Mass Shootings in Gun Free Zones

http://thetruthaboutguns.com/2011/07/brad-kozak/ttag-question-of-the-day-are-gun-free-zones-really-target-rich-environments/">Over on TTAG, Brad was setting up his friends with a soft pitch. Of course they all hit it out of the ball park. Here's what I had to say.



What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.

let's not forget we have an equivalent of the Norway tragedy EVERY SINGLE DAY in the U.S.

That's bullshit. We don't have "an equivalent" of that kind of massacre every day here at all.

I kinda think we'd notice if crazy manifesto-writing assholes were shooting ninety people at a pop "every single day" in the US. AND....if we're talking a percentage of the total US population, that figure would skyrocket.

There is no equivalent between some American idiot shooting his buddy while drunk, or a drive-by/other criminal activity, or a drug deal gone bad-type shooting, to what happened in Norway.

Doesn't Norway have some fairly regulatory gun laws, like "automatic weapons not allowed" and "Everyone must be licensed," that kind of thing? Seems that regulation didn't stop that crazy jerk from going to town with dum dums and causing massive damage, despite all the rules and regs in place.

in the U.S about 80 people a day die from gunshots. If you don't think that's comparable to what happened in Norway, good for you.

As I pointed out in post #3, over the most recent five-year period for which FBI UCR data is available, the number of victims of firearm homicides per day averaged 26.9. If we include unintentional shootings and suicides (though I fail to see why we should, particularly suicides), it might come to ~60/day. That means you're still exaggerating the total by 1/3.

On a bad day, that is. And let's not even mention that most of the people who get shot in the US, are shot by THEMSELVES--as suicides.

All of that is decidedly not the same as some singular crazy nutball shooting eighty people at a pop.

I won't even bother to suggest that one must factor in the whole concept of relative impact owing to substantial differences in populations, because that argument is .... well, pure horseshit. Unsubstatiated. Wrong. Bad. Nonsense. The statement is false.

If you persist in 'pretending to not understand' the key difference between one guy shooting eighty people, and eighty hypothetical people shooting maybe eighty people (including the self-inflicted gunshots) on a bad day, well, 'fine.'

'Good for you.'

But that statement, still, is crap. It is trying to fake an equivalency that can only be maintained in the head of a person who lacks both logical reasoning abilities and basic math skills.

What objective evidence do you base this on?


How do you figure? Mass killings by lunatics, or including shootouts between gangsters and drug dealers? Either way, to adjust for population, 90 people in Norway=5,400 in the US murdered per day, 1,971,000 per year. Not adjusting for population is 32,850. In 2009, the US had 15,241 murders total regardless of weapon. What evidence do you have that firearms availability has anything to do with it, even if true? By the way, Europe has more terrorist attacks than we do, that is what this was.


May issue has a very bad history in the US. The problem is that working class, people of color, etc are routinely denied no legitimacy reason, while the "proper people" as in rich, well connected etc. NYC is a good example, it is impossible for anyone here to get a permit in NYC. Don Imus, who is rich, white, celebrity, racist, alcoholic, admitted coke head, has a CCW issued by NYC. What would fit? How would they find someone to be fit? Are there such tests? How objective are these? What would the appeals process be?



I am trying to be objective, can you do the same? This is hypocritical and condescending nonsense.



No. It has not happened anyplace else, why would I think it would do anything here?

but where's the hypocrisy? What's your solution, to do nothing, to expand on the gun rights?

To my knowledge, there's one instance of an attempted mass shooting occurring in a police station, namely in Detroit last January. Note that I say "attempted" because while the gunman wounded four officers, the only person killed was himself when the officers present almost immediately returned fire. Thus, the prospective victims were able to cut the (presumably) intended massacre well short, due to the fact they were armed, and didn't have to wait 30, 45, even 90 minutes for somebody with guns to arrive and intervene.

So this isn't a frequent occurrence; it's not even an infrequent occurrence. It's a one-off and given how it played out, we can see exactly why almost nobody even tries to commit--let alone succeeds in committing--mass murder in a police station.


