Think tough gun laws prevent mass shootings?

[Kythas]

Interesting article on European gun laws and how they don't keep Europeans safe. The article points out that ALL mass shootings (defined as 3 or more people shot), either in the US or Europe, have occurred in "Gun Free Zones" where civilians are not allowed to carry weapons.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/06/ ... gs-europe/

[RPB]

"Gun Free Zones" is a misnomer; (Obviously, since mass shootings generally have a gun in that zone) ...
They should instead be called "Low Risk Target Rich Zones"

[cougartex]

[Oldgringo]

"Gun Free Zones" is a misnomer; (Obviously, since mass shootings generally have a gun in that zone) ...
They should instead be called "Low Risk Target Rich Zones"

Anybody with any sense knows this. Those with no sense AND/OR their own personal agenda, will defend their gun bans until your dying day.

[tfrazier]

I can't understand why these laws making it against the law to tote a gun in certain places don't work. It's as if people who intend to commit mass murder have no respect for the law. We should make a new law making it illegal for people to disobey the law. That'll do it.

[aaangel]

if guns are the problems, any news on mass shooting @ a police station, gun shows, nra conventions???

[Dragonfighter]

"Gun Free Zones" is a misnomer; (Obviously, since mass shootings generally have a gun in that zone) ...
They should instead be called "Low Risk Target Rich Zones"

Anybody with any sense knows this. Those with no sense AND/OR their own personal agenda, will defend their gun bans until your dying day.

Added the emphasis. Very well worded.

[duns]

No one above advocated a solution. Is the solution to encourage wider gun ownership amongst responsible, law-abiding citizens? One of the political obstacles to that proposal is that in at least some of the mass shootings, the shooter was legally permitted to own the weapon -- I believe this was the case in the three well-known mass shootings in the UK, at Hungerford, Dunblane, and most recently in Cumbria. To those who do not think very deeply, this immediately suggests the need for more not less gun controls.

[baldeagle]

No one above advocated a solution. Is the solution to encourage wider gun ownership amongst responsible, law-abiding citizens? One of the political obstacles to that proposal is that in at least some of the mass shootings, the shooter was legally permitted to own the weapon -- I believe this was the case in the three well-known mass shootings in the UK, at Hungerford, Dunblane, and most recently in Cumbria. To those who do not think very deeply, this immediately suggests the need for more not less gun controls.

You cannot be serious! By what logic would more gun controls help? If you seriously think that more gun controls would have stopped these shootings you are delusional. People who want to kill a lot of people are not concerned about laws or licenses or anything else a government might try to do to prevent them from committing a crime. Criminals are, by definition, people who don't care what the law says.

To answer your question directly, yes, the solution is to encourage wider gun ownership amongst responsible, law-abiding citizens. If one person had been armed, in any of those shootings, and had the courage to fire (and had practiced and prepared themselves as all gun owners should), the loss of life would have been less, in some cases much less. In the mass shootings at Virginia Tech and the Luby's in Killeen, an armed citizen would have cut the loss of life in half at least.

[duns]

You cannot be serious! By what logic would more gun controls help? If you seriously think that more gun controls would have stopped these shootings you are delusional.

You did not read my post! I agree that more gun controls would not help. I said those who do not think very deeply argue for more gun control.

[jmorris]

No one above advocated a solution. Is the solution to encourage wider gun ownership amongst responsible, law-abiding citizens? One of the political obstacles to that proposal is that in at least some of the mass shootings, the shooter was legally permitted to own the weapon -- I believe this was the case in the three well-known mass shootings in the UK, at Hungerford, Dunblane, and most recently in Cumbria. To those who do not think very deeply, this immediately suggests the need for more not less gun controls.

You cannot be serious! By what logic would more gun controls help? If you seriously think that more gun controls would have stopped these shootings you are delusional. People who want to kill a lot of people are not concerned about laws or licenses or anything else a government might try to do to prevent them from committing a crime. Criminals are, by definition, people who don't care what the law says.

To answer your question directly, yes, the solution is to encourage wider gun ownership amongst responsible, law-abiding citizens. If one person had been armed, in any of those shootings, and had the courage to fire (and had practiced and prepared themselves as all gun owners should), the loss of life would have been less, in some cases much less. In the mass shootings at Virginia Tech and the Luby's in Killeen, an armed citizen would have cut the loss of life in half at least.

Um, I think you missed something here. He said "To those who do not think very deeply..."

[baldeagle]

Yep, you're right, I misread his post.

[duns]

Yep, you're right, I misread his post.

Thanks for admitting that. However, even if I had said what you thought I said, you were not going to make me change my mind by calling me "delusional". If you want to convert people, you first of all have to recognize their point of view and show that you understand why they hold that view. Then you can go on to a discussion that might, just might, make them change their mind. I'm pro-gun-ownership, my brother is not, but I don't call him delusional.