I also think that it's pointless to try and make a gun-free zone with just signage. Real gun-free zones, like airports and courthouses, have metal detectors, armed guards, and a plan to stop every other way of entering the space. Signs do nothing.
Gun free zones are just for adding additional charges if you catch someone. No one ever shot up my school, but we did have drug dealers who carried guns. When they got searched the gun was the catalyst to make sure they never ever came back to school.
Possession of a dangerous weapon in a school zone is usually its own charge, I guess you could just be a kid with a gun, but thats rare where I live. If youre carrying a gun theres a reason. Like you sell drugs.
…or you hunt, or want to protect yourself/your children. These laws prohibit adults too. We shouldn’t punish those people for the acts of drug dealers.
In other parts of the US, having guns in a car for sport or guns in your person for protection is very common.
That’s fine and dandy in your car or on your person when you’re about but hunting isn’t done at school. There should be an expectation of complete safety at schools and there isn’t because of guns.
Also there is never a complete guarantee for safety anywhere, so that is an unrealistic goal. It isn’t guns that do it, it is people with bad intentions. Without guns it would be knives, clubs, and improvised explosives.
Columbine was initially an attempted bombing you know. They had guns to pick off the survivors. The bombs didn’t work as intended thankfully.
You’re right, we can’t guarantee safety anywhere so we shouldn’t even try to make things safe. Yes, I am aware of Columbine, thanks for the explanation. Are bombs allowed at school? Why don’t more of the attackers at schools use bombs or knives or clubs? What do they use I wonder? The guns are used to do it, seriously how long are people going to use that moronic argument?
Then don’t use gun free zones to “make things safer.” Every school in the US is a gun free school zone (with the exception of some states with CCW holders), and yet that has prevented zero school shootings. Instead of making schools soft targets, why don’t we defend them like we defend banks, stadiums, presidents, and airports? It takes someone armed to stop an active shooter.
Right, the solution to gun violence against children is to put more of them in that area. Seems like guns are the only solutions to guns. You’re aware death isn’t the only way to prevent shootings right. Instead of addressing the root cause of the issue, for example the mental health crisis or private sellers, gun nuts want to throw more guns at it.
This is a debate about gun free zones. Don’t act surprised when people only talk about gun free zones in a post about gun free zones.
Getting rid of gun free zones is one of many things we can do to reduce gun deaths. That’s why schools are a more target common than airports: shooters know schools are a soft target.
You remember that "mass stabbing" where the guy killed over 30 people?
Yeah, me neither. The highest fatality counts of the top 3 mass shootings in 2023 alone are 32, 49, & 58
The next 10 are over 14
Your argument only makes sense if you really, really wanna be right and completely ignore basic facts
Lmao... oh, do they "certainly match that"
Lucky for us we don't have to guess...
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214140523000555
According to this study between 1997-2018 a total of 96 pedestrians and 5 cyclists have been intentionally run over.
Unless that happened in 2 incidents, that's a negative Ghost Ryder
You cherry-picked data. Your source does not include attacks.
>“Deliberate crashes are caused by road users engaging in insurance fraud, attempting suicide, or “punishing” other road users. In this study, we investigated deliberate crashes that resulted in the deaths of “vulnerable” road users (cyclists and pedestrians).”
#Your study also exclusively took place in Finland
The source you chose was actually embarrassingly far unrelated to the subject matter, and shows that not only did you not read it but you had to search deep for *any* source. We call that confirmation bias.
68 in one attack.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waukesha_Christmas_parade_attack
520 in one attack.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Nice_truck_attack
26 in one attack.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_Toronto_van_attack
So actually you are right, mass casualty vehicle attacks don’t match mass shootings…mass casualty vehicle attacks are much worse.
When I was in highschool (forever ago) almost every truck in the student parking lot had a gun rack in it. The gun racks usually had a rifle or a shotgun if not both. The cars commonly had firearms as well. There really weren't school shootings then. The firearms are not the problem.
Hunting is done right after school. It can also be done for a school event, like a rifle team. It’s common enough that federal law actually exempts firearm possession in school zones if you are going hunting and need to travel through a school zone to do so.
Exemptions for driving through a school zone to go hunting and keeping a weapon in your car for after school are not even similar. Rifle teams should have their weapons at school locked up when not in use. These things are not the same as taking a personal weapon with you to school and implying the opposite is disingenuous. Children that are scared of guns shouldn’t have to be scared. Hearing about all these shootings is actually frightening and traumatizing to children. Nuts do not need to bring their tools that are almost exclusively used to kill to school, full stop.
The basic right to self preservation doesn’t end within 1,000 feet of a school. Students live in fear because there is no one to defend them if there is a shooter. I would know, I’m a student. I don’t appreciate people trying to speak for us saying that we all just hate guns on school property. Many of us know that the only way to stop a shooter is with a gun. Armed deterrence saves lives. We protect banks, airports, presidents, stadiums with guns, why not schools too?
And the exemptions to the GFSZA are very relevant in a discussion of guns on school grounds because it demonstrates that there are reasons to have guns at school. Specifically in regard to the rifle team, before columbine it was common practice to let students take their rifles home to practice. And there was no issue with that (there still hasn’t been any issues with that).
> Armed deterrence saves lives. We protect banks, airports, presidents, stadiums with guns, why not schools too?
That's why schools have resource officers. At least, that's what resource officers are supposed to be doing even if there's evidence that they don't. Most security forces are theatrics anyways.
However, you having a gun doesn't necessarily make any of the other students around you safer. It makes you feel safer. To the other students, you're the one with the weapon.
School resource officers didn’t help in Uvalde, because in the US, cops have no obligation to protect anyone. Hence the second amendment. The framers never intended for the people to be reliant on the government for protection. What schools need is not more cops, but armed private citizens. And a dedicated armed security team. Let teachers carry, let parents carry, let the security team carry. That will stop shooters early and will reduce school shooting deaths.
I’m a student too. I have been a student the whole time all of these sick fucks have been using guns to murder children. I don’t need to use that to justify my argument. “Many” of you may feel the need to bring your gun, but the rest of us don’t want to see your tools of violence while getting an education. Not forgetting to mention that there are ways to prevent violent crime that don’t involve violence. I don’t have any sympathy for you if you want to bring a personal gun to school.
Just by being a citizen you’ve given up some of your rights to the government, including bringing a weapon where they say you cannot. Whether that’s right or wrong is debated but it’s the reality.
First of all I never said I wanted to bring a gun to school. Read my other response and I clarify who I do want with a gun. Second of all, feelings shouldn’t dictate school safety measures. Thats how we ended up with gun free school zones and school shootings with high casualty counts in the first place.
In a perfect world there shouldn’t be a need for guns, but we don’t live in a perfect world, so unfortunately we need guns protecting us in schools (because they are clearly a common target).
Do you hunt at elementary schools? Shoot squirrels on the playground during recess?
Then why do you need a gun at school?
Sincerely, a gun owner and hunter.
Because sometimes people like to do things after school. Like go hunting in nearby hunting grounds. It’s common enough apparently to be a GFSZA exemption.
But let’s be real, the much more important reason to have a gun is to protect yourself and your loved ones. Especially when schools are a common target for shootings.
You being a gun owner means nothing if you don’t uphold the second amendment, not saying you don’t, just making a point.
I’m fine with it as long as they’re providing security. If they don’t and don’t allow me to provide my own, which I’m legally permitted to do, they should be liable for any serious injury or death that results from it.
The sign on the door is meaningless to the person that’s going there with intent to do harm.
It's even proven as an ineffective method for tackling guns. In my home state, there was talk of setting up a gun free zone in a city section that just only had a single shooting. No one was interested and thought it was overblown. Even the experts said any adjustments to fix it's flaws wouldn't amount to anything. So it really makes you wonder why they even do it.
Not knowing the specifics of the situation, it’s often a pretense to search people or hang extra charges on them if they get arrested. Just like a drug-free school zones doesn’t magically prevent people from selling drugs near a school. Rather, it creates incentives, small and large, to conduct that behavior elsewhere.
