Is the sequence of posts coincidental?

Gee Jay, how about prohibiting access to guns for persons with a history of mental illness like in the VT and NIU cases?

But no, we can't infringe on the rights of the mentally disturbed to own fire arms.

Barney, you are an idiot still, I see. People with mental illness are forbidden to purchase firearms. The problem with the VT shooter was that his mental problems had not been documented to the existing NCIC database.

The real problem is what Jay points to, that there are phony "gun free zones" which just cover up the lack of any real efforts at security -- prohibiting the law abiding from taking measures to defend themselves but doing nothing about the actual threats.

Keep up your display of ignorance Barney.

If anyone here thinks that Jay's description of an appropriately
guarded college campus is overkill (no pun intended), then you've
never seem Hebrew University in Jerusalem (of which my wife is a graduate). Jay just described that campus to a Tea (pun intended ;-)

Won't. Work. Inmates, whether penal or collegial, always find a way to arm themselves, or they become victims.

The inmates are not the only ones to fear. Every day, college students across America give campus and dorm access to non-student criminals, calling them family, friends, etc. Rapists and worse have gained entry to dorms with "good" security by getting the electronic door codes from some naive or drunk student.

Then there's the keepers of the institution, many of whom are certifiably insane. Who's to protect the students from one of these wayfarers having an episode of homocidal mania?

Security is a personal concern. One should take it only as seriously as she or he is about surviving. Like the dental hygienist said: "You don't have to floss your teeth if you don't want to, just floss those teeth you want to keep!". With that in mind, one can be legally well armed, even on campus, with minimal research and acquisition. Those kindergarden Kevlar backpacks don't sound so silly or expensive now, do they?

Barney's comments are perfectly understandable, as long as you remember that he's got 20/20 hindsight. That's one of the few benefits of having your head up your ass.

As SPQR pointed out, the NIU shooter's issues hadn't been fully documented. And under HIPPA and other privacy laws, as well as the big push to "destigmatize" mental illness, one has to wonder where one would draw the line between medical confidentiality and public safety.

Maybe Barney is too young or too stupid (or both -- they're not mutually exclusive) to remember that the "mental health system" in the Soviet Union became a dumping ground for political prisoners, where a state-employed doctor would certify anyone who dared disagree with the government as dangerously nuts.

Of all the millions of Americans who have some sort of diagnosed mental disorder, Barney, would you care to tell us where to place the bar? Or are you just content to snipe from the cheap seats, as usual?

J.

Jay and spqr, the VT gunman was allowed to purchase guns even though he was prohibited from doing so under federal laws due to his mental illness because the NRA fought state legislation that would require VA to report the killer's illness to the federal database.

The NIU killer was known to have mental or psychotic events as early as high school and was discharged from the army for unknown reasons and was turned down from at least one other law enforcement job, yet he could still purchase multiple weapons legally.

Jay, lay off the Soviet comparisons. It makes you look like someone who lost the argument. Which you have.

One other item Jay. In VA , IL (enactment pending) and at the federal level (signed into law by Bush) it is now required for state medical professionals to report persons with mental illness to the Fed database.

It seems to take a massacre such as VT to push positive gun control legislation past the objections and money of the NRA. Delays that cost the lives of many.

Jay and spqr, the VT gunman was allowed to purchase guns even though he was prohibited from doing so under federal laws due to his mental illness because the NRA fought state legislation that would require VA to report the killer's illness to the federal database.

Um, please cite. I imagine if they did object to such a bill, it had more to do with some other portion of it.

With all this talk of the efficacy of Gun Free Zones, I've noticed one thing missing. Never, in any of these cases, have I heard someone present at any of the shootings saying that he/she would have had his/her gun at the location if it hadn't been a gun free zones.

Implicit in all of your assertions is assumption that these gun free zones are effective in keeping legal gun carriers out (with their guns, at least), people who could stop the killing if they weren't prevented from doing so by the state or the institution.

Have I missed it? Was there a shopper at the Omaha mall, or students at VT or NIU, who have said they would have had guns with them but were deterred by the GFZ regulation?

mantis, might I refer you to Suzanne Hupp and the Luby's Massacre in Killeen, Texas?

On the flip side, could you cite a case where civilians with weapons on their persons actually made a situation worse in one of these mass shootings? Just one example of one of those "Wild West-style" shootouts that are trotted out as the reason why people shouldn't be allowed to carry weapons?

J.

Thanks for the reminder, Adam. I tend to forget that when Barney doesn't cite sources, it's because he doesn't have any. And when he does cite sources, they tend to prove just the opposite of whatever he says they do.

J.

Jay, the only problem with legal liability for no gun locations is that the law seems to support "no liability". Even the police are under no legal requirement to protect you. I clearly remember being dumbfounded by that revelation.

Is this good enough for you jay?

"In a flurry of bullets early Sunday morning, at least five bounty hunters wearing ski masks forced their way into a house here and killed a couple who apparently did not know the bail jumper who was being sought.

