[tomder55]

a citizen intervention only represents at about 1.6 percent out of the total of 68 mass shootings that were investigated.

Yes unfortunately it's rare because these attacks occure where the most vulnerable people are... in gun free zones . What ? You don't think citizen intervention would've been a higher percentage if possible ? But I get it ;nothing will convince you. Cherry picked ? Yes if you mean I looked for incidents where citizens acted on their own to prevent larger killing . Maybe you can demonstrate the cases where citizens were armed and did not act to prevent a larger incident.

[Tuttyd]

Tom, Lets look at this a bit further just for the moment. You asked me to compare one example of a 'no gun gun free zone' with that of a number of incidents whereby a citizen or an off duty has made a intervention.

What sort of erroneous conclusion would you like me to draw? One exception proves a rule?


Tut

[paraclete]

I find it incoceivable that I should be protected by an armed guard in a Church, where are you, Pakistan? If my God doesn't choose to protect me in a place of worship then I resign myself to his will, have you never heard those who would save their lives will loose it.

This gun debate is ludricous, boardering on the farcicle. You want to be able to carry a conceiled weapon anywhere, why should I be subject to your tyranny and need to carry a weapon to protect myself, what are the police for if not to remove criminals from the streets or is your whole society comprised of criminals? Why do you think you are not allowed to carry weapons on to a plane? The reason is to protect the passengers from a potential criminal act, the same reasoning should exist in the general population, you were never given the right to bear arms for personal protection but to defend the country.

[Tuttyd]

yes unfortunately it's rare because these attacks occure where the most vulnerable people are ... in gun free zones . What ? You don't think citizen intervention would've been a higher percentage if possible ? But I get it ;nothing will convince you. Cherry picked ? Yes if you mean I looked for incidents where citizens acted on their own to prevent larger killing . Maybe you can demonstrate the cases where citizens were armed and did not act to prevent a larger incident.

Tom, I have already put my percentages on the table. After all I was the one making the claim that only a small percentage of citizens intervened ( you already accept that). You made the claim that one possible common denominator was that they ALL occurred in a gun free zone. You made the claim so it's now up to you to prove the validity of the statement? Isn't that how it works?


Tut

[tomder55]

I find it incoceivable that I should be protected by an armed guard in a Church

Maybe you live in utopia . Here Churches and Synagogues come under threat from time to time. The NYC police force routinely patrols at Synagogues every time the ME flares .

what are the police for if not to remove criminals from the streets

from my perspective ,the police do a great job after an incident happens . It is unreasonable to expect them to be there to PREVENT an incident.. But according to your logic that's not necessary as you don't think even armed guards are necessary.

why do you think you are not allowed to carry weapons on to a plane?

Lol ,the ONLY reason that the Air Marshall program is effective is because we don't know who on the plane who has the friendly gun. Yeah we go through anything short of a body probe to make sure we are safe on plane. Do you want that going into schools and movie theaters and shopping malls ? The planes are the perfect example. 9-11 there was NO police near to prevent what happened . But Todd Beamer and the passengers of flight 93 had a solution .

[tomder55]

Tom, I have already put my percentages on the table. After all I was the one making the claim that only a small percentage of citizens intervened ( you already accept that). You made the claim that one possible common denominator was that they ALL occurred in a gun free zone. You made the claim so it's now up to you to prove the validity of the statement? Isn't that how it works?


Tut

I'm not going to waste my time. I gave you significant enough sample.

[Tuttyd]

I'm not going to waste my time. I gave you significant enough sample.

In other words you can't.You know what you know and no amount of logic will ever change your mind.


Tut

[tomder55]

No I don't have the time... you didn't even bother providing a link for this statement :

The information at I have googled says that in the last four decades( the time I was referring to) a citizen intervention only represents at about 1.6 percent out of the total of 68 mass shootings that were investigated.

So what am I to do ? Research 68 cases ? Maybe with the link I can at least see which specific cases you are talking about .

[paraclete]

Running for cover again Tom look you can find a list of various cases easily enough

[tomder55]

Show me . Tut is the one who made the claim without verification that only 1.6 percent of mass murder cases had any citizen intervention. To me that is a largely irrelevant point since citizens are prevented by law to be in a position to intervene .

[speechlesstx]

I find it incoceivable that I should be protected by an armed guard in a Church, where are you, Pakistan? If my God doesn't choose to protect me in a place of worship then I resign myself to his will, have you never heard those who would save their lives will loose it.

I find it inconceivable that you think God doesn't want you to protect the flock from violence being visited on them. We have a number of people loaded for bear at our church, we're not so stupid as to present our children as lambs for the slaughter.

[excon]

Hello again, tom:

yes unfortunately it's rare because these attacks occure where the most vulnerable people are... in gun free zones .

Couple things...

I DON'T believe ANY person with a concealed carry permit leaves their at gun HOME because they're going to a "gun free zone".

I DON'T believe ANY mass murderer picks his targets because they're "gun free zones"...

I DON'T believe that crap. I just DON'T!

Excon

[tomder55]

DON'T believe ANY person with a concealed carry permit leaves their at gun HOME because they're going to a "gun free zone".

