nerfdude, on 12/16/2007, -1/+6hey now, i'm a liberal and i love guns.
      • carpeclunes, on 12/16/2007, -1/+8What gave you that idea? Digg has always been anti gun control, atheist, and, for the most part, libertarian.
    • barius, on 12/16/2007, -14/+12/sigh

      Gun Free Zones are not meant to stop someone who's going to go postal. They are there to stop domestic arguments from becoming deadly. E.g. Hey! If you don't give me the last Wii on that shelf so I can make my daughter happy for Christmas, I'm going to kill you! *bang* *bang*

      This is why Canada and the UK have lower gun crime. It has *nothing* to do with mass shooting incidents where someone has purposely decided to walk into a public place and start killing people.
      • cybrguy, on 12/16/2007, -2/+4errr... correlation is not causation. I could cite Australia and others like it.
      • Lukesed, on 12/16/2007, -1/+5Yeah... gun free zones are in public areas... no so ***** domestic disputes don't happen there.
      • bdlang, on 12/16/2007, -1/+7Right, because non-violent people that work hard to be able to buy a Wii at the store always go ***** and shoot people. Because people that jump through infinite hoops to get a CCW, including the expensive insurance required are likely to shoot someone over something trivial.
        • trotskyist, on 12/16/2007, -5/+4Welcome to the United States, enjoy your stay.
      • teadrinker, on 12/17/2007, -0/+4No. These zones are gun free because the mall does not want liability lawsuits if someone accidentally discharges a gun.
        However, I wonder if by being a gun free zone, they can be held liable for mass shootings.
    • FadieZ, on 12/16/2007, -1/+4Good thing my area isn't gun-free or I wouldn't be able to enjoy my favorite Powerthirst flavor.
    • rudy23, on 12/16/2007, -0/+1I came here just to say 500 + comments wow. This is the only time my lowly pc can handle the comments page. another relaod and my computer would explode.
    • mediaphile, on 12/16/2007, -3/+5@Trooper77: Thank you Captain Obvious for explaining the joke. You've provided a valuable service to literally tens of people who might otherwise not have caught it.
    • Misinformant, on 12/16/2007, -6/+5Guns don't kill Americans, other Americans kill Americans.

      To all you gun nuts who are raving over this story, explain to me why anti-gun countries like Japan and Canada have murder rates HUNDREDS of times lower than ours?
      • Kloud, on 12/16/2007, -1/+2Compare that to the rate for rape cases, sex crimes, etc.
      • teadrinker, on 12/17/2007, -1/+7Then why does Russia, which does not allow any firearms, has a much higher murder rate, and that is only the reported murders? And in Switzerland, where almost every house has to have a gun by law has the same murder rate as surrounding countries?

        Either there is a problem with the culture (say the inner city gangster culture) in the US, or perhaps there is money to be had with guns (due to the war on drugs). I think both things are connected. Stop the drug war, and you will end up stopping much of the murders.
        • shillbert, on 12/17/2007, -2/+1Kucinich '08
        • ryodoan, on 12/17/2007, -0/+7I actually did a sociology research paper and we found that while yes, the US has a much higher rate of gun ownership and gun related homicides than most other countries, if you look at the broad picture accross many different nations and compare each nations gun ownership to its gun related homicide, there was no correlation. Some countries had high gun ownership, and low gun homicide, others had high homicide and low gun ownership. Looking at gun laws we saw the same thing, where in some countries violent homicide was low with harsh gun laws, but in others the gun laws were extremely strict, but violent homicides were still high.

          Its not the gun laws, nor is it the gun ownership, its the culture of the nation that dictates its violent / gun homicide rate.
    • eatasandwich, on 12/17/2007, -3/+5America: Land of the sane.

      I moved here from England 8 years ago. It's great. There are serious debates about psychics and ghosts on TV. Enough rich religious people to populate a fairly large middle eastern country. Cars the size of my parents house. Nobody knows how to apologise, and everyone shoots each other because they're free.