The Maricopa County Attorney, Richard Romley, said today that the deaths of Chris Foote, 23, and his girlfriend, Spring Wright, 20, were ''troubling,'' and warranted a look at new laws that would force bounty hunters to be licensed and undergo background checks.

The bounty hunters, who wore body armor and ski masks, burst into the house at 4 A.M., held three children and another couple at gunpoint, then opened fire into a bedroom that Mr. Foote shared with Ms. Wright. Mr. Foote returned fire, wounding two of the attackers."

But no, we can't license persons who are just exercising their right to bar arms. That gun really helped Mr. Foote.

Typical Barney. No link to his source material -- and the actual incident has absolutely nothing to do with the kinds of incidents being discussed.

I'll do his homework for him: here's an account of the incident he cited.

Let's look at the facts, shall we?

Burglary, not a mistaken search for a bail jumper, was the reason five bounty hunters in black ski masks and body armor broke into a home and shot a couple to death last month, prosecutors said Saturday.

"Bounty hunting was a ruse to get out of trouble if they got caught," Maricopa County Attorney Rick Romley said in announcing first-degree murder charges against the men.

Prosecutors said the men had worked as bounty hunters in the past, but their story of a tragic case of mistaken identity in their search for a California bail jumper didn't pan out.

The warrant for the bail jumper had expired and police could find no connection between the bail jumper and the victims. Also, the company they said they were working for has denied sending them.

So, once again Barney's so-called "evidence" blows up in his face again.

Don't you EVER get tired of being proven to be an ass, Barney?

J.

Jay, you missed the point of my example. Due to a lack of laws that regulate who can own, and carry weapons a group of criminals were able to use their "bounty hunter" credentials to commit crimes.

My argument has always been that common sense laws, almost always opposed by the NRA, are needed to prevent killings. This was a case were an unregulated armed force (a loop-hole) was allowed use their "rights" to kill.

As usual, it take a senseless loss of life to allow passage of common sense laws:
Until the Legislature revamped the law after the shootings, anyone could be a bounty hunter in Arizona. A bail contract provided a license to break into someone's home and drag them out with no explanation. Now, bounty hunters in Arizona must be licensed and need to get permission from the occupants of a home before entering.

Barney, your responses are truly bizarre. A bounty hunter? That had nothing to do with your claims and only illustrates your perennial incompetence. Not to mention some truly weird associations that you pull out of your head - or more often the exit of your alimentary canal.

The NRA has not weighed in on the licensing of bounty hunters.

Face it, Barney, you continually comment on issues that you are completely clueless upon.

Bounty hunters have nothing to do with regular gun owners, nor do they have anything to do with the insane. I asked for a cite on the NRA opposing keepings nuts from getting guns.

I have yet to see this cite.

I've yet to see anyone outside of the far, far right kooky survivalist militia types saying anything about keeping the insane, or violent felons, able to carry guns*. No state concealed carry law allows for it.

And, a few crazies who are killing people don't make up the vast majority of crimes committed with guns: Young men who are career criminals that get let out by judges soft of crime. Almost every time Kim du Toit posts about a defensive shooting, the thug that gets shot has a record as long as my arm.

* Okay, and one far leftist nut, Diane Fienstien, who gets to carry a gun.

This is the same thing that the dimocrats are attempting to do with wiretaping. Make the US an "Intellegence" free zone and then blame the bad guys when they do manage to do something. Never be prepared before the fact, legislate it after the fact.
mpw

mpw280, and Barney's opinions on FISA are just as confused and ignorant as his opinions above.

Barney, you offered an incorrect description of an irrelevant anecdote, with no link or citation, and it's OUR FAULT that we didn't get your wrong point?

THEY WERE NOT BOUNTY HUNTERS WHEN THEY MURDERED THOSE PEOPLE.

They were common criminals who were ready to pretend to be bounty hunters if they were caught.

I just wish I could find an account of how the case was finally disposed, because I dearly wish they were executed.

But regardless, that incident had about as much to do with my posting as the price of sugar in Belize -- but it did manage to distract people from actually discussing the issue, which I suspect was your intent all along.

Barney's like a blog kamikaze -- he is dedicated to destroying the discussion, even at the cost of his own (flimsy) integrity and reputation.

J.

spqr, and what are my ignorant opinions on FISA?

As far as the NRA are you telling me they are not opposed to Federal standards to enforce background checks on private gun sales? That sure sounds like a loophole that allows criminals, and in at least one case to a terrorist, the sale of guns?

Now you are showing your usual stupidity, Barney, in now inventing yet another third thing to complain about - one that still has nothing to with the original posting.

Just keep abandoning your last position and invent a new one and pretend that was your complaint all along - that's a trick that impresses only you, Barney.

As far as the NRA are you telling me they are not opposed to Federal standards to enforce background checks on private gun sales?

How could I be telling you something about a topic that had not been mentioned a single time in this thread until you wrote that?

You really are a completely incoherent buffoon, Barney.

"..and it's OUR FAULT that we didn't get your wrong point?" Jay

I got your point Jay. I was pointing out an example, as you requested, were at least one person that was by all accounts a law abiding citizen used his conceal to carry permit to enter into a conspiracy that resulted in the murder of two persons.