No we don't. Over the most recent five-year period for which FBI UCR data is available (2005-2009), we had an average of 39.9 homicides per day. Of those, 26.9 were committed with firearms. And that's in a country with a population 64 times that of Norway. Moreover, less than a percent of firearm homicide victims are random victims of mass shootings: people who wound up dead because they had the misfortune to be in a particular location when some loser decided to make people think he was important by killing a bunch of defenseless strangers.

And your proposal, your assertion to the contrary notwithstanding, is not a solution, and certainly not the solution. Hell, you yourself have to hand-wave away "all the objections for a moment" in making your case. But a "solution" which requires you to ignore the obstacles to practicability before you can make it work isn't really a solution, is it?

Essentially, you've set up a variation on the "if it saves just one life, it'll be worth it" mantra of the Brady Campaign et al. But as with that mantra, you're willfully overlooking other potential costs, namely the cost in lives, suffered mental and physical trauma, and property lost or destroyed because the victim was unable to effectively defend him- or herself due to having been denied a license by your medical board. You may have noticed that over the past 25 years, discretionary licensing has fallen somewhat out of fashion in this country; there's a reason for that, namely that "may issue" in practice means "may (and invariably will) discriminate."

And then there are some principles of the rule of law at stake. It's Political Science 101 that "authority" is the legitimate exercise of power, and that legitimacy comes from concomitant responsibility. When a government refuses to take responsibility for the protection of the individual citizen, and to accept liability for failing to do so (see Warren v. D.C., DeShaney v. Winnebago, Castle Rock, CO v. Gonzales), it ipso facto abdicates any authority to deprive the individual citizen of the means to protect himself. And given the current state of technology, the most effective means of protecting oneself against an imminent threat to life and limb is firearms.

Here's what the OP says:

Mass Shootings in Gun Free Zones

First of all, they don't ALL happen in gun-free zones. We've seen the nuts do it in police stations, too. ...

And here's your reply:

To my knowledge, there's one instance of an attempted mass shooting occurring in a police station, namely in Detroit last January. Note that I say "attempted" because while the gunman wounded four officers, the only person killed was himself when the officers present almost immediately returned fire.

Hmm. The "gunman wounded four officers", but this was not a mass shooting. ?

How did he do it? Throw shoes?

So eager to push the agenda that we lose the ability to read, perhaps.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

First of all, they don't ALL happen in gun-free zones. We've seen the nuts do it in police stations, too.

As was pointed out above, the single instance of an assault on a police station resulted in no fatalities except the criminal, because he was met with armed response almost instantly. As opposed to places like Utoya where the shooter had 90 minutes in which to hunt down his victims unopposed.

But, to the question, are multiple murderers attracted to gun-free zones, they might be. That sounds reasonable, especially for the crazy ones who plan the job and are not stupid.

Of course it sounds reasonable. If your intent is to murder as many people as you can, naturally you'd prefer a place where your victims can't fight back and no one can come to help them.

But the solution is where we differ. Doing away with gun free zones will cause more problems than it solves, just like guns do anywhere.

First of all, let me state that I believe there are places that should be gun-free. Namely places that contain highly controversial public figures. For example courthouses will contain judges who are quite likely to be the target of ire of criminal elements. People who work in Public Office will frequently have citizens who are angry at them for some policy decision. Therefore it makes sense that such places should be "gun free", but also that there should be security forces working there to insure the safety of all the disarmed people within them.

But with those few exceptions, there should be no gun-free zones, at least, not gun-free to people who have been vetted to carry concealed firearms. Why? Because we know that such people are hardly ever involved in any kind of crime, let alone firearm-related crime. It doesn't matter where those people go - to the supermarket or to a college campus - they are unlikely to be involved in a crime.

So there is little reason to keep CCW permit holders out of "gun free zones", and, of course, criminals are not going to care if a zone is gun-free or not.

Even if it would prevent the big incidents like the ones you mentioned, let's not forget we have an equivalent of the Norway tragedy EVERY SINGLE DAY in the U.S., and that's largly due to gun availability (or partly due to it).

As pointed out above, this is blatantly and provably untrue.

Here's the solution. Every gun owner must be licensed. To qualify one would have to pass a battery of medical and psychological tests, in addition to the usual criminal background check. The medical board appointed to conduct these tests would have a policy similar to may-issue. They would have the power to exclude the unfit.

