Ban gun free zones to reduce mass shootings

Rights are not privileges. Inalienable rights means secured by law, unable to be bought, unable to be disposed of, unforfeitable, untouchable. The right to keep and bear arms when it is violated sets up situations where people are gunned down like sheep to the slaughter.

Banning gun free zones would have more impact in the reduction of mass shootings, terrorism, and all other criminal behavior than any law restricting firearms ownership. Unarmed victims are far easier to kill than armed ones. This should be simple logic for people to understand. Mass shooting in gun free zones are far, far more common than mass shootings at places like shooting ranges, gun shows, or cop bars for that matter.

Lets start talking about banning gun free zones when a mass shooting takes place in one instead of talking about banning guns.

You will never hear a news story like, "Muslim terrorists attacked the Hell's Angels today..."

They may be stone age terrorists, but they are smart enough to go after unarmed people.

You cannot ban gun-free zones because people have personal property rights that are on par with one's right to bear arms. People have the right to demand people follow their rules, within constitutional reason, on their own property.

Your right ends where someone else's rights begin.

Yes more guns plz, thats really all americans need more guns, yeeeeeeehaaaaaaaa

a reply to: introvert

OK then we should have some common sense restrictions on gun free zones like say having someone armed on the premises to protect all those unarmed people. How about that?

originally posted by: machineintelligence
Rights are not privileges. Inalienable rights means secured by law, unable to be bought, unable to be disposed of, unforfeitable, untouchable. The right to keep and bear arms when it is violated sets up situations where people are gunned down like sheep to the slaughter.

Banning gun free zones would have more impact in the reduction of mass shootings, terrorism, and all other criminal behavior than any law restricting firearms ownership. Unarmed victims are far easier to kill than armed ones. This should be simple logic for people to understand. Mass shooting in gun free zones are far, far more common than mass shootings at places like shooting ranges, gun shows, or cop bars for that matter.

Lets start talking about banning gun free zones when a mass shooting takes place in one instead of talking about banning guns.

I'm all for the right to bear arms but I also think guns don't belong everywhere. You don't need guns where people are drinking for example. Even in the old west they were smart enough to make people remove their guns before entering a saloon.alcohol and guns are not a good combination people seem to lose all rationality when drinking. It's just simply logical people don't need to be allowed to carry into a bank. Simple reason is it makes it easier for a robber sporting events again don't think we need to add guns into the equation not all bans are bad.

a reply to: dukeofjive696969

You missed the boat on that response. Common sense restrictions on gun free zones will not increase the number of guns. It will only make it harder for would be assailants to kill people. It will also make the calculation harder for would be attackers as far as their chances of a successful attack.

Muslim terrorists attacked in Texas and did not kill a single infidel before buying their one way ticket to hell by good guys with guns.

Yeehaaaaaaa!

originally posted by: machineintelligence
a reply to: introvert

OK then we should have some common sense restrictions on gun free zones like say having someone armed on the premises to protect all those unarmed people. How about that?

That's an unreasonable government intrusion on our rights and a burden to anyone that does not believe in such things.

Are you going to tell every business owner that has a gun-free zone sticker in his window that he must always have someone on staff that is armed, or must hire someone to fill that roll?

No disrespect, but the entire premise is flawed.

a reply to: dragonridr

It's just simply logical people don't need to be allowed to carry into a bank.

My bank allows concealed carry.

Bars or anyplace people gather to relax should be allowed to control firearms but only if they provide armed protection. It is a common sense restriction in my opinion.

a reply to: introvert

How else can the business owner protect his patrons who are commanded to disarm in order to enter?

originally posted by: machineintelligence
a reply to: introvert

How else can the business owner protect his patrons who are commanded to disarm in order to enter?

He is not required to keep them safe, beyond the typical requirements of city fire and building standards. If the people wish to be protected by the guy that serves them lunch or afternoon beers, let them go to a place that will do so.

Free market.

Let me ask you this:

It seems that you are interested in saving lives and preventing tragedy. Should we force business owners to provide 100% healthcare for all their employees because it will save more lives with preventative care and allow better access to the care they need to prevent medical tragedies?

originally posted by: machineintelligence
a reply to: introvert

How else can the business owner protect his patrons who are commanded to disarm in order to enter?

Also, if the government requires these people to protect their patrons with firearms and an accident occurs, such as an accidental discharge or someone innocent is shot during an exchange with a terrorist or a crazy armed guy, whom is held accountable? The business owner or the government?

originally posted by: machineintelligence
a reply to: introvert

[snipped]

[snipped]

You're trying making the case that we should require all business' and other areas that wish to be gun-free to provide a service at their expense for the sake of saving lives and preventing tragedy.

That is comparable to requiring a business to pay for their employee's healthcare for the sake of saving lives and preventing tragedy.

Both scenarios force the business to incur higher costs through government force, but your scenario also places the establishment at a higher risk of liability should something go terribly wrong.

a reply to: introvert

Perhaps gun free zones should be required to inform potential patrons of the associated risks of entering the premises. Something like also posting: Warning Mass Shootings Far More Likely Here, or perhaps, Victim Disarmament Zone, Gun Free Zone Enter at Your Own Risk.

This would be no different than warning labels on hot coffee.

originally posted by: introvert
You cannot ban gun-free zones because people have personal property rights that are on par with one's right to bear arms. People have the right to demand people follow their rules, within constitutional reason, on their own property.

Your right ends where someone else's rights begin.

When people talk about gun free zones, I dont think they are referring to your own property as in your back yard. What do your purchased property rights have to do with my inalienable right to keep and bear arms?

It seems as though you really are trying to throw this off topic as fast as you can.

a reply to: introvert

but your scenario also places the establishment at a higher risk of liability should something go terribly wrong.

I would say that a mass causality scenario would also qualify as something going terribly wrong wouldn't you?

a reply to: machineintelligence

Perhaps gun free zones should be required to inform potential patrons of the associated risks of entering the premises.

Gun Free Zone Enter at Your Own Risk.

This would be no different than warning labels on hot coffee.

Should automakers be required to put a label on the steering wheel saying "You're more likely to die in this car today than from a firearm"?

All you have done is gone from having a noble cause, saving lives, with a misguided approach, to saying we need to scare the # out of people.

I don't see the logic in that and why do we need to use government force to do it? We can't coddle and protect everyone all the time. There are risks in everything we do in life and we can't put a warning label on all of it.

a reply to: Vroomfondel

When people talk about gun free zones, I dont think they are referring to your own property as in your back yard.

A property owner has as much right in his business/public property as he does in his personal home. The only difference is that a business has rules it has to follow in able to lawfully conduct business.

For example, you are fully within your right to say that no black people may enter your home. A business owner cannot due to discrimination laws, but it does not change his rights in regards to property ownership.

What do your purchased property rights have to do with my inalienable right to keep and bear arms?

You right to bear arms ends at the doorstep of any property owner that says the firearms are not allowed inside. You can oblige, disarm and enter their home/business, or you can refuse and go on your merry way. The property owner is well within their rights to do so.

It seems as though you really are trying to throw this off topic as fast as you can.

Not all all. It's an issue of individual rights. You have the right to bear arms and a personal property owner has the right to say you can't come in because you are bearing arms. And what is the point in forcing more regulations on to people just to scare the # out of them?