You pointed out no such thing, Barney.

"..Barney's opinions on FISA are just as confused and ignorant as his opinions above.

20. Posted by SPQR |"

"spqr, and what are my ignorant opinions on FISA?" 22 Barneyg2000"

"Now you are showing your usual stupidity, Barney, in now inventing yet another third thing to complain about - one that still has nothing to with the original posting." 23. Posted by SPQR |

spqr, based on exhibiting multi personalities, I hope there is is some gun law out there that prohibits you from owning a gun.

Here's an illustration of Barney's poor reading skills.

Jay's comment:

On the flip side, could you cite a case where civilians with weapons on their persons actually made a situation worse in one of these mass shootings? Just one example of one of those "Wild West-style" shootouts that are trotted out as the reason why people shouldn't be allowed to carry weapons?

Barney's interpretation:

I was pointing out an example, as you requested, were at least one person that was by all accounts a law abiding citizen used his conceal to carry permit to enter into a conspiracy that resulted in the murder of two persons.

As I said, incoherent. Fake bounty hunters / burglars are now law abiding citizens.

This kind of incompetence is self-parodying.

Barney, I was talking about your multiple complaints about the NRA, where you falsely claimed that there was no prohibition on mentally ill people buying guns, then falsely claimed that the NRA was stopping reporting to the NCIC database and then invented an incoherent comment about bounty hunters.

You really should work on your reading comprehension.

mantis
You raise an interesting point:

Was there a shopper at the Omaha mall, or students at VT or NIU, who have said they would have had guns with them but were deterred by the GFZ regulation?

The following link does not directly answer your question, but it makes one wonder if there wasn't a gun free zone that this guy might be carrying.

http://joemerchant24.blogspot.com/2007/12/firsthand-account-of-von-maur-shooting.html

Jay provided this link in a post last year.

BarneyG, say "thank you" to SPQR. He just saved your commenting career.

I was just about to ban you for your incredible stupidity, convinced that no human being could possibly be as dumb as you come across, when he got me to laugh at you instead, and I relented.

SPQR, you realize now that by Chinese tradition, you are now responsible for everything BarneyG says in the future?

J.

Jay - you are mean, just mean.

Barney is truly a blithering incompetent - nothing I do can change that.

What did you laugh at? 6:49pm above? It is hilarious isn't it?

I see that Jay and spqr want to deflect rather than address my comments/rebuttals to their lame responses.

spqr claims that I am changing the conversation, but it was he that brought up FISA which I have not addressed or suggested in this thread.

It was Jay that suggested that we should arm all law abiding citizens, and it was I that pointed out a case where a mass murder was committed by law abiding C&C carriers.

jay can't refute my logic, so he threatens to ban me. Classic!

Fixing THIS might help prevent these kinds of shootings. I can't order a case of wine from another state but if I need a Glock, well step right up son...

http://www.newser.com/story/19175.html?rss=y

spqr claims that I am changing the conversation, but it was he that brought up FISA which I have not addressed or suggested in this thread.

It was Jay that suggested that we should arm all law abiding citizens, and it was I that pointed out a case where a mass murder was committed by law abiding C&C carriers.

groucho, interstate shipment of firearms must go to a FFL dealer in the purchaser's state. While the gun was paid for on the internet, it had to be transfered through a local dealer. You are falsely implying that the firearm was shipped directly to Cho. There is nothing to "fix".

No, Barney, that might be what I said in your little fantasy land, but it is NOT what I said in the real world. I simply advocate giving people the CHOICE on whether or not to defend themselves, and asked you to cite an example where someone doing just that made a situation worse. YOU chose to come up with a story about five home invaders looking for drugs and money killing a couple of innocent people, and YOU chose to misrepresent the facts of that case and YOU chose to not provide any citations for your story, leaving it up to me to prove that you were, indeed, talking out of your ass again.

All you proved is that sometimes criminals use legally-obtained and licensed weapons. Big whoop. You also proved, once again, that you are constitutionally incapable of carrying out a logical, honest discussion.

I don't know why I let myself be surprised by that.

J.

Jay, do you notice that Barney inserted the idea that CCW permits were involved in his home invader story? Based on his complete invention - pulled it out of his alimentary canal.

Comments like Groucho's are very annoying for me. Because like Barney, so many people who are most emphatic about the need for more "reasonable" gun control are completely ignorant of the actual current regulations that are in place.

As I pointed out above, we have a case where persons who were awarded C&C permits and allowed "special" enforcement rights not even granted to local law enforcement were able to abuse those rights to commit crime.

Jay on the other part wants to expand the right of C&C to any one any where. It was not bad enough as examples like in VT, NIU and in the bounty hunter case that persons that had purchased and in the BH case carried weapons legally and used those weapons kill innocents.

In all of those cases common sense gun laws were not enacted due to the influence of the NRA.

So go ahead and say I am not responding to the tread when I have done nothing but respond to every case where you two have tried to defect.