There is no need to go to such trouble and expense. NICS is sufficient for screening firearm owners. We just have to be sure that the states are properly reporting people with disqualifying mental health and criminal histories.

And of course the big problem with your opt-in approach to firearm licensing is that it eliminates firearm ownership anonymity.

Do you think a requirement like that would screen out some of the problem cases and prevent some of the tragedies? Yes or no.

Of course it would. But the inconvenience and loss of privacy is not worth the price.

The single biggest determinator as to whether or not someone is going to commit a firearm-related crime is whether or not they have a past criminal history. You would be far, far, far, better off directing efforts to keep firearms out of the hands of criminals than worrying about mental health screenings.

"it eliminates firearm ownership anonymity." And this is necessary so the "lawful gun owners" can have "plausible deniability," right?

People who commit these acts are acting on grudges, hatreds, perceived injustices, etc.

Their targets are generally associated with their grievances: they are either the perpetrators of the acts to which the aggrieved individuals object or by extension part of the problem, or the kinds of victims whose deaths will cause pain to the targets. Or to society in general, where society is perceived as the source of the grievance.


Canada is a gun-free zone.

And yet in Canada, mass murderers target educational institutions in numbers very disproportionate to random selection. The Montreal Polytechnique, Dawson College, high schools. It's probably more likely there will be a cop in the vicinity in one of those places than it is that anyone with a firearm will be on the scene in a department store, movie theatre or restaurant, for example. In fact there were cops on the scene at Dawson College, and they shot Kimveer Gill before he could shoot more people than he did (20; 1 dead, about half the others seriously injured).

The Columbine killers did not target the school because it was a "gun-free zone". Get real, eh?

The man who shot several women at a gym in the US a couple of years ago didn't target them because the gym was a "gun-free zone". He did it because he was a misogynist loser who hated women and that was a good place to find the kind of attractive women he thought he was entitled to have, who didn't agree with him.

The man who shot Gabrielle Giffords was not operating in a "gun-free zone". (And yet he wasn't shot by anyone ...)

People who go to their places (or former places) of employment with the intent of committing multiple homicides with firearms don't go there because these are "gun-free zones". They go there because that is where the people against whom they have grievances, and people associated with them, are.

People who go to courthouses or legislative buildings with the intent of committing multiple homicides with firearms don't go there because these are "gun-free zones" (which they would tend not to be, since at the very least there will be police and/or armed guards there). They go there because that is where the people against whom they have grievances, and people associated with them, are -- or because those people represent the system against which they have grievances.


How would Breivik have known there were no police or armed security guards at the island camp? Any more than Gill would have known there were no police at Dawson College.

Breivik expected to be killed in attack


This "mass murderers choose gun-free zones because they know no one will have a gun" is just more of the same old deceitful crap that gun militants spew wherever they go. They really do seem to think the rest of the world is plain stupid.

Of course, everywhere was a 'bomb free zone' but they still put bombs in the parking lot to surprise first responders. (Timers failed to function, no explosions)

But they absolutely selected the school for being an easy target, and the shock value of the victims.

the fact that they both attended the school had absolutely nothing to do with their choice of site.

"...the fact that they both attended the school..." kept them from wasting gas traveling to the "gun-free" mall.

Most of these things don't happen BECAUSE it's a gun free zone.

The FBI released quite a bit of the information on them a while back, revealing the manic-depressive, and the sociopath side of the issue.

I generally agree with you, the fact that it was a 'gun free zone' did not really factor much into emboldening them.

Personally, I believe it would have been better if they had encountered an armed teacher or school administrator earlier, as with most mass-shooters, they self-destructed upon encountering armed resistance (police).

Also, we have changed police response tactics to an active shooter, based upon this incident.

Also, we have changed police response tactics to an active shooter, based upon this incident.

In the Montreal Polytechnique massacre, it turned out that the killings and suicide were all over when police arrived on the scene, but they didn't know that, and it was a long time before anyone entered the building. That was a major focus of the coroner's investigation, and practices have changed.

Personally, I believe it would have been better if they had encountered an armed teacher or school administrator earlier

And it would be lovely if such people just materialized when a threat did. Or emerged from the cloakroom where they were stored in case of emergency, like a fire extinguisher, or the like.

