Mass shootings are more likely at...

[Goobieman]

Where do you think it is most likely for there to be a mass shooting?
Please be sure to state your reason, and any support for same.

 

[Lightdemon]

....Firing range? :2wave:

 

[jamesrage]

Schools seeing how that is where most likely the people there are not armed. A shopping mall would be a distant 2nd since it is not as obvious if any of the people there are armed or unarmed. Shooting at the other places would be like someone robbing a donut shop,not a smart thing to do seeing how cops stereotypically like donuts.

 

[tlmorg02]

I would say a shopping mall, as most stats would probably support this as well, besides schools. If you were in Iraq, everywhere! Obviously, you are leading to people being armed as a deterrent to such crimes, and I agree. Honestly, I do not see why gun control remains a political issue. Research shows that law abiding citizens, with weapons, have given way to no increase in the crime rate, rather the opposite is true. It should wiped-away from the political arena and guns should be secure by the second amendment, case closed. Putting such rhetoric into political play is a waste of tax payer dollars that serves no purpose. Obama and anyother politician should leave guns alone.

 

[Redress]

Where do you think it is most likely for there to be a mass shooting?
Please be sure to state your reason, and any support for same.

Where ever the people the shooter is angry at are.

 

[Shadow Serious]

Schools seeing how that is where most likely the people there are not armed. A shopping mall would be a distant 2nd since it is not as obvious if any of the people there are armed or unarmed. Shooting at the other places would be like someone robbing a donut shop,not a smart thing to do seeing how cops stereotypically like donuts.

He beat me to it. Though in addition of the people at the school/colleges being disarmed they are also concentrated more than a mall would (on most days).

 

[Lightdemon]

Honestly, I do not see why gun control remains a political issue. Research shows that law abiding citizens, with weapons, have given way to no increase in the crime rate, rather the opposite is true.

Well, whether or not these law abiding citizen had guns, I doubt they would increase the crime rate either way. You know, them being law abiding an all. I don't think research was needed to figure this out.

 

[Goshin]

Well, whether or not these law abiding citizen had guns, I doubt they would increase the crime rate either way. You know, them being law abiding an all. I don't think research was needed to figure this out.

Excellent. Then you agree there is no need to restrict the right of law-abiding citizens to go armed most anywhere, since they are law-abiding.

 

[Lightdemon]

Excellent. Then you agree there is no need to restrict the right of law-abiding citizens to go armed most anywhere, since they are law-abiding.

No, my point was that the research tlm spoke of, or at least the way he described them, is questionable. The independent variable and control group is ridiculous, to say the least.

 

[Coronado]

In the movies.

 

[Goshin]

No, my point was that the research tlm spoke of, or at least the way he described them, is questionable. The independent variable and control group is ridiculous, to say the least.

Then you DO think law-abiding citizens, who by your own admission would not increase the crime level even if armed -- since they are law-abiding, as you said -- should be deprived of the right to bear arms? Please clarify.

 

[Lightdemon]

Then you DO think law-abiding citizens, who by your own admission would not increase the crime level even if armed -- since they are law-abiding, as you said -- should be deprived of the right to bear arms? Please clarify.

Sigh...I was addressing the so-called "research." I have yet to state anything about my position. So I don't know where you got the idea that I said anything that suggested that law abiding citizens should not have the right to bear arms.

Just because they are law abiding citizens doesn't mean that there should be absolutely zero restrictions on owning an/or buying firearms.

To clarify further, many of the existing restrictions on obtaining firearms, such as background checks, CCW permits, age limits, etc. should be enforced to the full extent. Regardless of being law abiding citizens. Unless of course they have a criminal record, which in most cases they won't be even be allowed to buy a firearm.

The "research" is just idiotic. I mean, what do you think you're going to find? Looking at law abiding citizens and their tendencies toward crime? It's quite obvious that these types of research began with an intended answer. They already know what they want to find, they just need to gather the appropriate "evidence," but as we know that is not how the scientific method works.

 

[Goshin]

Sigh...I was addressing the so-called "research." I have yet to state anything about my position. So I don't know where you got the idea that I said anything that suggested that law abiding citizens should not have the right to bear arms.

Just because they are law abiding citizens doesn't mean that there should be absolutely zero restrictions on owning an/or buying firearms.

To clarify further, many of the existing restrictions on obtaining firearms, such as background checks, CCW permits, age limits, etc. should be enforced to the full extent. Regardless of being law abiding citizens. Unless of course they have a criminal record, which in most cases they won't be even be allowed to buy a firearm.

The "research" is just idiotic. I mean, what do you think you're going to find? Looking at law abiding citizens and their tendencies toward crime? It's quite obvious that these types of research began with an intended answer. They already know what they want to find, they just need to gather the appropriate "evidence," but as we know that is not how the scientific method works.

You misunderstand my intentions; I do not presume to actually speak for you, but to point out the obvious conclusions based on facts you acknowleged. I was trying to make the point that, if as you said, you believe armed law abiding citizens will not add to crime at all, then it is extremely hard to justify any significant restrictions on the right of law-abiding citizens to carry weapons almost anywhere.

The point of research that exhibits the fact that concealed-carry permit holders are FAR more law-abiding than the general public, is to make that point even more irrefuteable... that restricting permit holders from where or when they can carry will not reduce crime at all, or that unreasonably limiting carry permit issuance is similarly not going to reduce crime.