As I pointed out above, we have a case where persons who were awarded C&C permits and allowed "special" enforcement rights not even granted to local law enforcement were able to abuse those rights to commit crime.

Nothing in that story says anything about CCW permits, Barney, it is your fabrication .

The NRA has not weighed upon the regulation of bounty hunters. Bounty hunter powers have nothing to do with this topic at all, and nothing to do with either private ownership of firearms nor CCW permitting.

Your responses are incoherent drivel.

OK, jay, his incompetence is not funny anymore.

Barney

PUT the shovel down.

You've been schooled better than you deserve on this post.

BTW, SPQR, thanks for serving up a good primer and rebuttal on concealed carry laws and the most frequently repeated lies about gun control laws.

BarneyG, show me where I said "anyone, anywhere." You might have a chance on the "anywhere," but -- as is your tradition -- you are pulling stuff out of your ass again.

You just can't wrap your head around the notion that "gun-free zones" are inherently LESS safe than places where people with licensed firearms are present, can you? No matter how many massacres we have to have?

J.

HughS, I don't think there are enough hours in the week to refute every myth about current gun regulation that gets repeated in the MSM and by deliberate misrepresentations of orgs like the Brady Campaign, etc. that drive-by commentators like groucho repeat.

TO: All
RE: To Paraphrase....

....Eowyn of Lord of the Rings....

"Those who have no guns can still die by them."

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Among the curses of being disarmed....ti causes you to be despised. -- Machiavelli]

P.S. These mass murderers sure do despise their victims....

mantis said
"Have I missed it? Was there a shopper at the Omaha mall, or students at VT or NIU, who have said they would have had guns with them but were deterred by the GFZ regulation?"

That is an utterly idiotic objection: don't allow legal CCW permit holders to carry, because there is no guarantee one would be there in any particular incident to help out.

WTF? If you don't allow them, then THAT is the case in which it IS guaranteed that there won't be anyone.

At least the other way there is a chance. Your way means there will be ZERO.

This is logic?

newscaper, it is not logical but its a common 'rebuttal' - "but you can't guarantee that a CCW holder will be carrying every time".

Bizarre logic.

TO: groucho
RE: Glocks??!??!

"I can't order a case of wine from another state but if I need a Glock, well step right up son..." -- groucho

I think they stink.

Give me an M1911A1 ACP any day.

Can I get one of them this way?

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[When going to a gunfight, don't bring a handgun that starts with a number less than 4.]

"You just can't wrap your head around the notion that "gun-free zones" are inherently LESS safe than places where people with licensed firearms are present, can you?" Jay

Sure I can. Here is just one example of hundreds that have occurred in just a few years in Iraq and Afghanistan where guns are routinely carried by the local population and where the "crazies" have adapted.

PS, this is a common thread in warfare that eventually leads to arm controls, that even Reagan used, such as gun control:

"KANDAHAR, Afghanistan -- A suicide bomber penetrated a crowd watching a dog-fighting competition in the Taliban's former stronghold Sunday, killing up to 80 people in one of the bloodiest bombings since the regime's 2001 ouster.

Several hundred people, including Afghan militia leaders, had gathered in a barren dirt field to watch the event on the western edge of the southern city of Kandahar. Witnesses reported gunfire from bodyguards after the blast, but it was not immediately clear if the bullets killed or wounded anyone."

Great, Barney, now you've picked yet another incoherent trail to go down now that your half dozen other incoherent attempts to derail the thread failed. Suicide bombs in Afghanistan have absolutely nothing to do with this thread.

How bizarre.

Great, Barney, now you've picked yet another incoherent trail to go down now that your half dozen other incoherent attempts to derail the thread failed. Suicide bombs in Afghanistan have absolutely nothing to do with this thread.

How bizarre.

50. Posted by SPQR

Really spqr? Have you heard of the Murray federal building? I bet it was a no gun zone, but the street outside was not.

Why don't you go google that and see what happened.

Jay, do you want to comment?

Barney,

What in the hell does Afghanistan have to do with this thread? It is a war zone. We are discussing the use of Concealed Carry as a way to stop mass murder that occurs in gun free zones. My advice is to take a double dose of anti-depressants and continue your study of Das Kapital.

Murray federal building?

KANDAHAR, Afghanistan?

Do go on,Barney. Tell us! Preach it!

Barney, so you are now claiming that since lawful CCW holders can't stop truck bombs, they should not be allowed to try to stop mass murderers who only chose to use firearms.

Ie., Barney, you think that we should protect mass murderers with guns because if we have armed citizens to stop them, they will just become mass murderers with truck bombs.

You really are a blithering idiot.

Ban him, Jay.

Timely comment Jack V. Do you want to respond, or just go to bed in shame?

The Murray building example you cite Barney is an argument more for the control of rental trucks and fertilizer than it is a concealed carry permit. It's neither relevant or applicable to the discussion.

It's a non-sequiter example and simply reeks of someone grasping at straws for the argument. Here's another example of a bad analogy.