The problem is that they (presumably numbers of them, to expect any efficacy in a threat situation) ... and their firearms ... would be present in the school day in and day out, class in and class out, extracurricular activity in and extracurricular activity out.

And if we really do not expect that some student in some school, and I will venture to say multiple students in multiple schools, would ever manage to get one of those firearms away from one of those teachers, and commit murder and mayhem with it ... well, I think we're being a tad unrealistic.

is that every individual in possession of or with access to a firearm must be a competent, sane, responsible, sober, law-abiding adult citizen who has been adjudged to possess those qualities and duly licensed.

If I am correct then let me carry it further.

Every individual in possession of or with access to any knowledge, substance, device, or tool that has has the ability to inflict harm on others must be a competent, sane, responsible, sober, law-abiding adult citizen who has been adjudged to possess those qualities and duly licensed.

In the real world, virtually anything with the ability to help enhance the quality of and defend the continuance of our individual lives and the "life" of our society also has the ability to do great harm if improperly used. Therefore and following your logic, every individual allowed to function at liberty in our "free" society must be a competent, sane, responsible, sober, law-abiding adult citizen who has been adjudged to possess those qualities and duly licensed.

In a Perfect World...

No thanks.

A healthy serving of human rights, hold the control, no pickles.

like carrying a 9mm everywhere you go with no screening or training required. Basic human rights.

Where does this happen?

and one other place, I forgot.

Vermont and Wyoming are two of the safest states to be in. Arizona's problem is mostly business disputes between drug and human traffickers.

...a disproportionate level of related violence?

Always great to hear from the Les Nessman school of public policy.

The use of psychological testing to oppress people had a rich history. Nothing says "you're fucked" like a government using soft science to define your civil rights.

I guess we should be thankful we have people like you to tell us how we feel.

For example, most professional sports activities have armed security.


How would you give a battery of medical and psychological tests to the current 40 to 55 million guns owners in the United States? Would you demand that all these gun owners turn in their weapons until they were tested? How many years would that take?

It's impossible to get another assault weapons ban passed in this country (not that it would do any good). What do you think the chances are of passing a law that would require all gun owners to be tested for mental stability?

Would it do any good? Not in my opinion.

But I present a far more realistic idea to you. Why not input the names of those you have been legally adjudged as having severe mental issues to the NICS background system on a more timely basis. This would require no new laws and Obama supports it.

A 17-yr-old kid runs onto a professional sports field and gets TASERED and you're offering this up as an example of ........ what????

A situation in which it would have been appropriate to use a firearm????

Let's remember that those are the situations in which it is appropriate to use tasers -- situations where it would be appropriate to use a firearm but the taser provides a less lethal alternative.

I may look like I'm going off-topic here, but if you are seriously suggesting that it was appropriate to taser this kid, I have to seriously wonder when you think it would be appropriate to use your firearm.


How would you give a battery of medical and psychological tests to the current 40 to 55 million guns owners in the United States? Would you demand that all these gun owners turn in their weapons until they were tested? How many years would that take?

The longest journey ...

Sorry, but "how many years would that take" is NOT a rebuttal to a proposal. How many years did it take land registration systems to be adopted and implemented, for example? Birth, marriage and death registration systems?


It's impossible to get another assault weapons ban passed in this country (not that it would do any good). What do you think the chances are of passing a law that would require all gun owners to be tested for mental stability?

It would have been impossible to get a whole lot of things enacted and implemented in a whole lot of places if enough evil-minded people had opposed them, wouldn't it? Again, rallying the opposition around and saying "we won't let you do this" is NOT an argument against any proposal.


But I present a far more realistic idea to you. Why not input the names of those you have been legally adjudged as having severe mental issues to the NICS background system on a more timely basis. This would require no new laws and Obama supports it.

Because, as you know full well because I've told you enough times, it is an UNJUSTIFIED VIOLATION OF PRIVACY. Unless someone actually attempts to obtain a firearm (or authorization to acquire one), there is no justification whatsoever for their personal medical data being held in a firearms-related databank that has nothing to do with their own medical interests. And, again as you know, the fact that the actual medical information is not disclosed on a NICS check is IRRELEVANT. The disclosure of the information when it is placed in the NICS system is.