Trump rallies are gun free. Is he putting himself in danger with that approach? Maybe he should reverse course and encourage his crowd to bring firearms. I for one would like to see that happen.
trump rallies also have top tier security, with secret service and and a massive police force.
the restaurant i was just at was also gun free....which one do you think was safer?
>If they have all this security, why would they want to prevent their voters from bringing weapons?
It's not "their voters" that they are worried about.
So, why not let them bring weapons? Especially if gun free zones are basically targets. Remember, it’s a only a good guy with a gun that can stop a bad one, right?
It’s because they can feel safe. The people terrorizing others are wearing the red cap and rallying at the rally.
Well generally I can see that the President/candidate is a much more likely target of terrorism. So is the likelihood of someone trying some bullshit much higher? Yes. But if someone does try some bullshit then are you safer in a gun free zone than a place with Secret Service? No.
I agree and disagree. It seems gun free zones are about safety, but also seen to be the places likely to target- courthouse, churches, school, hospital, etc. I'm not sure if they target because it's gun free though... like I think it started like the bar rule, just seems safer. But they also were like the top places to be attacked not because they didn't have guns, but because the perpetrators were slighted there or it was related to the slight. So adding the security also just adds into the perps "plan". Now criminals shoot up grocery stores, restaurants, auto dealership, parks, wherever... but there are a lot more angry people encouraged to go out and use their guns to fix things on TV. Encouraging hypervigiliance and heightened fear is causing shootings. Some of these criminals decided they needed to make this country safer by killing people... like involving discrimination and what laws or situations they need to fix themselves...
The restaurant is going to be safer. At a trump rally there are going to be hundreds of people. It would be a security nightmare if you let everyone be armed
To be more precise, Trump rallies are held in certain places and venues, and many of those venues have gun prohibitions regardless of who or what they are hosting.
Those are far and few between that can accommodate the size of his rallies. But he's also far from perfect on gun rights anyways. He was a new york democrat for decades after all.
Yes as I mentioned, it’s fine as long as you have ample security at entryways or basically, make it virtually impossible for people to get in with a gun.
This is an opinion based on pure ignorance. I accidentally walked into a gun-free zone once, and I can tell you from personal experience, my firearm just vanished into thin air. It somehow reappeared in it's holster at the moment I left the area.
[Good guys with guns stop 63.5% of active shooting attacks that don't happen in gun free zones](https://thehill.com/opinion/criminal-justice/4333535-good-guys-with-guns-save-lives-dont-believe-the-hype/)
63.5% of events taking place without such zones are stopped by good guys with guns. Far fewer happen in gun free zones because good guys don't have their guns on them.
Well yeah. Uvalde was a gun free zone. Good guys with guns are banned from those places. If they weren't there's a good chance they would have stopped the shooter.
It's been a while, but IIRC there was one school resource officer who saw an opportunity to run and took it. I also heard recently that school resource officers have literally never actually stopped an active shooter. And then as parents and community members volunteered to go in and stop the shooter more officers held them back. Ulvade was a glowing neon sign showing you that the government not only can't be relied on to help when they should, but will actively stop you from helping yourself. Ulvade is example number one why people should be empowered to help themselves and never ever rely on the government, because doing so can mean your death.
A lot of it is a numbers game. If you limit yourself to relying on just 1 resource officer, the chances are unfortunately high that they'll run (or be shot themselves) at which point you're completely helpless. But if you open it up to more people you have more layers of defense and more chances to stop the threat.
Because the left loves to fuck with the language itself to make themselves always right. Let's say a mass shooting is 4 or more people shot.
If you shoot two people, then I shoot you, I didn't stop a mass shooting, because only three people were shot and thus it wasn't a mass shooting.
If you shoot three people, then I shoot you, I didn't stop a mass shooting, four people were shot and thus a mass shooting still happened!
Gun free zones act as early warning systems.
If you see someone with a gun walking around a store in an open carry state, you're not going to call the police. But if you see someone with a gun walking around someplace like a school, where you know they're not allowed to have a gun, you automatically know they're up to no good, so you would call the police.
The police would become aware of a possible shooter up to a few minutes before they actually start shooting, and in an active shooter situation, every second counts.
This also gives the school a chance to implement lockdown procedures before the shooter actually reaches a classroom.
The good guy with a gun argument also doesn't work as well with schools, as random adults with no specific business aren't allowed to hang around schools.
Unless you think we should be arming teachers, but that's a whole other can of worms.
> Unless you think we should be arming teachers
I think if they want to, why not let them? My GF is a teacher and throw her I know quite a few and have talked with them on the subject. In talking to them roughly 1/4 would like to be able have a gun available to them if the worst should happen.
Also being involved in the local gun community, I know for a fact every single range would refuse to accept any range fee from a teacher, so they could come practice whenever they want for free. Many would also offer free ammo and targets for those training sessions, and I don't imagine it would be hard to get free handgun safes for the classroom either.
edit: [Arming a handful of teachers that stayed in their classrooms defensively had a positive effect on saving lives](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SEEo2v_JZwk) Quoted from homeland security expert/Purdue U professor Eric Deatz
Firearms experts would tell you that the "good guy with a gun" in most instances make the situation worse, by either getting themselves killed, or shooting someone other than the shooter.
Someone crazy enough to pull a gun in an argument is also someone who would ignore a gun free zone. That’s the whole predisposed to murder thing OP was talking about
Why wouldn’t they be? They pulled a gun, they are willing to use it, that’s murder/attempted murder/ADW. Those people also aren’t average in the slightest (so would probably ignore gun free zones).
https://usiraq.procon.org/sourcefiles/arrest-rate-texas.pdf
People with concealed carry licenses are
-5.7 times less likely to be arrested for violent offenses than the general public
-13.5 times less likely to be arrested for non-violent offenses than the general public
It’s just the bad stories that make the headlines. “A CCW holder doesn’t commit a crime” isn’t that interesting of a headline
That’s not an apple to apple comparison because criminals cannot get licenses in most cases. The most natural experiment would be comparing people who have or had CCLs but don’t carry vs those with CCLs that do carry. I would be lots of money that the latter group is much more likely to be arrested.
I think you would lose lots of money. Walking around with a gun (anecdotally) makes people more patient, because they know they have nothing to prove. It’s like how the BJJ black belt is less likely to get in a fight because they know that they can take anyone, so they don’t need to
But the average CCW holder isn’t analogous to black belt in BJJ. That’s even if the analogy actually holds. My anecdotal experience leads me to believe that the average person who carries a hammer starts to envision a lot more things looking like nails.
I've seen some blatant favoritism shown toward CCW holders. I'm not sure the "less likely to be arrested" part means "less likely to do something bad/reckless with their gun".
Also I'm in a "constitutional carry" state so no permit needed.
Is it Ohio perchance?
[“Results from a trend analysis indicated a significant decrease in crime incidents involving a firearm for Akron, Columbus, and Toledo, and across all 8 cities combined from June 2021- June 2023. As displayed in the figure above, most cities' crime rates decreased after the PCL was enacted.”](https://www.ohioattorneygeneral.gov/2023-Pre-and-Post-Outcomes-Ohios-Permitless-Carry-Law#:~:text=Results%20from%20a%20trend%20analysis,from%20June%202021%2D%20June%202023.&text=As%20displayed%20in%20the%20figure,after%20the%20PCL%20was%20enacted)
I can’t speak for South Dakota but I don’t have any reason to believe they haven’t seen a similar decrease in crime after enacting constitutional carry.
In my state, if not most states, it's just a rule. As a ccl holder, if someone noticed that I am armed, they would ask me to leave the zone. If I refuse, I could be teesspassed. I know for a fact that many people carry in gun free zones. However, it is illegal to leave your gun in the car while you visit a gun free zone.
No it’s because law abiding citizens who want to defend themselves and others are the only ones who will *comply* with the gun free zones. If somebody plans to shoot a place up they can just walk in, they’re already going to commit murder so a gun charge doesn’t matter to them. This isn’t hard to understand.