I'm only just coming to this thread and in reading it, it's clear you aren't capable of logical or objective thought.

I'm waiting for the next non sequitur. It will probably involve seeing eye dogs.

I finally figured it out. Barney saw this Onion video for a waiting period for purchasing suicide vests and did not realize it was satire.

I'm waiting for the next non sequitur. It will probably involve seeing eye dogs.

Probably more like using umbrellas as weapons
of mass destruction.
Jay, you need to keep a toolbox nearby to
tend to the loose nuts.

Good point, maggie, Barney's next argument will be that CCW holders can't stop VX nerve gas.

By Jay's and spqr's standards I have provided several examples where free access to guns and explosives have caused deaths on a massive scale where no gun laws where not in effect.

Contrary to what you think I am not against gun ownership, but I believe it should be highly regulated. I have stated such numerously times on this website. I own several guns. The NRA, Jay, spqr and others are against all common sense laws to prevent killers or potential killers from owning and using guns and explosives in the name of the 2nd amendment.

I agree that "no gun zones" mean nothing if you do not prevent people that should not have guns from obtaining them.

Barney, you really are quite confused, you can't even coherently explain why you brought up your non sequiturs.

As for gun laws, first of all you obviously have no "common sense" yourself, and you are ignorant of the current gun regulations in this country. So your assertions are just repetitions of your ignorance rather than coherent arguments.

guns and explosives

Fertilizer Barney? You're worried about corn crop yields for ethanol, right? Right?

For those following along, Barney refers to "explosives" and claims that I oppose "common sense" laws to prevent people from obtaining them.

This is just another combination non sequitur ( this thread has nothing to do with explosives) and lie. I've expressed no opposition to regulation of explosives.

However, be aware that Tim McVey's truck bombs was made from common fertilizer and diesel fuel. No doubt Barney's "common sense" will be to do a Brady bill background check at the diesel pump.

LOL!

A good lesson here. Make sure you
identify the Barneys before the
fit hits the shan. Survival you know.

Groucho -

You DID read that article you linked, and see that it was a couple of magazines and a holster the shooter bought, didn't you?

Magazines are not controlled items. Neither are holsters. You can buy them at your local sporting goods store (assuming they carry what you're looking for) without showing ID or registering ownership or doing anything except paying for them. The sorry SOB probably just thought it'd be cool to get some stuff from the same dealer who sold to the VA Tech shooter.

There's just a little difference between a Glock PISTOL and a Glock MAGAZINE. Try not to confuse the two.

As far as getting guns from out of state - recently I had to have my father ship me a rifle and a shotgun that had been in the family for quite a while. In order to do so - he had to go to an authorized firearms dealer, have a background check done (paying the fee to do so) and pay HIM to ship the rifle, and on MY end I had to do the same thing - find an authorized firearms dealer, pay for a background check, AND pay fees on top of that for him receiving the goods and transferring them to me.

It was a royal pain in the whatever. But - it was all according to the law. And from what I saw in that article you linked, - so was everything that dealer did. You won't be able to buy a firearm from out of state without both the seller and the buyer getting checked - at least, not if you do it according to the law. But the magazines? Those were a retail purchase.

Interestingly, JLawson, there are two situations where a gun can be shipped by another interstate to an individual's home directly.

The first is if the gun is not legally a firearm under the Gun Control Act of 1968, such as a flintlock muzzleloader. The second is that the government itself will ship rifles under the civilian marksmanship program - after you apply, pass a full background check and wait about three months for the armorers to pull a 60 year old service rifle out of storage.

If guns on campus are such a problem (according to the anti-gun crowd) then why aren't there any problems in Oregon or Utah where guns are allowed on campus by anyone with a concealed carry permit? As a CHL gun owner here in Oregon I can walk onto the grounds of any public school carrying concealed and I'm perfectly legal. The only times you hear about some sort of guns on campus is from somebody that's breaking the law, not a CHL gun owner.

Brent, as you no doubt have learned, the arguments against CCW laws always involve the opponents' fantasies, not reality. They fantasize about events that don't happen, and cite their own fantasies as arguments.

SPQR -

Yep, there are exceptions. At least, until someone uses a flintlock muzzleloader to shoot up a mall!

JLawson, the Brady Campaign recently put out a press release about the horrors of being able to obtain a Fifty Caliber!!! muzzleloader by mail order.

Morons of a feather flock together.

I see that spqr's only defense to my rebuttals is to spam the tread, change the debate and wont address the issues of the post.

You fell for every trap I left you. Check mate dude!

Hey mantis, about your ealier comment about people not being able to have their gun with them...here you go:
Firsthand account of the Von Maur shooting
http://joemerchant24.blogspot.com/2007/12/firsthand-account-of-von-maur-shooting.html

You really are dishonest, Barney, as none of the your rebuttals had anything to do with the issues of the post, and you've shown yourself to be an idiot repeatedly. If you think your silly non sequiturs were "traps", then I'm really curious how you manage to feed yourself unassisted.

Assuming you do.