Oh, and I also don't care what Obama supports, nor should anyone else. The merit of any proposal is not determined by who supports it.

The onus on a person who wishes to acquire a firearm or authorization to acquire a firearm must be on the person, to demonstrate fitness. Not on society, to prove the negative.

Some people just don't understand how Civil Rights work.

Very illuminating.

that I understand perfectly well both what "civil rights" actually are, in the real world, and how policies limiting the exercise of rights may be adopted and implemented.

In the first instance, too obviously and going without saying in what I said, society/the state must demonstrate an important interest it seeks to advance or protect and the relationship between that interest and the measure it proposes to take. Duh. Or did you think society has no interest in restricting access to firearms in any way? That's pretty much the only way you could have "interpreted" what I said as not implying that first step.

The process for evaluating such measures is often called "scrutiny", and it is exercised by courts.

You can read all about it on the internet.

It isn't set out explicitly in your own constitution, although it is in mine:

1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

with an interpretation framework that began to be constructed in a case called R. v. Oakes:
http://scc.lexum.org/en/1986/1986scr1-103/1986scr1-103.html

If you take a course or two in constitutional law, you'll become as familiar as I am with how it works in your country, pursuant to decisions of your Supreme Court and the like. This provides a handy introduction for the novice layperson such as yourself:
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/home.html

Because, you know, there really are restrictions on the exercise of the rights set out in your constitution. All of 'em.

at a professional sporting event. Maybe my Google-foo is declining. But when I finally found this picture, I just couldn't resist posting it.



It was better than my other selection:



The above picture does not show that the retired highway patrolman is armed, therefore I rejected it.

While I don't agree with tasering some asshole kid for running around on a field, the look on the security guard's face and the big smile on the kid's face is priceless. I apologize for offending your tender feelings.

Oddly enough, when I searched for the above picture, I did find two that I probably would have used in my original post.





The secret is not to search for images of police at sporting events but for images of Bobby Bowden and highway patrol.

Probably because I spent so much time searching for images of police security at sporting events, the bells will go off at Homeland Security and I'll have little white government cars following me everywhere. They will be very bored.

On a side note, one day at a pistol range in the Tampa Bay area some members of the Florida Highway Patrol Auxiliary were practicing as I was shooting. The guy who was in charge of the group attempted to recruit me and mentioned that they provide security for the Tampa Bay Buccaneers home games. I politely declined. My degenerative disk disease and my bad hip means that I would have had a difficult time passing their training. Otherwise I might have volunteered even though I am a Pittsburgh Steelers fan.

But back to your post. You state:


The cops I know use plan to use their firearms in situations where it it appropriate and they feel their life or health is under threat. The one time that I remember a local police officer using a Taser involved a female office who was chasing an individual who was leaving a crime scene. (Her doughnut consumption might have been a contributing factor to her lack of ability to run him down.) He was running away, so he presented no danger to her.

Your reply to my comment mentioning the fact that it would take years and years to medically and psychotically test the 40 million to 55 million guns owners...



merely shows that you favor draconian gun control and desire to disarm people in a country you don't even live in. I would point out that there is no way in hell that such a law could ever pass in the United States. If it did, we would not have the resources to test and evaluate all gun owners without ignoring all the many people who have serious mental issues. If you feel that I am wrong, attempt to pass such a law in Canada and watch what happens.

The idea that I proposed is already law and is in fact supported by the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.



Oddly enough your argument:



reminds me of the arguments that some very radical pro gun organizations use to oppose this idea.

Personally I would like to see a system implemented where every citizen who wished to buy a firearm would have to go through the background check and training required of an individual who applies for a concealed weapons permit in Florida. Of course at the end of the process, they would not only be allowed to buy a firearm but would be allowed to carry one concealed.

Of course, that is also an unrealistic idea. First it would have zero chance of becoming law and if it did, the number of people applying for the license would overwhelm the system.