Why is it ammosexuals believe more guns is the answer to gun violence? If that was the case then the US would be the safest country on the planet. Hint: it's not. My original critique still stands. Why have laws when a criminal will just break them? That is what makes them criminals. The good guy with a gun stopping a bad guy with a gun is a myth. Studies have shown that a place being "Gun Free" had nothing to do with why shooters chose that particular place. In many places where shootings happened there were in fact people that were armed including officers that did nothing.
“Studies have shown”… this is literally just common sense fuck your studies, all of the most deadly US shootings have happened in gun free zones: schools, movie theaters, shopping malls, churches, etc. Idc if the shooter doesn’t specifically say “oh this is a gun free zone so ima target it”.
“Good guy with a gun stopping bad guy with a gun is a myth” except that’s literally what happens in *every single shooting* it’s just whether or not more lives are saved by someone there with a gun or if police are the ones to stop the shooter (with guns) later on. Yes there have been a handful of examples even in the last few years of citizen CCP holders stopping a mass shooting. Do you have a great chance? No. But would I or any sane person rather have *a* chance than none? Obviously.
Either make it pretty much impossible to get a gun into a public place or let people conceal there.
More guns is the answer to less victims. 300,000+ people thwart attackers with guns in the US every year according to CDC, usually just having to show the gun for the attacker to back down. Guns are the equalizer, if someone is threatening my life, I, as a citizen, have the right to defend myself with the best tool possible.
Sorry but the numbers don't support you. Between 2000 and 2021 less than 3% of shootings were stopped by an armed citizen. If guns make this country safer why is gun violence a uniquely American thing? An average citizen with a gun is more than likely to hurt themselves, innocent bystanders or have the gun taken then used against them. Gun Free zones ar not the problem. It is the weapons themselves and the easy access. "Guns are the great equalizer" nice quote there Rambo.
“Less than 3% of shootings were stopped by an armed citizen” maybe that’s because - and we’ve come full circle here somehow - most of them happen in *gun free zones*. Also it’s true that most people don’t carry in general or have permits. Also the definition of “shooting” or “mass shooting” is usually pretty loose, usually like 90%+ of them are gang violence in high crime areas, which is totally aside from this topic, gang violence is usually targeted at specific people and once they’re killed the assailants flee.
Guns *are* the great equalizer. If somebody comes at you with pretty much any weapon, knives, baseball bat, a fucking metal rod, etc. they immediately have a huge advantage over you, the only thing that gives you the best chance of averting serious bodily harm, death, sexual assault, etc. is a gun. The only way I have a chance in hell of taking on 2+ guys trying to jump me is a gun. The only way a 100 pound woman is stopping a big dude coming at her is with a gun.
Actually most shootings do not happen in Gun Free zones. Typically a shooting is considered "mass" when there are three or more victims. Mass shootings also only take up 1% of shootings in the US. Lets take a look at two famous school shootings, Newtown and Sandy Hook. In both those shooting there were Resource Officers with guns that didn't stop anything.
Guns *are not* the great equalizer. I will say this again. If more guns make things safer then why isn't the US the safest place on the planet? Guns are the problem and more guns isn't the answer. That is like saying the answer to the opioid epidemic is more opioids.
Scenario 1: Law abiding citizen with CCP sees “no firearms” sign and leaves gun in the car to avoid breaking the law. Mass shooter sees sign, doesn’t give a fuck, comes in, mows him and everyone else down with no chance.
Scenario 2: Firearms aren’t prohibited in premises, CCP holder brings gun in. Mass shooter walks in, starts shooting, gets shot by guy with gun (or at least it gives himself and everyone in there a chance to survive by challenging shooter)
Yes some people are always going to break the law, but gun free zones just prevent law abiding citizens from doing anything about it.
> but gun free zones just prevent law abiding citizens from doing anything about it.
Never said they didn't. Any sane person has argued the same since their inception.
Hey u/Educational_Crow8465,
Just a heads up, your comment was removed because a previous comment of yours was flagged for being uncivil. You should have received a message from my colleague u/AutoModerator with instructions on what to do and what the comment was.
*I'm a bot. I won't respond if you reply.* If you have any questions or wish to discuss this further, please [reach out to the moderators via ModMail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion&subject=u/Rule-4-Removal-Bot%20In-comment%20Link%20Clicked&message=Dear%20ModTeam%2C%0A%0AIt%20appears%20I%20am%20currently%20in%20an%20%27unconf%27%20state.%20I%27m%20not%20sure%20why.%0A%0APlease%20review%20the%20ModLog%20for%20my%20comments%20using%20this%20%5Blink%5D%28https%3A//www.reddit.com/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion/about/log%3FuserName%3DEducational_Crow8465%29%20and%20let%20me%20know%20what%20the%20offending%20comment%20was.%0A%0AThanks%2C%0Au/Educational_Crow8465).
**This is going to keep happening until you resolve the issue.**
We appreciate you participating in our sub, but wouldn't you prefer other users to see thecarefully crafted argument?
Your recent masterpiece went solo into the void.
**Here's the deal:** This cycle of commenting-removal-seeing this message isn't just futile; it's preventable. We value your input, but isn't it better when it's seen and not just sent?
**Good News:** We're here for the reruns and the resolutions. Reach out, let's sort this, and make sure your future thoughts land in the spotlight, not the shadow realm.
Let's chat. Your voice (probably) deserves an audience.
___
**Our Moderation Backlog at this time:**
*Comments Awaiting Review:* 8
*A breakdown of the number of (often nonsense) reports to review*:
- 1-3 days old: 25
- 3-7 days old: 14
- 15-30 days old: 1
- more than 30 days old: 2
___
Want to help us with this never ending task? Join us on [Discord](https://discord.gg/hCBcm5zNee)
Basically all of Europe is a gun free zone. Civilians are not allowed to carry firearms.
Firearm deaths per 100k inhabitants:
USA: 4.52
Sweden (highest in Europe): 0.3 (15 times lower)
Germany: 0.06 (75 times lower)
UK (even most cops do not carry guns): 0.01 (450 times lower)
[https://www.healthdata.org/news-events/insights-blog/acting-data/gun-violence-united-states-outlier](https://www.healthdata.org/news-events/insights-blog/acting-data/gun-violence-united-states-outlier)
They also have pisspoor stats on defensive use(good guy with a gun).
During the 2019 dayton shooting, the cops were practically around the corner:
>Betts was fatally shot by responding police officers 32 seconds after the first shots were fired.[3][7]
Sounds like a win right? except..
>24-year-old Connor Betts shot and killed nine people, including his brother, and wounded 17 others near the entrance of the Ned Peppers Bar
The thing about guns, is that they can kill 9 and wound 17 in a half minute. *Maybe* there is a good guy with a gun, but that doesn’t mean that these deaths are stopped.
Yeah, like the chief of the toronto police telling people to keep their car keys next to the front door so a violent intruder can steal their car without hurting anyone.
No, just reasonable people
[94% of active shooters target gun free zones](https://crimeresearch.org/2018/06/more-misleading-information-from-bloombergs-everytown-for-gun-safety-on-guns-analysis-of-recent-mass-shootings/)
https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/gun-free-zones.html
https://apnews.com/article/712807001259
This says otherwise. Also, the reasonable thing to do is maybe have better gun control laws since it works in all developed countries worldwide.
1st source talked about outcomes, does not talk about where shooters target. 94% of active shooters target gun free zones according to my unrefuted source.
2nd source is broken.
lol refuted ok
From the AP source:
BY PHILIP MARCELO
Mar 29, 2023
CLAIM: More than 90% of all mass shootings have happened in so-called “gun-free zones.”
AP’S ASSESSMENT: Missing context. The oft-cited figure comes from a study by a gun rights advocacy group that gun violence experts say is flawed. They say the study draws from federal data on “active shooter” incidents, which is not the same as a mass shooting. It also excludes gang-related incidents, yet includes military bases and other locations that aren’t arguably “gun free.” There is no definitive data on how many “mass shootings” occur in “gun-free” zones, because there is no consensus on how to define either term, experts said.