To summarize, Barney got spanked like a drum and now claims that his fat ass wanted to be spanked and it has defeated my hand.

mantis, might I refer you to Suzanne Hupp and the Luby's Massacre in Killeen, Texas?

That is a compelling story. Not one of the events we were talking about, but still a good example.

On the flip side, could you cite a case where civilians with weapons on their persons actually made a situation worse in one of these mass shootings? Just one example of one of those "Wild West-style" shootouts that are trotted out as the reason why people shouldn't be allowed to carry weapons?

I could look, but I'll bet I'd find many more stories of people who legally carry guns stopping a violent crime in progress. I wasn't trying to make the point that gun free zones prevent anything, I was just pointing out that placing any blame on a particular gun free zone is somewhat misplaced if there was no one at the scene able to intervene but for the gun free zone sign outside. This has nothing to do with whether the laws permitting these zones are something we should have, though.

The question is, do you oppose the schools and other locations that declare themselves to be gun free zones, or the laws that allow them to do so? Most if not all of those laws are tied to conceal-carry laws, and if I'm not mistaken every conceal-carry state has one (Texas does, I know, and if even Texas has one...). Should schools and businesses not have the ability to declare themselves such?

I don't really know. I don't think gun free zone laws prevent any crime, and I certainly am not for banning guns or repealing concealed carry laws. The timeline of events at NIU reveals that it would have been virtually impossible for anyone to stop it unless someone in the classroom had been armed, but as I've said before Illinois has no concealed carry law. But I think we should be as careful as possible about how guns get into people's hands, and since federal gun free zone laws were declared unconstitutional (rightly so), we're dealing with state laws allowing schools and businesses to decide for themselves whether guns are allowed on their property. The law permits them to decide many other things that happen on their property; is it right to not let them decide this?

So basically, I guess I'm saying, yeah, gun free zones are counterproductive, but what are you going to do about them?

Btw, I work in a gun free zone. No, it doesn't make me feel safe.

Mantis, that ain't the question.

The question is: does the person who declares a gun-free zone assume liability for keeping it that way?

Your employer (or your employer's landlord) has declared your work area a gun-free zone. If someone comes in with a gun and harms you, do you have cause of action for tortuous malfeasance or misfeasance? Clearly the person who declared the zone gun-free has failed to keep it so. Is that negligence (in the legal sense: failure of due diligence in a matter where diligence is legally owed to you)? I don't know of any case law on that.

More: a person who knowingly sets up the conditions necessary for a crime is an accessory before the fact, and an accessory is as guilty as the actual perpetrator. Is a person who provides a convenient pool of victims an accessory? Probably not, but again it's an interesting question.

Perhaps the cases coming up will answer some of those.

Regards,
Ric
(Is there a way to turn off the preview script? It's posting about three characters in two seconds on my machine.)

The question is: does the person who declares a gun-free zone assume liability for keeping it that way?

Legally I would find that highly unlikely. See, the term "gun free zone" is just shorthand for what is a complicated mix of ordinances in different states allowing institutions and businesses to declare themselves a zone in which certain state penalties apply to violators. In most concealed-carry states, you lose your permit if you are caught violating the statute.

So basically, you would never be able to sue an institution or business, as the designation of that zone as "gun free" (if that's even what it is called; it isn't in all states) is not a guarantee like promising your pizza will be there in 30 minutes, but rather a warning about state penalties.

For instance, this is what Texas requires:

PROHIBITING HANDGUNS IN A BUSINESS OR OTHER ENTITY

In order to provide notice that entry on property by a license holder with a concealed handgun is forbidden, Penal Code Section 30.06(c)(3)(A) requires that a written communication contain the following language:

"PURSUANT TO SECTION 30.06, PENAL CODE (TRESPASS BY HOLDER OF A LICENSE TO CARRY A CONCEALED HANDGUN) A PERSON LICENSED UNDER SUBCHAPTER H, CHAPTER 411, GOVERNMENT CODE (CONCEALED HANDGUN LAW), MAY NOT ENTER THIS PROPERTY WITH A CONCEALED HANDGUN."

Calling them gun free zones is incorrect, as what they really are is zones where normal citizens cannot be legally armed, with varying penalties for noncompliance.

Barney, pay very close attention. Mantis is actually arguing your side, and doing it COHERENTLY. This is why mantis is appreciated and respected around here, and you are... well, you.

Mantis, sorry I didn't bring up the Luby's case earlier. Quite frankly, it slipped my mind until the argument got rolling. I should have included it in the original article, as it's perfectly germane to the case, but I plead "brain fart."

Also, thanks to HughS for bringing up the unidentified witness in the Omaha mall shooting who says he was in a position to stop the shooter, but was unarmed thanks to the mall policy. I still have a twinge of suspicion about that account -- it seems just a little too good to be true -- but I had forgotten about it and it certainly is relevant. At least, more relevant than anything Barney tried to drag into the discussion.

No, I'm not calling for a ban on "gun-free zones." I'm not entirely certain what I'm calling for at this point, but I am certainly in favor of looking carefully at the ethical and moral liability the owners of such zones, and considering extending their liability into the legal realm.