Your reply to my comment mentioning the fact that it would take years and years to medically and psychotically test the 40 million to 55 million guns owners...
It would have been impossible to get a whole lot of things enacted and implemented in a whole lot of places if enough evil-minded people had opposed them, wouldn't it? Again, rallying the opposition around and saying "we won't let you do this" is NOT an argument against any proposal.
merely shows that you favor draconian gun control and desire to disarm people in a country you don't even live in.

and that clearly shows that you have no regard for the truth.

The subject is conditions of licensing of firearms owners.

It is NOT -- get that, NOT -- "disarming" anyone.

What I said was said ABOUT something. It was said about the proposal of psychological testing of would-be gun owners. (I don't happen to think such a proposal is actually feasible either, for various reasons -- but "it would take years and years" is, again, not a rebuttal.)

You know very, very well that I DO NOT "desire to disarm" (i.e. take away all firearms from) people (i.e. people in general) in the US.

YOU KNOW THIS. And yet you state something completely different as it were true, or even as if you believed it were true. Why is this?

A country I don't even live in?

Do you live in Afghanistan?

No?

So why is your country trying to impose ... anything at all ... on the people of Afghanistan? By force, let us recall, not just by posting on the internet.

YOU KNOW that firearms policy in the US has a significant adverse effect on Canada.

YOU KNOW that gun-running from the US to Canada that is ONLY POSSIBLE because of the absence of effective measures to prevent it in the US is the source of a large proportion of crime guns in Canada.

So what's your point?

Your country gets to run things in any number of other countries around the world, but I don't get to express an opinion on the world wide web about policies in your country THAT AFFECT PEOPLE IN MY COUNTRY?

Good luck with that theory.


The idea that I proposed is already law and is in fact supported by the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.

And I care because ... ?

Oddly enough your argument: ... reminds me of the arguments that some very radical pro gun organizations use to oppose this idea.

And I care because ... ?

The right wing uses "freedom of speech" as a weapon against those they want to silence, if not eliminate, too. Shall I abandon my support for that freedom?


Personally I would like to see a system implemented where every citizen who wished to buy a firearm would have to go through the background check and training required of an individual who applies for a concealed weapons permit in Florida.

Which is likely pretty much what the system requires in Canada. Where about 1/4 of households have firearms. (We don't restrict the process to citizens, of course. I doubt that Florida does, either.) And various other countries with relatively widespread firearms ownership and licensing and registration schemes. But somehow the US is exceptional.

It is feasible. If the main reason why it isn't "feasible" is because a bunch of people say "no you can't", that's a completely different kettle of fish and nothing to do with whether such a scheme itself is actually possible to implement.

but I added:



Like it or not that is practical reality.

And you even admitted:

What I said was said ABOUT something. It was said about the proposal of psychological testing of would-be gun owners. (I don't happen to think such a proposal is actually feasible either, for various reasons -- but "it would take years and years" is, again, not a rebuttal.) emphasis added

And you even agreed with me to an extent:

Which is likely pretty much what the system requires in Canada. Where about 1/4 of households have firearms. (We don't restrict the process to citizens, of course. I doubt that Florida does, either.) And various other countries with relatively widespread firearms ownership and licensing and registration schemes. But somehow the US is exceptional.

It's fine to propose ideas that are fantasy. Medical and psychological testing of all gun owners or requiring all gun owners to go through the same process as required to get a concealed weapons permit in Florida are pipe dreams.

Perhaps the solution is to invent a magic wand and a spell to render all firearms useless. That idea has as much of a chance of actually working as the the ideas that we are discussing. As I pointed out, passing another assault weapons ban is impossible in the United States at this time. (Not that it would accomplish any more than the last assault weapons ban did. That one failed totally.)

Then you change the subject from gun control to the United States and its involvement in Afghanistan.

So why is your country trying to impose ... anything at all ... on the people of Afghanistan? By force, let us recall, not just by posting on the internet.

In the first place I don't agree with our current involvement in Afghanistan. It was, and has been, my opinion that since we were attacked by Al-Qaeda, we should have declared war on that organization and their leadership. If a nation harbored Al-Qeada, we would have informed them that we would take what ever steps were necessary to destroy that terrorist organization and if they chose to protect it, we would not be responsible for any damage done to their nation caused by our efforts. Furthermore we would not reimburse that nation for the damage that resulted.

