gun-free zones - safer or not?[W:59, 525]

[Crimefree]

I see the attack upon me but I do not see the evidence you have been unable to present.

Please present the evidence you were requested to present so that we can begin to debate instead of simply attack.

No attack took place are you paranoid? I posted facts based on the evidence presented which you have attempted to fob off by claiming an attack. You never even bothered to discuss the presented cited evidence which completely refutes your claim. This claim is fraudulent and intellectually dishonest. It has been repeated several times despite numerous efforts to inform and advise you to read the citations as they are your only means of recourse and continued debate.

There are two issues before us:

1 - Your claim that the Everytown study is not be be believed. But when I press you on this, you are unable to present any verifiable evidence as to where the Everytown study is factually incorrect.

Repeating this fraudulent claim is intellectually dishonest. Do you do this often? You have been referred to the citations I used to back up any claims (not opinion) I made. Your on recourse is to read the citations and comment on the contents there of. You have been instructed to do this several times and have not, insisting I supply you with what is contained in the citations. I even supplied you with a quotation of those citations showing the Everytown methodology was fraudulent. I am now going to report you for baiting which is what you are doing.

I get your opinion. I really do. And your opinion is important in debate to establish the issue at hand. But without any verifiable evidence to substantiate your opinion, its just you presenting more personal opinion or the personal opinion of people who believe as you do.

See above.

2- Your ignoring of the denominator of success in gun free zones and only unfairly wanting to look at the numerator. The figures I supplied you with clearly demonstrate that in schools alone - we had well over 18 million days where millions of students and faculty enjoyed gun free school zones and they supplied one of the safest environments possible. The very small number of kills in those school zones are infinitesimal compared to that. In other words - a ratio of perhaps 70 to 18.5 million is screaming SUCCESS from the rooftops of gun free zones.

Any effort to determine the effectiveness of gun free zones has to take both the numerator and the denominator into account and explore the relationship between each.

The figures and methodology you used have been demonstrated and refuted as fraudulent for a large number of reasons of which a few were used to destroy this claim. You have offered no defence of that so this as well must be considered baiting.

In fact, to not do so would be completely and totally unfair and ignoring reality.

I have attended to reality by reporting your baiting and deliberately trying my patience which is not unlimited.

 

[haymarket]

LMAO! So what you are REALLY saying is that you stuck your foot in your mouth when you tried to accuse me of disrespecting laws.

Nope - never did that - and you just compounded your sins as I clearly told you and you ignored it that it is THE LAW that allows a establishment to establish the rule. When you intentionally ignore it and break that rule about guns you show your complete disrepesct both for the rule itself and the law which allows the rule to be put in place.

Read and learn

Law | Define Law at Dictionary.com
dictionary.reference.com/browse/law
Dictionary.com
[law] /lɔ/ the principles and regulations established in a community by some authority and applicable to its people, whether in the form of legislation or of custom and policies recognized and enforced by judicial decision.

When one refers to THE LAW, it can be a specific law or it can be the broader principle by which all law and our very legal system is based upon. But again, you have intentionally chosen to ignore that so you can pick and pick and pick and pretend to play "gotcha" with me.

Its a pretty sad way of trying to engage in debate.

 

[haymarket]

1 - I introduced the Everytown study into the debate which disproves your contention about the number of mass slayings in gun free zones.
2 -You claimed it was not to be believed.
3- I challenged you to present evidence that the data in the report was false or wrong.
4- you have failed to do that.

The figures and methodology you used have been demonstrated and refuted as fraudulent.

The figures I provided to you about the numerator and the denominator were simple math. And you have shown nothing at all was in error about that math.

I have attended to reality by reporting your baiting and deliberately trying my patience which is not unlimited.

Your lack of patience has nothing to do with any rules here.

 

[blackjack50]

Nope - never did that - and you just compounded your sins as I clearly told you and you ignored it that it is THE LAW that allows a establishment to establish the rule. When you intentionally ignore it and break that rule about guns you show your complete disrepesct both for the rule itself and the law which allows the rule to be put in place.

HAHAHA! It allows an establishment to make rules. Rules aren't laws buddy. Sorry. And the state of Florida is VERY clear about "no gun signs." They hold no weight of law.

Are you suggesting I violated some law? I didn't. I respect the law. The establishments RULES hold no weight of law, and contradict a state law allowing me to carry in public. They are NOT a posted place where I can't carry.

Rules aren't laws buddy. And I'm under no legal obligation to abide by their stupid sign. Unless they ask me to leave. They didn't.