      Not as free as 80% of the other countries, but free never the less. It says so on paper somewhere so it must be true.
    • nobody7, on 02/16/2008, -1/+1crazed student opens fire on unsuspecting lecture hall

      student 1 sees crazed student open fire, opens fire on crazed student

      student 2 sees student 1 open fire, opens fire on student 1, thinking he is original shooter

      student 1 sees student 2 opening fire on himself, returns fire, hits someone else still fumbling with holster

      continue ad infinitum

      now imagine all students as your average three gun carrying TFR poster

      gun control doesn't seem too ***** out of line now huh
  • OnGard4Liberty, on 12/16/2007, -65/+454"Gun free zones" are not free of guns. They're "victim disarmament zones" because the only people who will follow the signs will be the law-abiding.

    "This is a gun free zone so if you were thinking about killing a bunch of people, that is not allowed here. You must go and do that somehwere else." You anti-gunners need to get a dose of reality
    • thailand1972, on 12/16/2007, -18/+46The UK is one large "gun free zone" with 60,000,000 inhabitants. There are around 50 gun-related deaths per year in this very large "gun free zone". Go figure.
      • arcangelgabriel, on 12/16/2007, -13/+15As I recall Manchester is a paradise on Earth....

        ...Sarcasm...
        • thailand1972, on 12/17/2007, -2/+2I lived in Manchester for 7 years - I know the place fairly well. When there's a shooting in Manchester - even in Moss Side where illegal guns are prevalent - it makes MAJOR news. Can you same the same for the US? When you have 30,000 deaths per year, I doubt it - it's just normal in the US.
        • thecatcantalk, on 12/17/2007, -0/+2Yes of course, the fact that Brits don't use weapons they can't get access to proves....umm, nothing? In Detroit, when you sit down with your wife at a bistro table in the sun, you don't have to deal with wandering gangs of skinheads and chavs and 'happy slappers' terrorizing total strangers in the streets. Thailand1972, please get off that high horse :)
      • liquidpele, on 12/16/2007, -5/+9Yes, and it's a freakin' island and a lot smaller than the US. It's a lot easier to control gun supply in their case.
        • SJKat, on 12/16/2007, -7/+8Let me guess: The only place outside the US you've ever been to is a tourist bus.
        • CptBuck, on 12/17/2007, -0/+5They also don't have a history of gun ownership/manufacture the way we do.
      • thecatcantalk, on 12/17/2007, -1/+4The UK is also a place where every other football (soccer) game is followed by an insane riots between rival gangs of fans armed with steel-toed boots, broken bottles, clubs, chains, knives and brass knuckles. British hooliganism is far worse than anything we've got here in the States. So please spare us the self-righteous bull about the "civilized, peaceful" Britons, whom are nothing of the sort.
    • troye, on 12/16/2007, -13/+16The anti-gunners are most likely to get a large dose of reality, in the form of bullets from the AK-47 wielded by a homicidal-suicidal person.
      • arjie, on 12/16/2007, -7/+4Whichever country that happens in has a broken system somewhere. If it is so easy for a black market on weapons to thrive, then your law enforcement agencies aren't doing their job well.
        • OnGard4Liberty, on 12/16/2007, -0/+8Are you under the idiotic impression that the government can ever shut down a black market? It's worked so well with the War on Drugs!!
          • arjie, on 12/18/2007, -0/+1Considering that it's the same government you're talking about in both gun cases and the drug cases, no, I have no impression that your law enforcement is capable of anything. Other countries have managed, though. Your example proves my point. Your law enforcement is broken.
      • IpecacNeat, on 12/16/2007, -1/+8It amazes how everyone in America has become a bunch of pussies. We are afraid of everything. Are you also afraid to go into public buildings because of terrorists?
    • moore, on 12/16/2007, -23/+9I'd rather take the chance that a homicidal maniac will randomly kill me one day (what are the chances, realistically... yeah, probably less than 0.00001%) than to live my life with my finger constantly on the trigger, carrying around a violent weapon 24/7.
      • MadEnvoy, on 12/16/2007, -1/+19Weapons aren't violent, people are.