I would like these places to come to their senses, without a legal whip, and realize that they are actually putting people in greater danger, not less, when they declare these "gun-free zones."

And Barney... what the hell can I say? I asked you to cite an example where a mass shooting situation was made worse by a private citizen on the scene being armed. You first cited a case of some home invaders in search of money and drugs pretended to be bounty hunters, carefully NOT linking to an account of the story and grossly distorting the facts of the matter. Then, when that blew up in your face, you started fabricating statements and opinions put forth by those who had so thoroughly beaten your ass. Then, in a defining moment of asshattery, you beclowned yourself by ignoring the implied restriction "within the United States" and started talking about Afghanistan and Iraq, ignoring that the 2nd Amendment to the American Constitution and individual state laws on Concealed Carry and the issue of malls, colleges, and other public facilities declaring themselves "gun-free zones" DO NOT APPLY IN FOREIGN NATIONS THAT ARE WAR ZONES.

Let me give you one last chance, Barney: can you cite a single case WITHIN THE UNITED STATES, as in "in a place where arguments about the 2nd Amendment to the United States Constitution, state laws on the public possession of firearms, and property owners and managers' right to regulate the presence of legally-owned and registered firearms on their premises, a single case where a mass shooting or other horrific crime situation was actually made worse by a private, law-abiding citizen possessing a firearm being present?"

Every other single person in this thread understood the implied conditions of my original question, Barney. I forgot that when you enter a conversation, you resort to tactics that represent 1) sheer dumbness of the lowest 1%; B) outright weaselry of the most unscrupulous 1%; or III) both.

J.

"I asked you to cite an example where a mass shooting situation was made worse by a private citizen on the scene being armed."

If you want examples of armed crazy school/mall shooters and the situation being made worse, I couldn't find any. But if you are willing to expand the search to mass shootings made worse by armed citizens (which is a tautology, I suppose) here are 3 examples:

http://www.emergency.com/la-riots.htm
Reports were also received that numerous reputed "street gang" members were seen to be participating in the violence and shooting. ... Fire Chief Donald Manning appealed to L.A. citizens to discontinue the practice of assaulting and shooting at firefighters who were attempting to fight the conflagrations."

http://www.ohiohistorycentral.org/entry.php?rec=488
"At this point, the character of the crowd changed from concerned citizens, intent on having their own brand of justice, to a mob bent on looting and violence. Rioters assaulted the jail, breaking in on two levels. The occupants escaped the wrath of the invaders by stationing themselves behind iron doors inside of the jail. Undeterred, the attackers began hammering at the doors. Fearing that the doors could not withstand the assault, Sheriff Hawkins called for relief from the Ohio National Guard, which had two companies on duty at the Cincinnati armory. Guardsmen, under the command of Colonel C.B. Hunt, arrived at the jail just after the intruders broke through the doors. As Hunt's men entered the jail through the tunnel, the rioters shot four of them. Firing over the aggressors, the Guardsmen pushed them back temporarily. When the mob launched a second attack, Hunt's men shot and killed the ringleader and managed to clear the jail."

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=990CE0D61039F93AA15752C0A9659C8B63
"Mr. Hames also testified that he had firsthand knowledge that some of the officers had conspired to lie about their actions in a deadly shooting in 1995.

The officers are accused of planting ''throw-down'' guns at crime scenes, shooting unarmed suspects and giving false statements to investigators to cover up their actions. Many defendants were on an elite team of officers, the Jump Out Boys, that operated in tough neighborhoods."

tell ya what scaresthe hell out of me,and thats barney owns guns.after seeing some of his commets on this thread,makes me wonder if hes sane enough to own them.

Uhh, dustydog. I fail to see the applicability of the stories of gang members during the LA riots. More applicable, but counter to your attempted point, was the Korean store owners guarding their property.

The second point is what? A riot in 1884? How is something in 1884 applicable to today. You kind of also trimmed the blockquote to leave out the date.

And the third? The Miami crooked cops? How is that applicable with citizen carry?

Bzzzt. Tilt. Game Over.

Dusty, talk about stupid irrelevant exampless.

Number 1: These were criminals shooting at the firemen, and if law abiding citizens with gun were there, maybe it wouldn't have been as bad. The first example is more akin to a mass shooter that a private citizen with a gun.

Number 2: It looks like the'private citizens - National Guard' actually saved the situation by defending people who were under attack, thus supporting Jay's agrument. Note it states that the rioter shot four people first. Without the 'private citizens' the rioters would have most liokely shoot even more people.

Number 3: Doesn't deal with mass shootings, private citizen or anything close to the topic at hand. Just some bad eggs in the police force.

Barney, fertilizer is already closely regulated because of McVeigh. My wife has to show identification and sign a form to purchase nitrogen fertilizer for our vineyard.

"With all this talk of the efficacy of Gun Free Zones, I've noticed one thing missing. Never, in any of these cases, have I heard someone present at any of the shootings saying that he/she would have had his/her gun at the location if it hadn't been a gun free zones."