 

[blackjack50]

Read and lear

When one refers to THE LAW, it can be a specific law or it can be the broader principle by which all law and our very legal system is based upon. But again, you have intentionally chosen to ignore that so you can pick and pick and pick and pretend to play "gotcha" with me.

Its a pretty sad way of trying to engage in debate.

LMAO! This is friggin GREAT! Now you are trying to say that a "law" applies to an establishments rules. Sorry bud. Not gonna fly. A no gun sign in Florida (unless posted in a place where guns are legally banned)...is NOT a law as far as the state of Florida is concerned. Period.

That is what "no weight of law" means. It means the sign cannot get me into legal trouble UNLESS I am asked to leave and refuse to leave (which is a trespass law and NOT a gun law). It is fun watching your attempt to twist out of stating I ignored a law though.

Ps

Your definition further confirms you were incorrect to mention laws. I disrespected a rule of an establishment. that is NOT a law. It wouldn't be defined as such under your definition or the legal definition in America.

 

[Crimefree]

What did I originally claim and where was it proven false?

Lets see both.

Go back and read you claim.

 

[Crimefree]

FBI Report: You’re More Likely to Die From a Lightning Strike Than in a Mass Shooting

Mass shootings get a ridiculously disproportionate amount of coverage in the media. A single incident will dominate our 24 hour news cycle and headlines for days, if not weeks.

However, how likely are you really to be killed in one of these events? A new FBI report shed some light on this question.

According to the report, 418 have been killed in active shooter situations from 2000 – 2013 (note that this includes deaths from the Sandy Hook shooting in December 2012). This works out to around 30 people per year.

In that same time period over 29,000,000 Americans died from other causes. Of course, heart disease and cancer (all types) along with a host of other medical conditions remain the top killers.

What else are you more likely to die of than being killed by active shooter? Let’s have a look.

Lightning strikes – Lightning strikes kill, on average, 50 Americans each year according to NOAA data.
Riding a bicycle – 800 people were killed by bicycling accidents in 2010 alone.
Falling Down – 26,631 died from injuries sustained in various types of falls from 2010 – 2011.

There are an estimated 300 million firearms in the United States. Compare that number to the 30 people killed in mass shootings each year.

Certainly, I am not trying to negate the value of the lives lost to shooting incidents each year. However, when we’re talking about laws and policy making which will affect literally tens of millions of Americans we have to keep things in perspective.

by Dan Cannon
Oct 6, 2014

 

[TurtleDude]

actually you made it so when you made your post about 400 plus school age children being killed there and thread to pass it off as such in a discussion about gun free zones.

your post 499 and subsequent defenses of it made that very clear.

and you seem to ignore the fact that almost every, if not every child killed by gun fire in Chicago, was killed by people using guns they could not legally possess in Chicago or carry on the streets of chicago

so those children were killed by people whose mere possession of the guns was already banned

 

[haymarket]

HAHAHA! It allows an establishment to make rules. Rules aren't laws buddy.

Why are you intentionally and purposely ignoring what has been said to you in favor of your highly selective focusing on the different meaning of one word while ignoring the other meaning?

Oh wait - its the attempt to play "gotcha" that has already been identified and refuted.

 

[Crimefree]

Anyone interested in gun free zones comment and research here are some interesting URL's

Has more than 300 links.
John Lott's Website

Katie Pavlich: ‘Safe Haven: Gun-Free Zones in America’
Katie Pavlich: ‘Safe Haven: Gun-Free Zones in America’

katie-pavlich-safe-haven-gun-free-zones-in-america
Safe Haven | Videos | Outdoor Channel

All But 2 Mass Shootings Since the 1950s Occurred in Gun Free Zones
All But 2 Mass Shootings Since the 1950s Occurred in Gun Free Zones - BuzzPo

NRA News | Dr. Eric Dietz: Concealed-Carry Response to Active Shooter Situations

 

[haymarket]

and you seem to ignore the fact that almost every, if not every child killed by gun fire in Chicago, was killed by people using guns they could not legally possess in Chicago or carry on the streets of chicago

so those children were killed by people whose mere possession of the guns was already banned

Chicago is not and was not a gun free zone. Nothing you can say changes that reality.

 

[haymarket]

Go back and read you claim.

So you are unable to reproduce this so called claim I made. And you are unable to reproduce and refutation of said claim.

Got it loud and clear.