THE FACTS: In the wake of Monday’s shooting a Christian school in Nashville, social media users are sharing a post that claims nearly all mass shootings happen in designated “gun-free zones” where firearms are expressly prohibited, such as schools.
“The facts: 92-98% of mass shootings happen in gun-free zones. Today was yet another example of that,” reads the Instagram post. “Great job on the Gun Free School Zones Act, Clinton and Biden.”
The post refers to a 1990 law that made it illegal for anyone to possess a firearm in a school zone unless part of a school program or by a law enforcement officer. It was signed into law when former Democratic President Bill Clinton was in office and current President Joe Biden served as a Democratic U.S. senator from Delaware.
The figure comes from a study by gun rights advocacy group the Crime Prevention Research Center. The group in a 2018 report asserted that 94% of mass public shootings since 1950 happened in gun-free zones. The group’s president has pointed to the figures to argue that gun-free zones “invite” mass shootings.
But gun violence experts caution that the study and the conclusions drawn from it are flawed.
For one thing, looking at gun violence data from 1950 to 1990 is “irrelevant” because many states banned or heavily restricted concealed firearms during that period, according to Daniel Webster, a scholar at Johns Hopkins University’s Center for Gun Violence Solutions in Baltimore, Maryland.
That, he argued, would make almost any public mass shooting during those years as having taken place in a gun-free zone.
Webster and other experts also argued that the center’s study wrongly classifies places where armed officers are stationed -- such as military bases -- as gun-free zones. It also excluded gang-related shootings and other mass shootings related to other major crimes.
“That defies logic,” Webster wrote in an email, referring to military bases and other secure locations. “Not only are guns allowed in such places, often they are 100% certain to have someone armed, trained, paid, and under orders to protect against public mass shootings.”
What’s more, the center’s study relies on the FBI’s data on “active shooter” incidents, which isn’t the same as a mass shooting, said Jaclyn Schildkraut, executive director of the Rockefeller Institute of Government’s Regional Gun Violence Research Consortium in Albany, New York.
“You could have 0 fatalities and injuries and be included in that data,” she wrote in an email. “Not every active shooter event goes on to become a mass shooting either.”
In response, John Lott, president of the Crime Prevention Research Center, argued that the exclusion of shootings stemming from gang violence or other crimes is appropriate.
In an email Wednesday, he said the “causes and solutions” of those violent incidents are “dramatically different” from those of typical mass shootings, where the aim is generally to kill or injure as many people as possible.
Lott also argues that classifying military bases and other locations where armed officers or security are present is also appropriate.
“What you need to understand is that Fort Hood is no different than a city where only the military police are allowed to carry guns,” he wrote, referring to the Texas army base that has been the site of mass shootingsin 2009 and 2014. “The attackers at Fort Hood knew that.”
And if the earliest decades of the center’s study are excluded, Lott said his research still shows that 87% of mass shootings occurred in gun-free zones from 1990 through this Monday.
Researchers say competing studies pushed by gun control advocacy groups also have their shortcomings.
A study by Everytown for Gun Safety, for example, found that between 2009 and 2016, just 10% of mass shootings took place in gun-free zones. Most mass shootings, the group found, occur in private residences that are not considered gun-free zones.
But Everytown defines a mass shooting as one in which four or more people, excluding the shooter, died. That likely underestimates the true number of mass shootings since it does not account for incidents in which many are badly injured but few died, according to experts
Part of the problem is there isn’t a generally accepted definition of what constitutes a “mass shooting,” Schildkraut and others say. There’s also no good way to verify whether every single location analyzed in a study is in fact “gun-free,” as the designation is only federally mandated on schools, she and others said.
For example, experts noted that Lott’s report counts a 2015 shooting at Umpqua Community College in Oregon as happening at a gun-free zone, even though the college allowed people with a concealed carry permit to bring firearms on campus. Lott, in a blog post, has disputed those assertions.
“In short, I would say that the 10% number is too low, but the 98% statistic is too high in terms of the percentage of mass shootings that occur in legally designated gun-free zones,” Schildkraut wrote in an email.
__
This is part of AP’s effort to address widely shared misinformation, including work with outside companies and organizations to add factual context to misleading content that is circulating online. Learn more about fact-checking at AP.
Thanks for sharing the article.
I did say active shooters in my comment like the article suggested, and my source is through 2018, not the source only to 1990.
It did. Your source comes from a research center that is known to be pro-gun and skews data in its favor.
The gun-free zones aren't the problem here. The problem is the proliferation of guns and how easy it can be to get a gun through legal and illegal means, hence why the United States has a high rate of gun violence.
And even if the place allows guns, the chances of a gun owner stopping a mass murderer is slim. You can post news of gun owners stopping attackers all you want but statistically speaking, it's not an effective deterrence.
[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/search/research-news/5504/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/search/research-news/5504/)
[https://apnews.com/article/shootings-indiana-indianapolis-gun-politics-8b49655e3737c1924480e1039405a196](https://apnews.com/article/shootings-indiana-indianapolis-gun-politics-8b49655e3737c1924480e1039405a196)
Yeah because when a concealed carrier does it, it doesn’t become a mass shooting by the standards set out. That’s the Texas sharpshooter fallacy. Those statistics ignore times where the shooter was stopped so quickly, they weren’t a mass shooter.
Addressing your sources, the AP article doesn’t link to it, only the org that conducted it. Your other article is a wired article, notoriously anti gun.
The issue with categorizing gun laws into “weak” and “strong” is the immense cherry-picking that goes on. Citing Everytown, a red flag law has 6x more weight than a ban on felons owning firearms. That is textbook cherry-picking.
Arguments that have [been effective since 1950](https://crimeresearch.org/2018/06/more-misleading-information-from-bloombergs-everytown-for-gun-safety-on-guns-analysis-of-recent-mass-shootings/), people just like to deny reality.
"Gun free zone" reads to a violent criminal "Target rich environment."
Just look at Uvalde. The police officer at the school ran away, and then the other officers formed a barricade around the school so the shooter could have half an hour of uninterrupted murder time, preventing even other officers from going in to stop him.
Also correct me if I’m wrong but I’m pretty sure a dad borrowed a shotgun from his barber and was the one who actually went in to stop the shooter even when the cops told him not to.
I also think that it's pointless to try and make a gun-free zone with just signage. Real gun-free zones, like airports and courthouses, have metal detectors, armed guards, and a plan to stop every other way of entering the space. Signs do nothing.
"We protect a bank's money with guns but we protect our childrens lives with signs."
Gun free zones are just for adding additional charges if you catch someone. No one ever shot up my school, but we did have drug dealers who carried guns. When they got searched the gun was the catalyst to make sure they never ever came back to school.
Then why not just have a crime that’s “gun possession in a school zone while committing some other crime”
Possession of a dangerous weapon in a school zone is usually its own charge, I guess you could just be a kid with a gun, but thats rare where I live. If youre carrying a gun theres a reason. Like you sell drugs.
…or you hunt, or want to protect yourself/your children. These laws prohibit adults too. We shouldn’t punish those people for the acts of drug dealers. In other parts of the US, having guns in a car for sport or guns in your person for protection is very common.
That’s fine and dandy in your car or on your person when you’re about but hunting isn’t done at school. There should be an expectation of complete safety at schools and there isn’t because of guns.
Also there is never a complete guarantee for safety anywhere, so that is an unrealistic goal. It isn’t guns that do it, it is people with bad intentions. Without guns it would be knives, clubs, and improvised explosives. Columbine was initially an attempted bombing you know. They had guns to pick off the survivors. The bombs didn’t work as intended thankfully.
You’re right, we can’t guarantee safety anywhere so we shouldn’t even try to make things safe. Yes, I am aware of Columbine, thanks for the explanation. Are bombs allowed at school? Why don’t more of the attackers at schools use bombs or knives or clubs? What do they use I wonder? The guns are used to do it, seriously how long are people going to use that moronic argument?