        • moore, on 12/16/2007, -20/+4A gun is violent, it serves no other purpose than to cause harm to another person, it's a killing tool.
          • PabloMac, on 12/16/2007, -2/+11An inanimate object cannot be violent. Guns serve purposes beyond killing and causing harm. Your post is a poorly crafted run-on sentence full of nonsense.
          • BrewBeau, on 12/17/2007, -1/+2A gun can't be violent, it just makes it really easy for some person to be violent.
        • weareglass, on 12/16/2007, -3/+2Although, you have to admit it's rather difficult to bludgeon 15 people to death before the police show up.
          • CARHINO, on 12/16/2007, -1/+6Before the police show up and what? Stand around outside, waiting for the shooter to run out of ammo? The majority of the people killed in both the VT and mall shootings, DIED AFTER the POLICE arrived,
          • breezytrees, on 12/16/2007, -0/+2Carhino, that is a rare example. 99% of murders occur without police presence.
        • GNAAstaos, on 12/16/2007, -1/+6@moore: You have to look at the lesser of two evils. Would you rather have a shooting spree that would have resulted in twenty deaths, or have an armed citizen cause the death of one person who would either kill himself or get the death penalty anyways?
          Twenty innocent victims, or one deranged criminal?
          • moore, on 12/16/2007, -7/+6That's a false dichotomy because it ignores (what I believe are) the effects of general large-scale gun ownership. If that killer didn't have easy access to guns he might not have gone on that killing spree in the first place. Guns enable killing sprees in many ways, it's easy to start killing and keep killing with a gun. Chances are if Cho had to manually slit the throat of every person he killed, covering himself in blood and having to saw through flesh with his own hands, he'd have killed far fewer than he did. Maybe he would have got some illegal gun anyway, but then again, there's a decent chance he wouldn't have if gun availability had been so much lower.
          • MadEnvoy, on 12/16/2007, -1/+5I understand the way you feel about this, but check your facts on gun related crimes in countries that have strict gun laws and you will see that the criminals still find ways of getting guns. Weapons are inanimate objects and are incapable of being "good" or "evil". What is wrong here is that the US is overlooking an important issue and that is mental health. There usually is some sort of visible clues that these type of people have mental issues before the spree happens. We have become a nation of drug eaters. In the past when a person was "off" they were treated (yes, sometimes harshly) but now they are given a drug and sent on their merry way to stop using the drug and let their psychosis get a grip on them and then blamo! they blow up and all hell breaks loose.
          • IpecacNeat, on 12/16/2007, -6/+0I don't trust ANY human with a gun. Also, don't most killers get their guns from parents or relatives, who have had them legally? Guns should be outlawed.
    • AnarkeIncarnate, on 12/16/2007, -3/+27Thinking a sign will prevent crime is like thinking moving a Deer X-ing sign will cause dear to cross elsewhere
      • breezytrees, on 12/16/2007, -4/+7A sign does prevent crime. It's been proven that homes with "protected by ADT" on their front lawns get robbed less, MUCH less.
        • andycr512, on 12/16/2007, -0/+10There's a difference between a sign that says "No weapons allowed here" and a sign that says "Police will automatically be called if you break in". One is a rule, the other is a deterrent. The equivalent sign here would be "Heavily armed security guard in every room".
          • breezytrees, on 12/19/2007, -0/+2ahhh obviously. I did not understand the context.
        • AnarkeIncarnate, on 12/16/2007, -0/+4The sign has no merit if the backing did not exist. Think about it. If the "No weapons allowed" signs were disregarded, then perhaps that sign would be meaningless. What if I had a sign on my window that said "Home protected by ABC Security" and it is well known that ABC security takes long breaks and doesn't respond to emergencies. Would that help secure my home?
          I think it is equally foolish for those who have the novelty signs that say "This house protected by Smith & Wesson" because it simply says "Hey criminals, if the homeowner is not here, you may be able to score guns."

