Breaking: Active shooter wearing white lab coat in NYC hospital

[the demon]

Originally Posted by slacker-

How would you know, have you ever planned to commit a mass shooting??? There's no way to know for sure what factors a person in such a state of mind takes into consideration, but common sense tells me that it wouldn't even matter, bc unless they specifically check everyone at the door before entering, there's no way to enforce the rule.

It's the same thing as a "drug-free" zone at say, a bar or a hotel, sure, the rules say "no drugs allowed" but do you really think no one who comes in there has any drugs because of it?

There's no way to know whether everyone else is complying with any sort of ban/restriction rules unless the place has some sort of security system at the door that specifically checks beforehand.

Otherwise, everyone's basically on the honor code.

I don't have to ask a terrorist if he would prefer to carry out his attack in a zone where people carry firearms, or a zone where they don't. That argument doesn't exactly seem sound to me. Kinda like asking a swimmer if he'd rather swim in a sewer, or choose a pool. Don't you think an attacker would most likely consider factors like this!

Granted, an attacker who isn't very intelligent wouldn't. But not all attackers are dumbasses, and i'm pretty sure they take these factors into consideration when they plan attacks. It's common sense stuff.

I guess your argument is, ''Well there's no terrorist here to ask, or no absolute proof that this happens, so we have to assume it never happens and never will'. That to me, sounds irrational. It's pretty much common sense that someone planning an attack, when choosing a location, would take into consideration whether the location might have armed citizens. It's a no brainer.

[slacker-]

Originally Posted by the demon

I don't have to ask a terrorist if he would prefer to carry out his attack in a zone where people carry firearms, or a zone where they don't. That argument doesn't exactly seem sound to me. Kinda like asking a swimmer if he'd rather swim in a sewer, or choose a pool. Don't you think an attacker would most likely consider factors like this!

Granted, an attacker who isn't very intelligent wouldn't. But not all attackers are dumbasses, and i'm pretty sure they take these factors into consideration when they plan attacks. It's common sense stuff.

I guess your argument is, ''Well there's no terrorist here to ask, or no absolute proof that this happens, so we have to assume it never happens and never will'. That to me, sounds irrational. It's pretty much common sense that someone planning an attack, when choosing a location, would take into consideration whether the location might have armed citizens. It's a no brainer.

You clearly didn't read my whole post. b/c that wasn't my argument at all.

but if you wanna make it about defending yourself and your feelings, as opposed to actually reading and comprehending the entire post, be my guest.

[the demon]

Originally Posted by slacker-

You clearly didn't read my whole post. b/c that wasn't my argument at all.

but if you wanna make it about defending yourself and your feelings, as opposed to actually reading and comprehending the entire post, be my guest.

It answered your entire statement perfectly, go back and read it again. I thought for a moment that maybe i misunderstood you, but then i read your statement again and i answered it accordingly. You can't just brush off a statement by claiming someone didn't answer you in a perfect way, or the way you desired.

Look at your first paragraph. I answered that more than anything else. You asked me how would i know, and have i ever planned to commit an attack. In response to me stating that gun free zones most likely are taken into consideration by attackers. I replied.

Here was your first questions

How would you know, have you ever planned to commit a mass shooting??? There's no way to know for sure what factors a person in such a state of mind takes into consideration

It was the main part i disagreed with, so i responded to it. You're trying to deflect it away, but if thats your debating style, have at it my dear. The response above was to my statement regarding attackers deliberately choosing gunfree zones as a tactical advantage. I gave you a proper response.

[the demon]

The part about how effective the laws are in restricting guns in gun free zones, and not being able to check everyone or find out who's armed and who isn't, i agreed with for the most part. So why would i argue with it. My main gripe was your first comment and first question, which was directly relevant to the statement you replied too. Let's not go all over the place with this or play silly mind games. I answered properly, and it couldn't have been more direct. Cheers.

[Aquina1300]

I don't know about this case, but most mass shooters tend to plan their attacks a year or more in advance. There are few of them that just crack, get a gun and start shooting. It's a fallacy that these are spur of the moment attacks.

And yes, there is data that demonstrates that most mass murdering shooters do intend to kill as many people as possible. That means, yes, they are choosing venues that are gun free zones because they know they are less likely to encounter immediate, deadly resistance.

I don't know if that is true in this case.

It's also true that burglars tend to avoid home invasions in areas where home owners are more likely to be armed. Convicted robbers and burglars try to avoid victims that are more likely to be armed.

[slacker-]

Originally Posted by the demon

The part about how effective the laws are in restricting guns in gun free zones, and not being able to check everyone or find out who's armed and who isn't, i agreed with for the most part. So why would i argue with it. My main gripe was your first comment and first question, which was directly relevant to the statement you replied too. Let's not go all over the place with this or play silly mind games. I answered properly, and it couldn't have been more direct. Cheers.

So if you agree with what I said, then why would you say it's ignorant to to assume the gun-free zone thing probably doesn't play much of a factor? Bc the stuff you agree with is the reason I doubt it matters much.

I could see it playing a factor in people who, say, hold up a liquor store they used to work at and know from experience (used to work there, etc) that there are no guns behind the counter. That I could see and it happens all the time, former employees robbing places they know have a safe full of $ and no gun, etc.

But just seeing a sign that it's a "gun-free" zone, without any real first-hand knowledge of the place, I can't see that mattering much for the reasons I stated in my earlier post.

[Aquina1300]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K3Zan4ghL80

Video of the nightclub shooting. Shooting starts at 4:10 or shortly thereafter.

[zero-g]

Originally Posted by Aquina1300

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K3Zan4ghL80

Video of the nightclub shooting. Shooting starts at 4:10 or shortly thereafter.

Pretty sure we can just chalk this one up to ,,,,,,,"ghetto"
Nothing from #blacklivesmatter? funny that.

[slacker-]

Originally Posted by Aquina1300

I don't know about this case, but most mass shooters tend to plan their attacks a year or more in advance. There are few of them that just crack, get a gun and start shooting. It's a fallacy that these are spur of the moment attacks.

And yes, there is data that demonstrates that most mass murdering shooters do intend to kill as many people as possible. That means, yes, they are choosing venues that are gun free zones because they know they are less likely to encounter immediate, deadly resistance.

I don't know if that is true in this case.

It's also true that burglars tend to avoid home invasions in areas where home owners are more likely to be armed. Convicted robbers and burglars try to avoid victims that are more likely to be armed.

Well no shit, my point is that a statement or sign that a place is gun-free doesn't necessarily mean it's actually gun-free, as I'm sure the mass shooter knows since they're bringing a gun into a gun-free zone! It takes a certain amount of personal familiarity with a place to really have a sense of that and even then, you may not know, depending.

And it doesn't surprise me that most of these people have been thinking about and planning their attacks for over a year. I imagine it would take a long time to psych yourself into actually going through with it.

[Aquina1300]

Originally Posted by slacker-

Well no shit, my point is that a statement or sign that a place is gun-free doesn't necessarily mean it's actually gun-free, as I'm sure the mass shooter knows since they're bringing a gun into a gun-free zone! It takes a certain amount of personal familiarity with a place to really have a sense of that and even then, you may not know, depending.

And it doesn't surprise me that most of these people have been thinking about and planning their attacks for over a year. I imagine it would take a long time to psych yourself into actually going through with it.

It's not so much over a year of planning to psych themselves up as much as it becomes an obsession they fantasize about. They blame all their problems on specific other people, places or institutions. Their rage and anger builds and they sincerely believe that their shooting will bring their grievances to light and cause other people to side with them. They think they are "fighting back"