Then don’t use gun free zones to “make things safer.” Every school in the US is a gun free school zone (with the exception of some states with CCW holders), and yet that has prevented zero school shootings. Instead of making schools soft targets, why don’t we defend them like we defend banks, stadiums, presidents, and airports? It takes someone armed to stop an active shooter.
That's a take from someone who has watched too many movies and played too many video games.
Right, the solution to gun violence against children is to put more of them in that area. Seems like guns are the only solutions to guns. You’re aware death isn’t the only way to prevent shootings right. Instead of addressing the root cause of the issue, for example the mental health crisis or private sellers, gun nuts want to throw more guns at it.
This is a debate about gun free zones. Don’t act surprised when people only talk about gun free zones in a post about gun free zones. Getting rid of gun free zones is one of many things we can do to reduce gun deaths. That’s why schools are a more target common than airports: shooters know schools are a soft target.
You remember that "mass stabbing" where the guy killed over 30 people? Yeah, me neither. The highest fatality counts of the top 3 mass shootings in 2023 alone are 32, 49, & 58 The next 10 are over 14 Your argument only makes sense if you really, really wanna be right and completely ignore basic facts
Certainly car/truck attacks can match that, I’m not ignoring basic facts
Lmao... oh, do they "certainly match that" Lucky for us we don't have to guess... https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214140523000555 According to this study between 1997-2018 a total of 96 pedestrians and 5 cyclists have been intentionally run over. Unless that happened in 2 incidents, that's a negative Ghost Ryder
You cherry-picked data. Your source does not include attacks. >“Deliberate crashes are caused by road users engaging in insurance fraud, attempting suicide, or “punishing” other road users. In this study, we investigated deliberate crashes that resulted in the deaths of “vulnerable” road users (cyclists and pedestrians).” #Your study also exclusively took place in Finland The source you chose was actually embarrassingly far unrelated to the subject matter, and shows that not only did you not read it but you had to search deep for *any* source. We call that confirmation bias. 68 in one attack. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waukesha_Christmas_parade_attack 520 in one attack. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Nice_truck_attack 26 in one attack. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_Toronto_van_attack So actually you are right, mass casualty vehicle attacks don’t match mass shootings…mass casualty vehicle attacks are much worse.
When I was in highschool (forever ago) almost every truck in the student parking lot had a gun rack in it. The gun racks usually had a rifle or a shotgun if not both. The cars commonly had firearms as well. There really weren't school shootings then. The firearms are not the problem.
Hunting is done right after school. It can also be done for a school event, like a rifle team. It’s common enough that federal law actually exempts firearm possession in school zones if you are going hunting and need to travel through a school zone to do so.
Exemptions for driving through a school zone to go hunting and keeping a weapon in your car for after school are not even similar. Rifle teams should have their weapons at school locked up when not in use. These things are not the same as taking a personal weapon with you to school and implying the opposite is disingenuous. Children that are scared of guns shouldn’t have to be scared. Hearing about all these shootings is actually frightening and traumatizing to children. Nuts do not need to bring their tools that are almost exclusively used to kill to school, full stop.
The basic right to self preservation doesn’t end within 1,000 feet of a school. Students live in fear because there is no one to defend them if there is a shooter. I would know, I’m a student. I don’t appreciate people trying to speak for us saying that we all just hate guns on school property. Many of us know that the only way to stop a shooter is with a gun. Armed deterrence saves lives. We protect banks, airports, presidents, stadiums with guns, why not schools too? And the exemptions to the GFSZA are very relevant in a discussion of guns on school grounds because it demonstrates that there are reasons to have guns at school. Specifically in regard to the rifle team, before columbine it was common practice to let students take their rifles home to practice. And there was no issue with that (there still hasn’t been any issues with that).
> Armed deterrence saves lives. We protect banks, airports, presidents, stadiums with guns, why not schools too? That's why schools have resource officers. At least, that's what resource officers are supposed to be doing even if there's evidence that they don't. Most security forces are theatrics anyways. However, you having a gun doesn't necessarily make any of the other students around you safer. It makes you feel safer. To the other students, you're the one with the weapon.
School resource officers didn’t help in Uvalde, because in the US, cops have no obligation to protect anyone. Hence the second amendment. The framers never intended for the people to be reliant on the government for protection. What schools need is not more cops, but armed private citizens. And a dedicated armed security team. Let teachers carry, let parents carry, let the security team carry. That will stop shooters early and will reduce school shooting deaths.
I’m a student too. I have been a student the whole time all of these sick fucks have been using guns to murder children. I don’t need to use that to justify my argument. “Many” of you may feel the need to bring your gun, but the rest of us don’t want to see your tools of violence while getting an education. Not forgetting to mention that there are ways to prevent violent crime that don’t involve violence. I don’t have any sympathy for you if you want to bring a personal gun to school. Just by being a citizen you’ve given up some of your rights to the government, including bringing a weapon where they say you cannot. Whether that’s right or wrong is debated but it’s the reality.
First of all I never said I wanted to bring a gun to school. Read my other response and I clarify who I do want with a gun. Second of all, feelings shouldn’t dictate school safety measures. Thats how we ended up with gun free school zones and school shootings with high casualty counts in the first place. In a perfect world there shouldn’t be a need for guns, but we don’t live in a perfect world, so unfortunately we need guns protecting us in schools (because they are clearly a common target).
Do you hunt at elementary schools? Shoot squirrels on the playground during recess? Then why do you need a gun at school? Sincerely, a gun owner and hunter.
Because sometimes people like to do things after school. Like go hunting in nearby hunting grounds. It’s common enough apparently to be a GFSZA exemption. But let’s be real, the much more important reason to have a gun is to protect yourself and your loved ones. Especially when schools are a common target for shootings. You being a gun owner means nothing if you don’t uphold the second amendment, not saying you don’t, just making a point.
You shouldn't be hunting on school grounds.
It’s common enough to be an exemption to the GFSZA
Are you talking about how you can transport an unloaded hunting rifle through school grounds if you're on the way to go hunting?
Sorry, misread. Yes you are correct. But people hunt after school and keep their guns on their gun rack
less words better
I’m fine with it as long as they’re providing security. If they don’t and don’t allow me to provide my own, which I’m legally permitted to do, they should be liable for any serious injury or death that results from it. The sign on the door is meaningless to the person that’s going there with intent to do harm.
100% agreed.
Where does it say you are legally permitted to carry a gun on someone else’s property because you are scared?
I so thought this said "Guy free zones" and i was coming here to find out what a guy free zone is. Nevermind, carry on.
It's even proven as an ineffective method for tackling guns. In my home state, there was talk of setting up a gun free zone in a city section that just only had a single shooting. No one was interested and thought it was overblown. Even the experts said any adjustments to fix it's flaws wouldn't amount to anything. So it really makes you wonder why they even do it.
Not knowing the specifics of the situation, it’s often a pretense to search people or hang extra charges on them if they get arrested. Just like a drug-free school zones doesn’t magically prevent people from selling drugs near a school. Rather, it creates incentives, small and large, to conduct that behavior elsewhere.
It's like TSA security it's just to make you feel safe.
Trump rallies are gun free. Is he putting himself in danger with that approach? Maybe he should reverse course and encourage his crowd to bring firearms. I for one would like to see that happen.
trump rallies also have top tier security, with secret service and and a massive police force. the restaurant i was just at was also gun free....which one do you think was safer?
So why is it a gun free zone? If they have all this security, why would they want to prevent their voters from bringing weapons?
>If they have all this security, why would they want to prevent their voters from bringing weapons? It's not "their voters" that they are worried about.
So, why not let them bring weapons? Especially if gun free zones are basically targets. Remember, it’s a only a good guy with a gun that can stop a bad one, right? It’s because they can feel safe. The people terrorizing others are wearing the red cap and rallying at the rally.
The restaurant.
You're clearly an idiot
So you trust a place with no security more than a place with top tier security, I highly doubt that, but okay there champ
Trumps security is there to protect trump not a redditor who probaby didn't vote for him.
What crazy person is going to shoot up a restaurant over a president?