          A better idea would be if the criminals thought "Hmm, these guys are all carrying guns. I may get my head blown off robbing granny of her bingo money. Maybe I'll go somewhere else."
          • CARHINO, on 12/17/2007, -1/+1We probably agree more than we disagree.
          • breezytrees, on 12/19/2007, -0/+1yea but the criminal has no way of knowing if the backing exists or not... The criminal then has to take a risk, a risk that he'd rather not take.
        • CARHINO, on 12/17/2007, -1/+3The sign in my front window says, This home protected by SHOTGUN 3 nights a week, guess which 3?. The point is a "Gun free zone" sign means victims here are unarmed. A few years back one of the chain auto-parts stores run by an anti-gun liberal posted signs on their doors stating a no guns allowed policy to protest concealed carry laws. The signs were removed after the stores saw an INCREASE in armed robberies.
    • briguymaine, on 12/16/2007, -10/+3while visiting Turkey and Malaysia recently, they had metal detectors at the entrances of Malls. Great idea, I felt very safe, but Liberal Americans would never stand for that.
      • bbschaefer, on 12/16/2007, -0/+11What's amusing is that the safety you felt was only an illusion. You have to understand that the "bad guys" who really wish to do people harm *will* do people harm. Metal detectors, locks, guards.. these are deterrents. If you think that these things give you any real form of safety you're fooling yourself.
      • rgodfrey, on 12/16/2007, -5/+1I think Gun-Toting Americans wouldn't stand for that either, since, you know, guns are metal and stuff.
        • CARHINO, on 12/17/2007, -1/+2Wrong again. Gun-toting Americans would:
          Smile declare their gun to the security guard, show their permit, say Merry Christmas, and proceed into the mall.
      • diggduggjoe, on 12/16/2007, -0/+5Go ahead and feel safe as the terrorists begin opening the bottles of ammonia and bleach in the drug store or Sam's. People who wish to kill can do it with a freaking spork, if they wanted to.
        • LeeSoong, on 12/16/2007, -0/+3dugg for the use of a Spork as a leathal weapon.

          Is this the spork with the staw built into the handle? MacGyver could take out a small army with 2 sporks, string, and a sheet of paper.
    • antoniuk, on 12/16/2007, -14/+9How many times has an "armed victim" saved the day? this is such an idiotic comment, I can't believe it was typed. Letting people carry guns around is not going to turn them into Rambo wielding heroes. If someone wants to kill people because they feel the need, no purse carrying grandma or speed channel country bumpkin junkie is going to stop them. Fine the second amendment stands but there is no reason to let armed civilians carry guns.
      • bbschaefer, on 12/16/2007, -2/+15Women are cornered in back alleys every day around the country and around the world and those who had the foresight to buy a handgun are spared the humiliation and pain of being raped. Is this a bad thing? Even if one woman avoids rape then it's worth it to let law-abiding citizens carry personal weapons. I think your comment is the idiotic one.
        • rgodfrey, on 12/16/2007, -4/+4"Even if one woman avoids rape then it's worth it to let law-abiding citizens carry personal weapons."

          Would you say the same argument applies to highway deaths and speed limits? Surely many thousands of people currently fated to die in accidents would not if we universally lowered speed limits to 40 mph.
          • LeeSoong, on 12/16/2007, -0/+4Ban automobiles for private citizens.

            Only company cars, shipping trucks, buses, and taxi drivers should be allowed to buy, or drive automobiles. Automobile drivers must be between the age of 25 and 75, in good health, and no corrective eyewear needed. Driver license requires annual fee of $2,500 so only professional drivers can afford to drive.

            60,000 automobile deaths per year in the USA, 20 times higher than 9/11,
            you are safer working in the Iraq Green Zone than driving to the local shopping mall.

