Oh hey, when you make a list of "Gun Free Zones", you can prove shootings happened in "Gun Free Zones". Uh... Wow!
We were talking about K-12 schools Joph. Schools. I just provided data that shows pretty conclusively that since we passed a law mandating that all schools be "gun free zones", the rate of spreed style mass shootings at K-12 schools has significantly increased. They were lower before we made them gun free zones, and higher afterwards. This isn't just a matter of compiling data to the label. The label changed, but what made something a K-12 school did not.
Way to play word games with this though.
First Baptist wasn't a Gun Free Zone -- 26 Dead, Las Vegas isn't a Gun Free Zone -- 58 dead, Emanuel African Methodist in Charleston wasn't a Gun Free Zone (though that didn't stop right-wing pundits from lying and claiming it was) -- 9 dead.
This is you changing the goal posts. I thought we were talking about schools? You know, the specific locations which the law I was citing apply directly to? That there may also be other public (or at least public access) locations which have adopted gun free rules (and some states and municipalities which may have passed laws to such effect), and how that may also affect (or not) the likelihood of a mass shooting event at those other types of locations, is a separate issue.
Meanwhile, Parkland has armed guard and 17 are dead. Marshall County High School (less than a month ago) had an armed guard and four dead, 18 others wounded.
And? This shows that armed guards don't work. I'm not disputing that. In fact, I just argued that having armed uniformed guards at schools doesn't work. What part of that did you fail to understand?
It's a beautiful fiction, especially when you have to keep piling on the qualifiers (uh, but only like secret guns and, um, only count these shootings and, uh, it only counts if the targets are random and, uh...) to try and make the argument work but the argument just doesn't work.
You're the one who keeps piling on qualifiers, changing the criteria, etc. I'm making one very simple argument. That if we were to eliminate the laws which currently make it illegal for anyone except uniformed LEOs to carry weapons in school zones, we would see a significant decrease in the number of school shootings.
Again. It's the uncertainty that affects the decision of the shooter to act. He knows about the armed guard(s). He knows where that guard is. He knows how much time he has to act before that guard can respond. When any random faculty member could have a weapon, and could be anywhere in the school, at any time, and he has no clue who this may be, where they may be, etc, his sick fantasy of having absolute control over the life and death of his victims is in jeopardy.
It's almost like I've explained this several times, and you keep ignoring it, and spinning off on tangents instead.
The very fact that there "could be" someone who is armed in the area is a massive deterrent to these kinds of shootings.
Even in cases where it's known
, not "could be" but they KNOW there's an armed guard, it doesn't stop it. But let's pretend those don't count because those guards are TOO known and, uh, it has to be secret maybe-guns only!
Sigh. It's not a scale Joph. You're assuming that "known armed guard" is somehow more of a deterrent than "unknown person with a gun in the area". I have repeatedly stated that the exact opposite is true. It's the unknown that deters these shooters. I've said that several times now. You're free to disagree, but please don't respond as though I didn't even make the point in the first place.
The primary motivation for these shooters if power and control. Random elements are what will deter them. Known ones will not. They can plan around known elements. That's the point I'm making. If you want to argue against this, then do so. But you need to actually make the argument. You haven't done this. You just assume you're correct, and argue that since you're correct, then we should follow your conclusion. Your starting premiss is what I'm challenging here. You could at least attempt to defend it instead of just barreling forward. Edited, Feb 26th 2018 7:07pm by gbaji