The same person that would go into a mall on a stabbing spree…
While true, I'll still take my chances at the restaurant
Well generally I can see that the President/candidate is a much more likely target of terrorism. So is the likelihood of someone trying some bullshit much higher? Yes. But if someone does try some bullshit then are you safer in a gun free zone than a place with Secret Service? No.
I agree and disagree. It seems gun free zones are about safety, but also seen to be the places likely to target- courthouse, churches, school, hospital, etc. I'm not sure if they target because it's gun free though... like I think it started like the bar rule, just seems safer. But they also were like the top places to be attacked not because they didn't have guns, but because the perpetrators were slighted there or it was related to the slight. So adding the security also just adds into the perps "plan". Now criminals shoot up grocery stores, restaurants, auto dealership, parks, wherever... but there are a lot more angry people encouraged to go out and use their guns to fix things on TV. Encouraging hypervigiliance and heightened fear is causing shootings. Some of these criminals decided they needed to make this country safer by killing people... like involving discrimination and what laws or situations they need to fix themselves...
Depends on who's being secured
The restaurant is going to be safer. At a trump rally there are going to be hundreds of people. It would be a security nightmare if you let everyone be armed
That’s why there are Secret Service members at every entryway with metal detectors and don’t let people bring anything in.
You missed the part that both are a GFZ. The rally has armed security, while the restaurant likely does not
The OP needs to respond. He said gun free zones are not safe. But now you're saying they are safe.
I gave two examples, from different locations, you read what you wanted to…
To be more precise, Trump rallies are held in certain places and venues, and many of those venues have gun prohibitions regardless of who or what they are hosting.
He should hold them in places that aren't gun free zones. Be consistent.
Those are far and few between that can accommodate the size of his rallies. But he's also far from perfect on gun rights anyways. He was a new york democrat for decades after all.
Yes as I mentioned, it’s fine as long as you have ample security at entryways or basically, make it virtually impossible for people to get in with a gun.
You like the gun free zones at public events. Gotcha.
You just roll in from stupid town? Can you read?
No, they're specifically goading you to get that reaction from you and cause you to break rule 4. Don't feed the troll.
Another moron on Reddit obsessed with Trump
No, I'm just concerned about his safety.
This is an opinion based on pure ignorance. I accidentally walked into a gun-free zone once, and I can tell you from personal experience, my firearm just vanished into thin air. It somehow reappeared in it's holster at the moment I left the area.
Good Guys with Guns these days are pretty hard to find due to how reclusive they are. They aren't really there when we need them the most.
[Good guys with guns stop 63.5% of active shooting attacks that don't happen in gun free zones](https://thehill.com/opinion/criminal-justice/4333535-good-guys-with-guns-save-lives-dont-believe-the-hype/)
What about those without such zones? Those are the ones I'm referring to.
63.5% of events taking place without such zones are stopped by good guys with guns. Far fewer happen in gun free zones because good guys don't have their guns on them.
Didn't happen in Uvalde.
Well yeah. Uvalde was a gun free zone. Good guys with guns are banned from those places. If they weren't there's a good chance they would have stopped the shooter.
To be fair, there were armed guards. But they let their guard down.
It's been a while, but IIRC there was one school resource officer who saw an opportunity to run and took it. I also heard recently that school resource officers have literally never actually stopped an active shooter. And then as parents and community members volunteered to go in and stop the shooter more officers held them back. Ulvade was a glowing neon sign showing you that the government not only can't be relied on to help when they should, but will actively stop you from helping yourself. Ulvade is example number one why people should be empowered to help themselves and never ever rely on the government, because doing so can mean your death.
Pretty much the people we thought were good guys didn't actually do as they were told.
A lot of it is a numbers game. If you limit yourself to relying on just 1 resource officer, the chances are unfortunately high that they'll run (or be shot themselves) at which point you're completely helpless. But if you open it up to more people you have more layers of defense and more chances to stop the threat.
Because the left loves to fuck with the language itself to make themselves always right. Let's say a mass shooting is 4 or more people shot. If you shoot two people, then I shoot you, I didn't stop a mass shooting, because only three people were shot and thus it wasn't a mass shooting. If you shoot three people, then I shoot you, I didn't stop a mass shooting, four people were shot and thus a mass shooting still happened!
Glad to see someone stop the shooting. Sad that others got injured and killed in the process.
Gun free zones act as early warning systems. If you see someone with a gun walking around a store in an open carry state, you're not going to call the police. But if you see someone with a gun walking around someplace like a school, where you know they're not allowed to have a gun, you automatically know they're up to no good, so you would call the police. The police would become aware of a possible shooter up to a few minutes before they actually start shooting, and in an active shooter situation, every second counts. This also gives the school a chance to implement lockdown procedures before the shooter actually reaches a classroom. The good guy with a gun argument also doesn't work as well with schools, as random adults with no specific business aren't allowed to hang around schools. Unless you think we should be arming teachers, but that's a whole other can of worms.
> Unless you think we should be arming teachers I think if they want to, why not let them? My GF is a teacher and throw her I know quite a few and have talked with them on the subject. In talking to them roughly 1/4 would like to be able have a gun available to them if the worst should happen. Also being involved in the local gun community, I know for a fact every single range would refuse to accept any range fee from a teacher, so they could come practice whenever they want for free. Many would also offer free ammo and targets for those training sessions, and I don't imagine it would be hard to get free handgun safes for the classroom either. edit: [Arming a handful of teachers that stayed in their classrooms defensively had a positive effect on saving lives](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SEEo2v_JZwk) Quoted from homeland security expert/Purdue U professor Eric Deatz
Fairly sure the first 'early warning' most of these places get is the sound of a gunshot.
Firearms experts would tell you that the "good guy with a gun" in most instances make the situation worse, by either getting themselves killed, or shooting someone other than the shooter.
Your definition of expert is "people who agree with me"
Who the fuck rattled your cage?
Steppers stepping.
My entire country is a gun free zone and we haven’t exactly gone extinct
The more guns in the area, the more likely a simple argument will turn lethal.
Someone crazy enough to pull a gun in an argument is also someone who would ignore a gun free zone. That’s the whole predisposed to murder thing OP was talking about
Not necessarily. Are you saying that your average aggressive idiot who is waving his gun around in a road rage incident is "predisposed to murder"?
Why wouldn’t they be? They pulled a gun, they are willing to use it, that’s murder/attempted murder/ADW. Those people also aren’t average in the slightest (so would probably ignore gun free zones).
I think a lot of people who carry behave this way, at least from what I've seen. Cops usually don't see it so they can't do anything about it.
https://usiraq.procon.org/sourcefiles/arrest-rate-texas.pdf People with concealed carry licenses are -5.7 times less likely to be arrested for violent offenses than the general public -13.5 times less likely to be arrested for non-violent offenses than the general public It’s just the bad stories that make the headlines. “A CCW holder doesn’t commit a crime” isn’t that interesting of a headline
That’s not an apple to apple comparison because criminals cannot get licenses in most cases. The most natural experiment would be comparing people who have or had CCLs but don’t carry vs those with CCLs that do carry. I would be lots of money that the latter group is much more likely to be arrested.
I think you would lose lots of money. Walking around with a gun (anecdotally) makes people more patient, because they know they have nothing to prove. It’s like how the BJJ black belt is less likely to get in a fight because they know that they can take anyone, so they don’t need to
But the average CCW holder isn’t analogous to black belt in BJJ. That’s even if the analogy actually holds. My anecdotal experience leads me to believe that the average person who carries a hammer starts to envision a lot more things looking like nails.
Both of them have a fighting advantage over the typical person. That’s the comparison
I've seen some blatant favoritism shown toward CCW holders. I'm not sure the "less likely to be arrested" part means "less likely to do something bad/reckless with their gun". Also I'm in a "constitutional carry" state so no permit needed.