            Banning private automobiles will clean the air, and require fat body Americans to bicycle, or walk to where they are going.
      • Chahrlie5, on 12/16/2007, -1/+14There was actually just a case the other day where an armed lady shot and killed a man going on a rampage in a church.
        http://www.qando.net/details.aspx?entry=7412
      • breezytrees, on 12/16/2007, -0/+8Muggers will think twice when they don't know if the little grandma they targeted has a small .22 in her purse. It doesn't even matter if she actually has the gun, just the mere fact that she could have one is a crime deterrent.
      • BrewBeau, on 12/16/2007, -6/+1It's very difficult to hit a moving target with a handgun, especially under stress. So, maybe we ought to carry hand grenades so when you know the gunman isn't sparing anybody you can just try to blow everyone up and save the day. The second amendment guarantees us that right.
      • RossDuprey, on 12/17/2007, -0/+3Its called a deterrent. Many people don't commit crimes with the prospect of landing in jail. Thats called a deterrent, and it works very well.
      • Iconoclast25, on 12/18/2007, -0/+1There are enormous numbers of "UNARMED victims" and every day there are many incidents involving "armed CITIZENS" protecting themselves and others, but an "armed VICTIM" is a mighty rare individual. I'm sure there must have been a few, but I cannot recall even one.
    • Koopa, on 12/16/2007, -10/+3Do you really think some soccer mom shopping in the mall is going to be able to bust out her gun she's been hiding in case of a random psycho-killer, and be able to take out this murderer? Don't cops and SWAT team people train for years to be able to do that? I don't think the average gun-toting citizen is going to be able to stop someone committed to shooting up a mall, gun or no gun. Armed or unarmed, I sure as hell would be running in the opposite direction and calling in the professionals--the police.
      • CARHINO, on 12/16/2007, -1/+8THE COPS STAND AROUND OUTSIDE WAITING FOR THE SCUMBAGS TO RUN OUT OF AMMO. When was the last time a shooter was shot by a cop? How many hostage situations end quickly with a shot from an officer? Most situations end in one of two ways. A) Dirtbag runs out of ammo, uses last bullet to kill self. 2)After hours of Negotiating the scumbag surrenders. In neither case do the police Rescue anyone.
      • tamuengineer, on 12/16/2007, -0/+4Maybe your chances are not good but I would prefer to have the ability to SHOOT BACK if I am being shot at.
    • CARHINO, on 12/16/2007, -1/+20Tell that to the church members who were saved by the volunteer security guard in CO. the scumbag had over a thousand rounds of ammo and multiple guns, he wasn't there to commit suicide.
    • BrewBeau, on 12/16/2007, -0/+3So, in places where concealed weapons are allowed, what is the penalty for ever drawing your weapon? Obviously, if someone ever drew a weapon near you and wasn't clearly a law enforcement officer, you'd do whatever you could to incompacitate them.
      • CARHINO, on 12/17/2007, -1/+2HUH? Are you trying to make a point? If they draw their weapon to menace someone yes. However the number of crimes committed by CCW permit holders is statistically nonexistent. No one is handing out these permits on street corners. The fact is for every case you hear of a criminal killing an INNOCENT dirtbag, there is a far larger number of crimes interrupted and prevented by the presence of a gun in the hands of the intended victim. Joe dirtbag usually backs down without a shot being fired. He who walks away lives to rape/ steal another day.
        • BrewBeau, on 12/17/2007, -1/+2What I'm getting at is what are the guidelines for ever drawing a licensed weapon?
          • CARHINO, on 12/17/2007, -1/+1You can draw your weapon for self-defense or to defend others. An example would be, scenario 1 armed citizen A draws his weapon to shoot dirtbag B while police are still en route to the scene. Scenario 2 unarmed citizens C thru Z hide under their desks while dirtbag B kills them while policemen stand outside until he runs out of ammo. Scenario 1 occurred at VT a few years back, scenario 2 is what happened recently, after GUN FREE zone laws were put in place.
          • CARHINO, on 12/17/2007, -1/+1SELF-DEFENSE,OR THE DEFENSE OF OTHERS.
          • BrewBeau, on 12/17/2007, -0/+1@crahino
            Does dirtbag have to be brandishing some sort of deadly weapon and seem intent on using it? If I was out minding my own business, dirtbag for me would be the first person to pull out a weapon. So, I assume verbal threats would not call for someone pulling out their concealed weapon.
            (It wouldn't let me reply to you for some reason, saying session has expired.)
          • thecatcantalk, on 12/17/2007, -0/+2It depends. In most (U.S.) states, threatening to commit grievous bodily harm (e.g., "give me you wallet or I'll kick your ass..." is a third-degree felony, called "criminal threatening". You may or may not be allowed to use the threat of deadly force (drawing a weapon to a ready position) to defend yourself; the laws vary widely from place to place. It's best to look up the actual, written ordinances in the place where you live or will be traveling, in order to save yourself major legal trouble.
            In Florida, for instance, they have a "stand your ground" law, which allows a citizen menaced or threatened by a gangbanger to open fire right away. This is not the norm, in the U.S. generally. California and most of the Northeastern states, however, will savagely punish any citizen whom attempts to defend himself against a criminal attack. New Mexico allows you to keep a concealed firearm in your vehicle, most other states will send you to prison for doing so. See my point? You must know EXACTLY what the local law is, for your own protection, as the law often favors criminals over law-abiding citizens, in practice if not in intent. It's unfortunate. Be very careful, educate yourself, and sign up for a reputable small-arms training course, if you like. Carrying a firearm is a huge responsibility.
          • CARHINO, on 12/18/2007, -1/+1Seem to run into that same reply problem frequently. Laws vary but by dirtbag I mean criminal, if they have a weapon, and are menacing you or others, or in the commission of a crime, or in your home, or in some states on your propery then you would be within your rights. However the libs have managed to make it difficult in many cases to defend yourself' Weapons need not always be present, if the attacker is larger than you, or if there are more than one. However in many cases you may still end up facing criminal charges. Rather judged by 12 than carried by 6. CCW permit holders would know better than to pull a gun because someone called them a name. Trying to decide if you are being serious?? In most fases yes if someone pulls a gun for no apparent reason, he most likely is up to no good. If his intention is to murder a large number of people pray that one or more CCW permit holders are near.
    • rgodfrey, on 12/16/2007, -1/+3For those who dislike the so-called gun-free zones: are there any places you don't think guns should be allowed?
      • LeeSoong, on 12/16/2007, -0/+9One:

        Swimming, it ruins your gun's finish.
      • ravage86, on 12/17/2007, -1/+3Airplanes, submarines, near explosives, and chemical labs. They also should be stored safely away from toddlers.
        • AnarkeIncarnate, on 12/17/2007, -0/+1Airplanes are not dangerous when dealing with the myth of decompression. The airplane is not pressurized to the point where it is airtight.
        • ravage86, on 12/17/2007, -0/+2its dangerous when someone kills the pilots and everyone dies. It's pretty easy to keep guns off planes
        • NeptuneZen, on 12/24/2007, -0/+1Why the hell submarines? The only risk they have on a submarine is if the ammo catches fire. You can't shoot through the hull (least not with small arms).
      • eridius, on 12/17/2007, -0/+4Jails and Courthouses, and anywhere else that can a) make a strong argument that there is an inherent risk that someone will want to kill someone else there, and b) can control all points of entry such that they can search for weapons.
        • rgodfrey, on 12/17/2007, -0/+1The right people are armed in jails and courthouses. Why isn't that enough of a deterrent to the wrong people?
  • Koookie, on 12/16/2007, -45/+168One of the mass shootings in Finland happened in a shooting range -- just a few years ago. By a woman too.
    • lgfaphile, on 12/16/2007, -5/+49How was she stopped?
      • chris9902, on 12/16/2007, -8/+109The oven timer bleeped.
      • hamobu, on 12/16/2007, -0/+26Caught at the airport after discarding her Gun in the trash.
      • cybrguy, on 12/16/2007, -1/+4how many people did she shoot? If someone even aimed a gun at someone else at any one of the shooting ranges I go to, EVERYONE would be watching them, and then they would be kicked off the premises.
      • DefaultGen, on 12/16/2007, -1/+3This comment made my day.
    • jeffiek, on 12/16/2007, -8/+28You need to provide a link. I can't find any reference with Google.
    • InRussetShadows, on 12/16/2007, -22/+22Suspicious activity meter is in the red zone for this comment. I'm breaking out the BS meter to correlate the reading.
    • powelly, on 12/16/2007, -17/+29That wasn't a mass shooting, just a typical woman with no sense of direction.
      • bizneil, on 12/16/2007, -16/+4ya im calling ***** too. its always the "ya but this one time, in a far away place, to which i dont have a link and no one can prove or disprove, she was surrounded by TONS OF GUNS, but no one stoppered her... she almost killed the whole world!!..." *tear*. ya. maybe once. if thats enough proof for you to give up your arms, whats the quote? you deserve neither freedom nor protection.
        • DephexTwin, on 12/16/2007, -0/+11Ahahaha! Except it's true and links were provided.
        • jspegele, on 12/16/2007, -0/+5See pu-z's comment above. And quit being a douche.
    • jjb123, on 12/16/2007, -29/+5Dugg down until proof is presented.
      • pintomp3, on 12/16/2007, -4/+22how do you intend to digg him back up once the proof is presented?
      • mithrasinvictus, on 12/16/2007, -0/+17Dugg down because proof has been presented.
    • pu-z, on 12/16/2007, -4/+22I came here to comment about the same event but I wanted to give you a link first: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanna_Sillanpää
      • scarab5, on 12/18/2007, -0/+0Because Wikipedia is the most reliable source of information. Let me go write an article on Wikipedia about anything I want real quick...
    • SSUK, on 12/16/2007, -4/+8You make it sound like women are somehow incapable of using a firearm irresponsibly...
      • iticu, on 12/16/2007, -3/+8Sexist. Only sexists believe that woman aren't better than men in every single way.
        • DarkSamus, on 12/16/2007, -2/+5shall we test this fact in an old fashioned manner of unreal tournament?
      • davidlow, on 12/17/2007, -0/+1Not true. Women CAN use a firearm irresponsibly.
    • CaptMonkey, on 12/16/2007, -16/+19I don't mean to diminish their deaths, but that was only 3 people, not exactly a mass shooting. She probably was able to do that because the other people didn't know what was going on until it was too late. It's one thing to see a lady shoot someone and think "WTF?" and then get shot yourself. It's another thing to be cowering under a desk unarmed until the gunman slowly walks up to you and calmly shoots you in the head. I find it hard to believe that the other two people were armed, knew what was going on, and didn't shoot her.