And yet the V Principle had to run to his car to retrieve his gun .

[Tuttyd]

show me . Tut is the one who made the claim without verification that only 1.6 percent of mass murder cases had any citizen intervention. To me that is a largely irrelevent point since citizens are prevented by law to be in a position to intervene .

Tom, have already addressed the first issue. The study was commissioned by 'Mother Jones' I can post the web address if you like. I have already said the study cherry picked the data.

Would you like to turn 1.6 percent into a higher figure to allow for the bias. 0%? 20%? 40%? You have already stated the obvious in your earlier post. The percentages are small.


If it was the case that citizens are prevented by law from intervening - and it still is the case - then it is equally irrelevant to propose a solution by putting more guns into the hands of civilians into order to make an intervention.

Tom, this is called having a bet both ways


Tut

[excon]

Hello again, tom:

and yet the V Principle had to run to his car to retrieve his gun .

Of course, there are SOME who aren't REAL gun owners..

From the gun owners BIBLE... Nahhh, it AIN'T wrote down. The TIME to accumulate guns is WHEN the government says you CAN'T. The place to CARRY guns is the place the government say's you CAN'T.

I'm NOT the only one who believes that.

Excon

[Tuttyd]

To me that is a largely irrelevent point since citizens are prevented by law to be in a position to intervene .

I actually don't think it is irrelevant when it comes to intervention, but what I find odd ( in relation to you claim about intervention) is a statement like this coming from a person who usually says something along the lines of, "The law failed to stop this person............"


Tut

[speechlesstx]

Hello again, tom:

Couple things...

I DON'T believe ANY person with a concealed carry permit leaves their at gun HOME because they're going to a "gun free zone".

It's a felony to carry inside a school building, federal building, municipal building, courts, any place that makes at least 51% of their revenue from alcohol sales, racetracks and polling places in Texas. Most law abiding citizens are not going to risk a felony charge.

I DON'T believe ANY mass murderer picks his targets because they're "gun free zones"...

I don't believe most mass murderers or other criminals pick targets that might be armed.

[tomder55]

I actually don't think it is irrelevant when it comes to intervention, but what I find odd ( in relation to you claim about intervention) is a statement like this coming from a person who usually says something along the lines of, "The law failed to stop this person............"


Tut

Yeah bad guys carrying bad guns usually break laws and good guys legally carrying guns usually follow the law . Is that really so hard to figure out ?

[tomder55]

Gun-free zones have been the most popular response to previous mass killings. But many law-enforcement officials say they are actually counterproductive. “Guns are already banned in schools. That is why the shootings happen in schools. A school is a 'helpless-victim zone,'” says Richard Mack, a former Arizona sheriff. “Preventing any adult at a school from having access to a firearm eliminates any chance the killer can be stopped in time to prevent a rampage,” Jim Kouri, the public-information officer of the National Association of Chiefs of Police, told me earlier this year at the time of the Aurora, Colo. Batman-movie shooting. Indeed, there have been many instances — from the high-school shooting by Luke Woodham in Mississippi, to the New Life Church shooting in Colorado Springs, Colo. — where a killer has been stopped after someone got a gun from a parked car or elsewhere and confronted the shooter.

Economists John Lott and William Landes conducted a groundbreaking study in 1999, and found that a common theme of mass shootings is that they occur in places where guns are banned and killers know everyone will be unarmed, such as shopping malls and schools.
I spoke with Lott after the Newtown shooting, and he confirmed that nothing has changed to alter his findings. He noted that the Aurora shooter, who killed twelve people earlier this year, had a choice of seven movie theaters that were showing the Batman movie he was obsessed with. All were within a 20-minute drive of his home. The Cinemark Theater the killer ultimately chose wasn't the closest, but it was the only one that posted signs saying it banned concealed handguns carried by law-abiding individuals. All of the other theaters allowed the approximately 4 percent of Colorado adults who have a concealed-handgun permit to enter with their weapons.

“Disarming law-abiding citizens leaves them as sitting ducks,” Lott told me. “A couple hundred people were in the Cinemark Theater when the killer arrived. There is an extremely high probability that one or more of them would have had a legal concealed handgun with him if they had not been banned.”

Lott offers a final damning statistic: “With just one single exception, the attack on congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords in Tucson in 2011, every public shooting since at least 1950 in the U.S. in which more than three people have been killed has taken place where citizens are not allowed to carry guns.”

The Facts about Mass Shootings - John Fund - National Review Online

John Lott has done many studies on gun policy in this country and is author of 2 books on the subject .

[talaniman]

LOL, you guys hate teachers but now you want them to lock and load. Will you pay them more? Who pays since you don't believe in higher taxes or government spending? Will a CCP be required to have a teaching licence?

Who pays to get rid of these gun free zones? Oh that's right we citizens will do it for free, or the local armed neighborhood watch guy can make those life and death decisions. Never mind keeping guns out of the bad guys hands through strict tight laws and technology. Just give the good guys a gun, since everybody is a good guy until they do bad.

Even NRA member are not for that.