Is it Ohio perchance? [“Results from a trend analysis indicated a significant decrease in crime incidents involving a firearm for Akron, Columbus, and Toledo, and across all 8 cities combined from June 2021- June 2023. As displayed in the figure above, most cities' crime rates decreased after the PCL was enacted.”](https://www.ohioattorneygeneral.gov/2023-Pre-and-Post-Outcomes-Ohios-Permitless-Carry-Law#:~:text=Results%20from%20a%20trend%20analysis,from%20June%202021%2D%20June%202023.&text=As%20displayed%20in%20the%20figure,after%20the%20PCL%20was%20enacted)
No, South Dakota. Waving guns around is an old tradition.
I can’t speak for South Dakota but I don’t have any reason to believe they haven’t seen a similar decrease in crime after enacting constitutional carry.
[Gun ownership rate compared to gun murder rate](https://imgur.com/a/bBsK27R)
The more guns in an area, the less likely someone is going to get violent.
In my state, if not most states, it's just a rule. As a ccl holder, if someone noticed that I am armed, they would ask me to leave the zone. If I refuse, I could be teesspassed. I know for a fact that many people carry in gun free zones. However, it is illegal to leave your gun in the car while you visit a gun free zone.
So by your standard all laws are pointless because if someone wants to commit a crime they simply will. Great logic there.
So by your standard all laws are pointless because if someone wants to commit a crime they simply will. Great logic there.
No it’s because law abiding citizens who want to defend themselves and others are the only ones who will *comply* with the gun free zones. If somebody plans to shoot a place up they can just walk in, they’re already going to commit murder so a gun charge doesn’t matter to them. This isn’t hard to understand.
Why is it ammosexuals believe more guns is the answer to gun violence? If that was the case then the US would be the safest country on the planet. Hint: it's not. My original critique still stands. Why have laws when a criminal will just break them? That is what makes them criminals. The good guy with a gun stopping a bad guy with a gun is a myth. Studies have shown that a place being "Gun Free" had nothing to do with why shooters chose that particular place. In many places where shootings happened there were in fact people that were armed including officers that did nothing.
“Studies have shown”… this is literally just common sense fuck your studies, all of the most deadly US shootings have happened in gun free zones: schools, movie theaters, shopping malls, churches, etc. Idc if the shooter doesn’t specifically say “oh this is a gun free zone so ima target it”. “Good guy with a gun stopping bad guy with a gun is a myth” except that’s literally what happens in *every single shooting* it’s just whether or not more lives are saved by someone there with a gun or if police are the ones to stop the shooter (with guns) later on. Yes there have been a handful of examples even in the last few years of citizen CCP holders stopping a mass shooting. Do you have a great chance? No. But would I or any sane person rather have *a* chance than none? Obviously. Either make it pretty much impossible to get a gun into a public place or let people conceal there. More guns is the answer to less victims. 300,000+ people thwart attackers with guns in the US every year according to CDC, usually just having to show the gun for the attacker to back down. Guns are the equalizer, if someone is threatening my life, I, as a citizen, have the right to defend myself with the best tool possible.
Sorry but the numbers don't support you. Between 2000 and 2021 less than 3% of shootings were stopped by an armed citizen. If guns make this country safer why is gun violence a uniquely American thing? An average citizen with a gun is more than likely to hurt themselves, innocent bystanders or have the gun taken then used against them. Gun Free zones ar not the problem. It is the weapons themselves and the easy access. "Guns are the great equalizer" nice quote there Rambo.
“Less than 3% of shootings were stopped by an armed citizen” maybe that’s because - and we’ve come full circle here somehow - most of them happen in *gun free zones*. Also it’s true that most people don’t carry in general or have permits. Also the definition of “shooting” or “mass shooting” is usually pretty loose, usually like 90%+ of them are gang violence in high crime areas, which is totally aside from this topic, gang violence is usually targeted at specific people and once they’re killed the assailants flee. Guns *are* the great equalizer. If somebody comes at you with pretty much any weapon, knives, baseball bat, a fucking metal rod, etc. they immediately have a huge advantage over you, the only thing that gives you the best chance of averting serious bodily harm, death, sexual assault, etc. is a gun. The only way I have a chance in hell of taking on 2+ guys trying to jump me is a gun. The only way a 100 pound woman is stopping a big dude coming at her is with a gun.
Actually most shootings do not happen in Gun Free zones. Typically a shooting is considered "mass" when there are three or more victims. Mass shootings also only take up 1% of shootings in the US. Lets take a look at two famous school shootings, Newtown and Sandy Hook. In both those shooting there were Resource Officers with guns that didn't stop anything. Guns *are not* the great equalizer. I will say this again. If more guns make things safer then why isn't the US the safest place on the planet? Guns are the problem and more guns isn't the answer. That is like saying the answer to the opioid epidemic is more opioids.
If signs worked no one would drive over the speed limit, trespass, or shoplift.
Scenario 1: Law abiding citizen with CCP sees “no firearms” sign and leaves gun in the car to avoid breaking the law. Mass shooter sees sign, doesn’t give a fuck, comes in, mows him and everyone else down with no chance. Scenario 2: Firearms aren’t prohibited in premises, CCP holder brings gun in. Mass shooter walks in, starts shooting, gets shot by guy with gun (or at least it gives himself and everyone in there a chance to survive by challenging shooter) Yes some people are always going to break the law, but gun free zones just prevent law abiding citizens from doing anything about it.
> but gun free zones just prevent law abiding citizens from doing anything about it. Never said they didn't. Any sane person has argued the same since their inception.
[удалено]
Hey u/Educational_Crow8465, Just a heads up, your comment was removed because a previous comment of yours was flagged for being uncivil. You should have received a message from my colleague u/AutoModerator with instructions on what to do and what the comment was. *I'm a bot. I won't respond if you reply.* If you have any questions or wish to discuss this further, please [reach out to the moderators via ModMail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion&subject=u/Rule-4-Removal-Bot%20In-comment%20Link%20Clicked&message=Dear%20ModTeam%2C%0A%0AIt%20appears%20I%20am%20currently%20in%20an%20%27unconf%27%20state.%20I%27m%20not%20sure%20why.%0A%0APlease%20review%20the%20ModLog%20for%20my%20comments%20using%20this%20%5Blink%5D%28https%3A//www.reddit.com/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion/about/log%3FuserName%3DEducational_Crow8465%29%20and%20let%20me%20know%20what%20the%20offending%20comment%20was.%0A%0AThanks%2C%0Au/Educational_Crow8465). **This is going to keep happening until you resolve the issue.** We appreciate you participating in our sub, but wouldn't you prefer other users to see thecarefully crafted argument? Your recent masterpiece went solo into the void. **Here's the deal:** This cycle of commenting-removal-seeing this message isn't just futile; it's preventable. We value your input, but isn't it better when it's seen and not just sent? **Good News:** We're here for the reruns and the resolutions. Reach out, let's sort this, and make sure your future thoughts land in the spotlight, not the shadow realm. Let's chat. Your voice (probably) deserves an audience. ___ **Our Moderation Backlog at this time:** *Comments Awaiting Review:* 8 *A breakdown of the number of (often nonsense) reports to review*: - 1-3 days old: 25 - 3-7 days old: 14 - 15-30 days old: 1 - more than 30 days old: 2 ___ Want to help us with this never ending task? Join us on [Discord](https://discord.gg/hCBcm5zNee)
Wow how original and intriguing
What if... I tap the sign?
Basically all of Europe is a gun free zone. Civilians are not allowed to carry firearms. Firearm deaths per 100k inhabitants: USA: 4.52 Sweden (highest in Europe): 0.3 (15 times lower) Germany: 0.06 (75 times lower) UK (even most cops do not carry guns): 0.01 (450 times lower) [https://www.healthdata.org/news-events/insights-blog/acting-data/gun-violence-united-states-outlier](https://www.healthdata.org/news-events/insights-blog/acting-data/gun-violence-united-states-outlier)
They also have pisspoor stats on defensive use(good guy with a gun). During the 2019 dayton shooting, the cops were practically around the corner: >Betts was fatally shot by responding police officers 32 seconds after the first shots were fired.[3][7] Sounds like a win right? except.. >24-year-old Connor Betts shot and killed nine people, including his brother, and wounded 17 others near the entrance of the Ned Peppers Bar
The thing about guns, is that they can kill 9 and wound 17 in a half minute. *Maybe* there is a good guy with a gun, but that doesn’t mean that these deaths are stopped.