      That's not to mention that it was at a shooting range, where gunfire is unlikely to draw attention to yourself. I wouldn't be surprised if the other two people didn't even know someone was shot until they were shot as well.
    • jhaks, on 12/16/2007, -11/+6You should have a few hundred diggs. I wonder how "open minded" gun advocates really are. Here's the story: in a shooting club she killed three men and wounded one man. She fled and attempted to purchase a plane ticket but was caught by law enforcement latter.

      So lets get this straight, she killed a bunch of people and found no resistance despite being in a shooting club. Sounds like a room full of gun owners doesn't really stop a determined killer. An innocent people are going to die regardless.
      • rizzo2008, on 12/16/2007, -1/+8Doubt it. I go to gun ranges in Georgia and it would take about .001 seconds for the kind of people who go to these places to take a shooter down. Having a way to defend yourself sure help and it is a lot easier to kill several dozen unarmed people than it is to kill 3 armed ones.
        • shinythingy, on 12/16/2007, -1/+3Its easier to say you'd shoot a person than actually doing it but you are obviously different.
    • cheesejaguar, on 12/16/2007, -1/+3Who let a person with paranoid schizophrenia into a shooting range? That is the better question here.
      • RussellDovey, on 12/17/2007, -0/+4There's no simple test for paranoid schizophrenia that a gun range can administer.
      • CARHINO, on 12/17/2007, -2/+1A bettet question is why do we let them vote. Or as in Ron Pauls case run for office.
    • TheDarkstarter, on 12/17/2007, -0/+2It's irrelevant. Shooting usually happen at a place where the psycho had a grudge with someone or something. They usually have a reason and hold a grudge against someone, so they go to that place and shoot it up. The Virginia Tech shooter scumbag shot up VT because he was pissed at people at VT. Maybe that Finish woman had a grudge with some dude that worked there.
    • ZenMojo, on 12/17/2007, -0/+3So a building full of armed, trained people, she kills three of them and only gets caught AFTER throwing her gun away? Man, the pro-gun folks will either plotz or deny it and forget it.
      • scottknick, on 12/17/2007, -0/+1Dugg for use of the word "plotz."
  • scallon, on 12/16/2007, -69/+156The better question would be why do these gun free zones exist in the first place? Why are so many people scared of guns? Look at England, guns are illegal but they still have comparble crime rates. Instead of guns, people get killed with knives or pmmeled with bats. Taking the tools away does not make the innocent safer, it makes them more vulnerable and gives them a false sense of security.
    • chingy1788, on 12/16/2007, -37/+42the even better question is why are guns made in the first place
      • supermajic, on 12/16/2007, -18/+32I know 95% of Digg disagrees but i'm with you here.
      • biochem, on 12/16/2007, -16/+29thats cause 95% of people on digg prolly live in the US and own a gun. totally agree with you. It simple logic. No one can argue with the fact that the world would be safer if no one had a gun compared to if everyone had a gun.
        • falstaff, on 12/16/2007, -16/+34And the world would be a safer and happier place if we had free energy, everybody were a rich doctor, everything smelled of wine and roses, and it were 65-75 degrees F all year 'round. What a nice dream we're having. Now wake up because there's at least one ***** with no regard for your life living on your block.
          • biochem, on 12/16/2007, -14/+13u clearly didnt understand my point. logic says if no guns are safer than an infinite amount of guns, than having less guns in general is safer. and im sorry but i dont live in the US, so the odds of some