There were several students at VT including one who was on the floor below the kill zone that wanted to carry on campus. Fact is the day of the shooting the state legislator shot down a bill asking to restore their rights to carry on VT.

Would there be a guarantee a conceal carry would be on hand? No but there obviously isn't a guarantee an official with a gun is johnny on the spot either. You need to find a new avenue of information. To my recollection most these instances stop when the killer commits suicide or someone puts bullets in him or shows a real capacity to do so. Sometimes civilians do those deeds. IIRC the shooting at Pearl Miss stopped because staff went to their cars for guns. IIRC there was a college school shooting halted because students went to their cars for guns. The shooter in Utah was stopped by an OFF DUTY police officer. The one that broke my heart was the HERO UNARMED security guard who confronted the shooter to buy time for students to escape. He died for his effort.

A couple years ago someone was running people over with a car and a citizen shot him here in Georgia.

I don't understand the psychology and sociology cause and effect of these shooters but I do know when a dog goes mad the course of action is to put him down as fast as possible. I totally reject any implication that allowing citizens to be armed would increase violence and bloodshed. I challenge ANYONE to with valid and reputable evidence to show this happens. Of course there will be exceptions but you can't ignore the other 99.9999999999%

Barney, pay very close attention. Mantis is actually arguing your side

I might be arguing his side, but with all the non sequiturs I really have no idea what that is. Bounty hunter frauds and suicide bombers? What the hell are you talking about?

No one really knows, mantis, no one really knows. Least of all Barney.

I seem to recall that the NRA actually did try to get the legislation passed concerning the background check for mental instability but for quite some time was thwarted by the medical establishment.

I also believe as a gun owner that such legislation has to be done VERY carefully, considering that organizations such as the American Medical and Psychiatric Associations seem to want to treat gun ownership as evidence of some sort of mental "problem". How often do you hear the phrase "gun nuts"?

I read all the way to the point where Barney said:

"You fell for every trap I left you. Check mate dude!"...

...and almost fell out of my chair!

Jay, when Barney's commentary gets so out of hand that one can almost hurt themselves laughing it's time to pull the plug.

Yeah, that one made me sprain a rib too. Barney the Black Knight.

Thought experiment: should those places with "No Guns Allowed" or "Gun-Free" signs alter their policies and signs to "No Weapons Allowed" what would happen?

I think they would have to close. After all, panty-hose can kill. For that matter, a tablespoon of water can kill if it enters airways rather than alimentary canal[s].

I am thinking along the lines of equating a "Gun Free Zone" with "attractive nuisance".
If I need to put a 6 foot or higher fence around my yard to have a pool (no, don't have one, but wife would like one) and I can still be sued if some local child climbs that fence and drowns, then why should a sign or written policy allow someone off the hook for a restriction on fire arms?
At the very least they should pay a hefty increase in their insurance premiums for restricting guns without taking steps to enforce the rule.

The NRA caught much hell for supporting the improved NICS bill that provides funding to INCLUDE most levels of mental patients. The NRA insisted that a prevision be included for re instatement of the right to own firearms after certain conditions are met. The $$%^&% Brady bunch made a big deal out of the NRA supporting the bill.

The $$%^&% Brady bunch made a big deal out of the NRA supporting the bill.

Yes they did. Until the bill passed. Then they took credit for it.

This is my first time here. Probably my last. Anybody who can tolerate barney for more than five minutes is a better man than I.

If he dies I hope he is hermetically sealed and encased in concrete for burial. He is so full of putrefaction and corruption that he should be labeled a weapon of mass destruction.

I have to go now, I feel dirty.

I suppose telling Barney that the gun laws we already have in place, are not being enforced. Why should more laws be enacted!?

Bubba

Ah, but you see Bubba, by remaining ignorant of the existing regulatory regime, and by believing the Brady Campaign's many long-discredited exaggerations and overt lies, Barney insulates himself from having to confront that.

http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/crim/242fin.htm

DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS UNDER COLOR OF LAW
Summary:
Section 242 of Title 18 makes it a crime for a person acting under color of any law to willfully deprive a person of a right or privilege protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States.
For the purpose of Section 242, acts under "color of law" include acts not only done by federal, state, or local officials within the their lawful authority, but also acts done beyond the bounds of that official's lawful authority, if the acts are done while the official is purporting to or pretending to act in the performance of his/her official duties. Persons acting under color of law within the meaning of this statute include police officers, prisons guards and other law enforcement officials, as well as judges, care providers in public health facilities, and others who are acting as public officials. It is not necessary that the crime be motivated by animus toward the race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status or national origin of the victim.
The offense is punishable by a range of imprisonment up to a life term, or the death penalty, depending upon the circumstances of the crime, and the resulting injury, if any.
TITLE 18, U.S.C., SECTION 242
Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, ... shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnaping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

Hey go easy on Barny. He is my favorite troll

As far as a CCW causing more death, just look at that church shooting. The CCW holder caused the shooter to commit suicide out of shame for being shot by a Woman.

Oh wait he died with ammo left... My bad