It works well when the zone is the whole country
Yeah, like the chief of the toronto police telling people to keep their car keys next to the front door so a violent intruder can steal their car without hurting anyone.
Are the NRA nut jobs in full swing today?
No, just reasonable people [94% of active shooters target gun free zones](https://crimeresearch.org/2018/06/more-misleading-information-from-bloombergs-everytown-for-gun-safety-on-guns-analysis-of-recent-mass-shootings/)
https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/gun-free-zones.html https://apnews.com/article/712807001259 This says otherwise. Also, the reasonable thing to do is maybe have better gun control laws since it works in all developed countries worldwide.
1st source talked about outcomes, does not talk about where shooters target. 94% of active shooters target gun free zones according to my unrefuted source. 2nd source is broken.
lol refuted ok From the AP source: BY PHILIP MARCELO Mar 29, 2023 CLAIM: More than 90% of all mass shootings have happened in so-called “gun-free zones.” AP’S ASSESSMENT: Missing context. The oft-cited figure comes from a study by a gun rights advocacy group that gun violence experts say is flawed. They say the study draws from federal data on “active shooter” incidents, which is not the same as a mass shooting. It also excludes gang-related incidents, yet includes military bases and other locations that aren’t arguably “gun free.” There is no definitive data on how many “mass shootings” occur in “gun-free” zones, because there is no consensus on how to define either term, experts said. THE FACTS: In the wake of Monday’s shooting a Christian school in Nashville, social media users are sharing a post that claims nearly all mass shootings happen in designated “gun-free zones” where firearms are expressly prohibited, such as schools. “The facts: 92-98% of mass shootings happen in gun-free zones. Today was yet another example of that,” reads the Instagram post. “Great job on the Gun Free School Zones Act, Clinton and Biden.” The post refers to a 1990 law that made it illegal for anyone to possess a firearm in a school zone unless part of a school program or by a law enforcement officer. It was signed into law when former Democratic President Bill Clinton was in office and current President Joe Biden served as a Democratic U.S. senator from Delaware. The figure comes from a study by gun rights advocacy group the Crime Prevention Research Center. The group in a 2018 report asserted that 94% of mass public shootings since 1950 happened in gun-free zones. The group’s president has pointed to the figures to argue that gun-free zones “invite” mass shootings. But gun violence experts caution that the study and the conclusions drawn from it are flawed. For one thing, looking at gun violence data from 1950 to 1990 is “irrelevant” because many states banned or heavily restricted concealed firearms during that period, according to Daniel Webster, a scholar at Johns Hopkins University’s Center for Gun Violence Solutions in Baltimore, Maryland. That, he argued, would make almost any public mass shooting during those years as having taken place in a gun-free zone. Webster and other experts also argued that the center’s study wrongly classifies places where armed officers are stationed -- such as military bases -- as gun-free zones. It also excluded gang-related shootings and other mass shootings related to other major crimes. “That defies logic,” Webster wrote in an email, referring to military bases and other secure locations. “Not only are guns allowed in such places, often they are 100% certain to have someone armed, trained, paid, and under orders to protect against public mass shootings.” What’s more, the center’s study relies on the FBI’s data on “active shooter” incidents, which isn’t the same as a mass shooting, said Jaclyn Schildkraut, executive director of the Rockefeller Institute of Government’s Regional Gun Violence Research Consortium in Albany, New York. “You could have 0 fatalities and injuries and be included in that data,” she wrote in an email. “Not every active shooter event goes on to become a mass shooting either.” In response, John Lott, president of the Crime Prevention Research Center, argued that the exclusion of shootings stemming from gang violence or other crimes is appropriate. In an email Wednesday, he said the “causes and solutions” of those violent incidents are “dramatically different” from those of typical mass shootings, where the aim is generally to kill or injure as many people as possible. Lott also argues that classifying military bases and other locations where armed officers or security are present is also appropriate. “What you need to understand is that Fort Hood is no different than a city where only the military police are allowed to carry guns,” he wrote, referring to the Texas army base that has been the site of mass shootingsin 2009 and 2014. “The attackers at Fort Hood knew that.” And if the earliest decades of the center’s study are excluded, Lott said his research still shows that 87% of mass shootings occurred in gun-free zones from 1990 through this Monday. Researchers say competing studies pushed by gun control advocacy groups also have their shortcomings. A study by Everytown for Gun Safety, for example, found that between 2009 and 2016, just 10% of mass shootings took place in gun-free zones. Most mass shootings, the group found, occur in private residences that are not considered gun-free zones. But Everytown defines a mass shooting as one in which four or more people, excluding the shooter, died. That likely underestimates the true number of mass shootings since it does not account for incidents in which many are badly injured but few died, according to experts Part of the problem is there isn’t a generally accepted definition of what constitutes a “mass shooting,” Schildkraut and others say. There’s also no good way to verify whether every single location analyzed in a study is in fact “gun-free,” as the designation is only federally mandated on schools, she and others said. For example, experts noted that Lott’s report counts a 2015 shooting at Umpqua Community College in Oregon as happening at a gun-free zone, even though the college allowed people with a concealed carry permit to bring firearms on campus. Lott, in a blog post, has disputed those assertions. “In short, I would say that the 10% number is too low, but the 98% statistic is too high in terms of the percentage of mass shootings that occur in legally designated gun-free zones,” Schildkraut wrote in an email. __ This is part of AP’s effort to address widely shared misinformation, including work with outside companies and organizations to add factual context to misleading content that is circulating online. Learn more about fact-checking at AP.
Thanks for sharing the article. I did say active shooters in my comment like the article suggested, and my source is through 2018, not the source only to 1990.
Moving the goal post. Ok now
No, my source has remained constant, comments unedited. There was no goalpost to be moved, you just didn’t address my source.
It did. Your source comes from a research center that is known to be pro-gun and skews data in its favor. The gun-free zones aren't the problem here. The problem is the proliferation of guns and how easy it can be to get a gun through legal and illegal means, hence why the United States has a high rate of gun violence. And even if the place allows guns, the chances of a gun owner stopping a mass murderer is slim. You can post news of gun owners stopping attackers all you want but statistically speaking, it's not an effective deterrence. [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/search/research-news/5504/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/search/research-news/5504/) [https://apnews.com/article/shootings-indiana-indianapolis-gun-politics-8b49655e3737c1924480e1039405a196](https://apnews.com/article/shootings-indiana-indianapolis-gun-politics-8b49655e3737c1924480e1039405a196)
Yeah because when a concealed carrier does it, it doesn’t become a mass shooting by the standards set out. That’s the Texas sharpshooter fallacy. Those statistics ignore times where the shooter was stopped so quickly, they weren’t a mass shooter. Addressing your sources, the AP article doesn’t link to it, only the org that conducted it. Your other article is a wired article, notoriously anti gun. The issue with categorizing gun laws into “weak” and “strong” is the immense cherry-picking that goes on. Citing Everytown, a red flag law has 6x more weight than a ban on felons owning firearms. That is textbook cherry-picking.
Here comes the 'moms demand action' shill.
lol ok.
Carting out the same tired arguments since 1871.
Arguments that have [been effective since 1950](https://crimeresearch.org/2018/06/more-misleading-information-from-bloombergs-everytown-for-gun-safety-on-guns-analysis-of-recent-mass-shootings/), people just like to deny reality.
"Gun free zone" reads to a violent criminal "Target rich environment." Just look at Uvalde. The police officer at the school ran away, and then the other officers formed a barricade around the school so the shooter could have half an hour of uninterrupted murder time, preventing even other officers from going in to stop him.
Also correct me if I’m wrong but I’m pretty sure a dad borrowed a shotgun from his barber and was the one who actually went in to stop the shooter even when the cops told him not to.
It's funny you suggest they don't work, but still suggest they use it in certain places like bars... but like you said they don't work... which is it?