 

[haymarket]

LMAO! This is friggin GREAT! Now you are trying to say that a "law" applies to an establishments rules. Sorry bud. Not gonna fly. A no gun sign in Florida (unless posted in a place where guns are legally banned)...is NOT a law as far as the state of Florida is concerned. Period.

That is what "no weight of law" means. It means the sign cannot get me into legal trouble UNLESS I am asked to leave and refuse to leave (which is a trespass law and NOT a gun law). It is fun watching your attempt to twist out of stating I ignored a law though.

Ps

Your definition further confirms you were incorrect to mention laws. I disrespected a rule of an establishment. that is NOT a law. It wouldn't be defined as such under your definition or the legal definition in America.

Your fraudulent attempt to move the goal posts and change what I said has been duly noted and your tactics exposed. Nobody accused you of breaking any law. What I told you was that your admitted actions show a lack of respect for the law and the rules of the establishment. And when i say THE LAW, I refer to our entire system of law and the principles behind it which includes the ability of a private establishment to establish a rule prohibiting you from bringing a gun there. Something which you admitted you did regardless of that rule and the principle of law behind the ability to make such a rule.

your silly game of "gotcha" has crashed and burned and has been smashed and crashed, crushed and flushed.

You repeating the same thing over and over only adds to your tactics having been exposed and the intellectual bankruptcy of your dishonest tactics.

 

[blackjack50]

Why are you intentionally and purposely ignoring what has been said to you in favor of your highly selective focusing on the different meaning of one word while ignoring the other meaning?

Oh wait - its the attempt to play "gotcha" that has already been identified and refuted.

Why am I focusing on your attempt to claim I disrespected a law? Because you claimed I disrespected a law that didn't exist. You are claiming i violated a law that does not exist. I don't appreciate that.

And I find it hilarious that you are arguing that you were just being redundant. That is your defense. Sad.

 

[blackjack50]

Your fraudulent attempt to move the goal posts and change what I said has been duly noted and your tactics exposed. Nobody accused you of breaking any law. What I told you was that your admitted actions show a lack of respect for the law and the rules of the establishment. And when i say THE LAW, I refer to our entire system of law and the principles behind it which includes the ability of a private establishment to establish a rule prohibiting you from bringing a gun there. Something which you admitted you did regardless of that rule and the principle of law behind the ability to make such a rule

Are you just being disingenuous here? Possibly pedantic? I'm not that good with words (I prefer concise and simple words as they avoid confusion on my actual meaning).

Can you please tell me what THE LAW is on my having a gun in the 2 locations I mentioned? Because that is the part you are ignoring. They hold NO weight of law. Therefor I can ignore it all day long. That isn't disrespect.

FURTHERMORE

All they can do is ask me to leave. They never asked me to leave. So I acted within the spirit of the law as well. It isn't MY fault they don't adequately check for weapons...which brings us back to the original posted topic..." no guns" signs don't work. Period.

Gotcha

your silly game of "gotcha" has crashed and burned and has been smashed and crashed, crushed and flushed.

You repeating the same thing over and over only adds to your tactics having been exposed and the intellectual bankruptcy of your dishonest tactics.

I would appreciate it if you didn't insult me.

 

[TurtleDude]

Chicago is not and was not a gun free zone. Nothing you can say changes that reality.

yes, we understand the definitions you want to impose on everyone else to force them to accept your argument. WE do NOT accept your definition and thus your argument fails. making it an offense what can merit jail time for merely owning a pistol is more stringent than merely charging someone with trespassing if they carry a pistol into a gun free zone

 

[haymarket]

Possibly pedantic? I'm not that good with words (I prefer concise and simple words as they avoid confusion on my actual meaning).

Thank you for that admission of your problem. As I have told you several times already - referring to THE LAW can mean the greater body of law and the principles behind it. But even though that has been explained to you several times you, you insist on ignoring it in favor of some silly game of "gotcha".

I would appreciate it if you didn't insult me.

Do you believe it reflects poorly upon you when I point out that you keep saying the same thing over and over and over despite it being refuted? Do you take that simple normal part of debate as an "insult"?

 

[haymarket]

yes, we understand the definitions you want to impose on everyone else to force them to accept your argument. WE do NOT accept your definition and thus your argument fails. making it an offense what can merit jail time for merely owning a pistol is more stringent than merely charging someone with trespassing if they carry a pistol into a gun free zone

I offered no definition - only a simple observation of reality that Chicao has never been a gun free one either by legal designation or by practical reality.

 

[American]

I wasn't sure how to create the poll. Just check poll and enter the number of options? Is there a follow up page to finish the poll?