I am sure you will find a lot to criticize in that opinion, but allow me to point out that we have spent almost ten years wasting money in a futile attempt to create a democracy in an area of the world that will never accept it. Had the United States followed my idea, Afghanistan might well have turned over Osama bin Laden. We used tactics similar to what I suggest when we finally killed bin Laden in Pakistan.

And I would have never invaded Iraq. They did not attack us. I can place blame on the recent Bush administration for that foolishness. I remember saying that we had better find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq before we launched our invasion. We didn't.

But that is an entirely different subject then we are discussing.

I have no problems with you expressing your opinions on policies in the United States. If I did, I would simply ignore you.

I do find you interesting to debate with. (You are far more literate, challenging and entertaining than most posters who support draconian gun control.) I would also like to solve or reduce the problem of firearms being smuggled into your nation or into Mexico that originate from our nation. It might help if we had an effective government agency to stop such activity. Unfortunately we seem to have the Keystone Cops running the ATF. It looks like not only were they allowing straw purchasers to buy firearms in mom and pop gun stores knowing that they would end up in Mexico but our government may have helped finance the purchases. The investigation into this scandal is not complete but it does appear that the ATF did allow weapons to "walk" knowing full well that a long blood trail would result. This is, in my opinion, unforgivable.

...federal agencies have a long history of not talking to each other back to the Johnathan Pollard case. Think they'll ever learn?

If you want to impose a gun-free zone (or weapons-in-general-free), you have to establish a secure area beforehand, and that means physically inspecting all entrants for weapons, using metal detectors or whatnot. Anything less is just so much security theater.

And good heavens, there's a lot of security theater around. I took my first trip to Disneyland last May and despite the people checking bags and such, I was taken aside by a security guard (after I'd passed through the bag check) and advised that the Leatherman on my belt wasn't permitted in the park. On the third day; I'd already spent two full days walking around with the thing in full view on my belt, and if I'd been wearing an untucked shirt, I would have achieved the trifecta.

Similarly, at rock concerts and the like, in my experience "security" is mostly checking for water bottles and other items that would allow you to avoid paying the extortionate prices at the concession stands. I've easily smuggled pocket knives and like past those idiots by shoving it down my boot.

And the less said about mall security's skill in noticing CCWs the better.

...is this is a pathetic attempt to still get people to comment on your blog. Unrec for you sir. Funny that you'd link to a blogger thus described...


About Brad Kozak
Brad Kozak is an iconoclastic, curmudgeonly graphic designer/marketer/writer/musician/advertiser/conservative creative guy. In 2007, he completed a gradual transition from a conservative semi-pacifist to a proactive, armed citizen, willing to exercise his Second Amendment rights to protect his family and property. His idea of “gun control” is hitting where he aims.


That is one blogger who has the right idea. You could learn something from him.

that linking back to my "gun control" blog gets the old unrec treatment, but linking to Brad's pro-gun blog gets praise?

Thanks for sharing.

Or what a Canadian leftist thinks of it.

Who, exactly, is this Italian?

I suppose I can understand someone like you not caring what a Canadian thinks about something ... I'm just curious why "leftist" seemed relevant in your thought process ... here at Democratic Underground ...

Why not?

I sometimes comment on a British knife forum concerning their laws.

One poster who posts on DU recognized me. He also supports current most knife laws in the United States.

It's great fun. I haven't been there in a while. I'll have to visit again.

the OP, according to his profile, is either Italian or an expat living in Italy. As you know there are different factions in the Democratic party, or the Republicans for that matter. Each faction have different degrees of left/right or authoritarian/libertarian.

http://www.politicalcompass.org/

is an "expat". Some are simply living abroad while working for a domestic employer that has posted them there, for instance.

Of the poster in question has some basis for referring to that poster as "Italian", I'd like to know what it is.

I'd say I'd then like to know why he repeatedly posts his same comment about it, but I know that part already.

but I'm as American as any of you. And by the sound of some of you, I've got a better vantage point from which to be objective.

you mean living abroad? Nope. I was born and have lived abroad and from what I've seen of your posts you are far from objective on the subject matter at hand. Myopic is the word your are looking for.

fyi

Any chance this will put an end to your attempts at xenophobic ethnocentric bigotry now?