 

[hiswoman]

I agree with TLM and Redress. A self-pitying, angry, narcissistic yet socially inept and isolated person who feels they have been persecuted by a specific person or group of people over a period of time, and who views guns as an equalizer, believes that they can correct that perceived imbalance and thus demonstrate absolute power over their "enemies" by essentially playing God with the lives of as many of these people as possible. Any place where large numbers of people congregate, especially those belonging to the same group as those who have "persecuted" the person, is a prime target. Since these killers often plan to take their own lives after exacting their revenge, I do not personally believe they necessarily factor in the likelihood of some in the crowd being armed.

 

[Kandahar]

Other (specify)

In the ghetto, most likely in/near a crack house or meth lab.

Shootings in any of those other places are very unusual. I can't believe how many people are voting for universities or shopping malls. Your odds of being killed in a mass shooting at either of those places are TINY. Just because the media reports them doesn't mean that they're commonplace.

 

[hiswoman]

In the ghetto, most likely in/near a crack house or meth lab.

Shootings in any of those other places are very unusual. I can't believe how many people are voting for universities or shopping malls. Your odds of being killed in a mass shooting at either of those places are TINY. Just because the media reports them doesn't mean that they're commonplace.

Correct, as is the the likelihood of your average Joe being in a situation that would increase the odds of being killed in a mass shooting. Outside the obvious high-risk locations, the most likely locations for mass shootings to occur are those places that contain the most (symbolic) targets for the shooter.

 

[Sanitas]

Where do you think it is most likely for there to be a mass shooting?
Please be sure to state your reason, and any support for same.

What a strange poll.

 

[Black Dog]

Well lets see gun free zones, drugs and booze. Now lets add hormones running wild and pier pressure.

Oh yea, I love college!

 

[Goshin]

I agree that if the hypothetical whackjob mass-murderer-wannabe has a preferred target list, his preferred attack site will be where his targets are.

I think for many of these nuts, there is a secondary consideration that they want to complete their "mission", and kill lots of people before they are caught or killed. Therefore, if they feel they have any options in target selection, most of them would probably prefer to strike where there will be few or no cops, and few or no armed citizens.

If said whackjob does indeed target a site where there are either cops a-plenty or armed citizens, the odds that his spree will be terminated before he racks up as much of a body count as he intended, is made more likely.

 

[Lightdemon]

You misunderstand my intentions; I do not presume to actually speak for you, but to point out the obvious conclusions based on facts you acknowleged. I was trying to make the point that, if as you said, you believe armed law abiding citizens will not add to crime at all, then it is extremely hard to justify any significant restrictions on the right of law-abiding citizens to carry weapons almost anywhere.

It depends on what restrictions we're talking about.
The amount of firearms? I would be against that.
The type of firearms? I think there ought to be some level of restriction here.
Can you walk around with shotgun shells on your chest harness and a sawed off strapped to your leg? I don't think anyone should, but if one could, it'd be highly suspicious even for law abiding citizens.

The point of research that exhibits the fact that concealed-carry permit holders are FAR more law-abiding than the general public, is to make that point even more irrefuteable... that restricting permit holders from where or when they can carry will not reduce crime at all, or that unreasonably limiting carry permit issuance is similarly not going to reduce crime.

Again that depends on what restrictions we're talking about. But just so we're clear, I'm not anti 2nd Amendment. I just think there ought to be reasonable restrictions for those who own/use guns.

 

[hiswoman]

I agree that if the hypothetical whackjob mass-murderer-wannabe has a preferred target list, his preferred attack site will be where his targets are.

I think for many of these nuts, there is a secondary consideration that they want to complete their "mission", and kill lots of people before they are caught or killed. Therefore, if they feel they have any options in target selection, most of them would probably prefer to strike where there will be few or no cops, and few or no armed citizens.

If said whackjob does indeed target a site where there are either cops a-plenty or armed citizens, the odds that his spree will be terminated before he racks up as much of a body count as he intended, is made more likely.

True that. I think if someone specifically targets Cops 'R Us, their goal is more likely the commission of suicide by cop. A most disgusting act of cowardice, that.

 

[Goobieman]

What a strange poll.

How so?
Seems to me we keep getting told that where there are more guns, more people will siffer from gun violence -- and yet, mass shootings in the presence of guns is rare, if it happens at all.

 

[Catz Part Deux]

Post Office.

 

[Goobieman]

Your odds of being killed in a mass shooting at either of those places are TINY. Just because the media reports them doesn't mean that they're commonplace.

You would agree than that these instances are then not pillars upon which to base an argument for more gun control.
Right?

 

[tlmorg02]

Sigh...I was addressing the so-called "research." I have yet to state anything about my position. So I don't know where you got the idea that I said anything that suggested that law abiding citizens should not have the right to bear arms.

Just because they are law abiding citizens doesn't mean that there should be absolutely zero restrictions on owning an/or buying firearms.

To clarify further, many of the existing restrictions on obtaining firearms, such as background checks, CCW permits, age limits, etc. should be enforced to the full extent. Regardless of being law abiding citizens. Unless of course they have a criminal record, which in most cases they won't be even be allowed to buy a firearm.

The "research" is just idiotic. I mean, what do you think you're going to find? Looking at law abiding citizens and their tendencies toward crime? It's quite obvious that these types of research began with an intended answer. They already know what they want to find, they just need to gather the appropriate "evidence," but as we know that is not how the scientific method works.

I disagree with your assessment of the research. The CATO institute, and even the researcher himself, admitted that they thought by studying areas that had legalized conceal carry, they would see higher crime rates. However, they were in fact surprised to find that the states with CCW actually saw a reduction in crime. There was never data to fit the hypothesis.