Just trust the system, it looks weird but works.

 

[blackjack50]

Thank you for that admission of your problem. As I have told you several times already - referring to THE LAW can mean the greater body of law and the principles behind it. But even though that has been explained to you several times you, you insist on ignoring it in favor of some silly game of "gotcha".

So you are just going to ignore where I demonstrated that I did NOT disrespect the greater body of "laws" that you were (not) referring too? I'm sorry. You are AGAIN accusing me of violating some law? Or the spirit of some law? Something I never did.

Why? Because nobody asked me to leave, and the business obviously wasn't concern if people followed the sign or not. The ONLY thing they can do is ask me to leave. And they didn't. So obviously the sign isn't they important to them.

I would appreciate if you wouldn't accuse me of violating laws.

Do you believe it reflects poorly upon you when I point out that you keep saying the same thing over and over and over despite it being refuted? Do you take that simple normal part of debate as an "insult"?

Calling me dishonest and intellectually bankrupt is NOT part of normal debate. It is an insult. I would appreciate it if you would not do that.

Ps

The only person who is violating the spirit of any law would be the establishment posting a sign that holds no weight of law banning me from carrying in a place that is open to the public and is not listed in the state laws as a place that I would ordinarily be banned from carrying.

FURTHERMORE

They being open to the public would...would be in direct violation of the spirit of the state of Florida law on carrying that states the laws to be uniform statewide.

 

[blackjack50]

Just trust the system, it looks weird but works.

Isn't that what democrats say about gun control?

 

[Crimefree]

So you are unable to reproduce this so called claim I made. And you are unable to reproduce and refutation of said claim.

Got it loud and clear.

Apparently you do not know how to go back and read your own claims as requested is to much for you. I'm sorry I cannot fix your disabilities any more that I can fix your preference of throwing mud, fraudulent claims and intellectual dishonesty for which you are well known to try and disguise your false claims.

One simple click Haymarket, to much for you or is admission of your goal post moving to much to bear?

 

[haymarket]

So you are just going to ignore where I demonstrated that I did NOT disrespect the greater body of "laws" that you were (not) referring too?

You did that by your own admission of your actions - not once but twice.

Why? Because nobody asked me to leave, and the business obviously wasn't concern if people followed the sign or not. The ONLY thing they can do is ask me to leave. And they didn't. So obviously the sign isn't they important to them.

The act BY YOU is in and of itself proof of YOUR lack of respect for the rule of the restaurant and the theater. No action on the part of anyone else is necessary.

I would appreciate if you wouldn't accuse me of violating laws.

Since I NEVER accused you of violating a law you have no reason to appreciate or not appreciate.

Calling me dishonest and intellectually bankrupt is NOT part of normal debate.

You tried to play "gotcha". And you were caught in your very first attempt. But you only doubled down from there and continued to try and play "gotcha" again and again. It is not I who made you intellectually dishonest - it your posts in which you did that to yourself. I simply made note of what you were doing.

The only person who is violating the spirit of any law would be the establishment posting a sign that holds no weight of law banning me from carrying in a place that is open to the public and is not listed in the state laws as a place that I would ordinarily be banned from carrying.

FURTHERMORE

They being open to the public would...would be in direct violation of the spirit of the state of Florida law on carrying that states the laws to be uniform statewide.

Then you make a legal challenge to such a law, rule or policy. Showing you lack of respect for it by ignoring it achieves nothing except showing your lack of respect for that law, rule or policy.

 

[haymarket]

Apparently you do not know how to go back and read your own claims as requested is to much for you. I'm sorry I cannot fix your disabilities any more that I can fix your preference of throwing mud, fraudulent claims and intellectual dishonesty for which you are well known to try and disguise your false claims.

One simple click Haymarket, to much for you or is admission of your goal post moving to much to bear?

What so called claim of mine are you referring to? I cannot speak to it without you telling me what you believe I said and where I said it.

 

[haymarket]

yes, we understand the definitions you want to impose on everyone else to force them to accept your argument. WE do NOT accept your definition and thus your argument fails. making it an offense what can merit jail time for merely owning a pistol is more stringent than merely charging someone with trespassing if they carry a pistol into a gun free zone

I offered no definition. There is nothing for you or anyone else to reject on that front.

Chicago is not a gun free zone in legal designation. Chicago is not a gun free zone in practice.

Chicago was not a gun free zone during the time period you mentioned in legal designation. Chicago was not a gun free zone then in practice either.

What you are calling my definitions have nothing to do with it.

That is not definition - merely history and fact.