Trucker Murdered

There is a great degree of difference between "gun free" and "soft". My neighbor two doors down has many, many guns - but his bbq last weekend was a 'soft target'. It was unlikely anyone was carrying, nothing prevented anyone from walking up the driveway, and no one was anticipating an attack. Any gathering of people is a soft target - farmers markets, parades, etc - regardless of the legality of carrying weapons.

The 'opinion piece' is a news article that details the two most cited resources - one pro gun the other anti - and list the limitations of the 'studies', basically calling both BS. Yet folks will state "gun free zones are where most mass shootings happen" with absolutely no evidence to support the claim. One of the most referenced 'studies' from the Crime Prevention Research Center claims "97.8 percent of mass public shootings from 1950 to May 2018 occurred in gun-free zones". Reading the footnotes, most sources are from the 1990s, with the newest being 2013. Meanwhile Everytown Research says only 10% of mass shootings between 2009 and 2016 happened in "gun free zones". Their footnotes are much more robust and timely, not to mention limiting the time range accounts for the changing laws gives a more accurate assessment, but their definition of a mass shooting is rather contrived.

By cherry picking data and selective definitions I could claim that women cause 90% of the car accidents. Doesn't make it true, and when we're discussing topics like this it's important to try and get to the truth, not rely on 'studies' from partisan groups. It's also important to scrutinize the claims made by these partisan groups.

 

"Common sense" says the sun revolves around the earth. Actual observation proves otherwise.

In the 1700's scurvy was called 'land sickness'. Sailors afflicted with scurvy were buried up to the neck in dirt and force fed vegetables to "remind the body about land". Scientific study figured out the vegetables did something, the dirt not so much.

There are reasons why the gun lobby is so against ANYBODY looking a the data from a non-partisan position, just like the tobacco lobby did everything they could to bury the evidence demonstrating that while nicotine is bad for humans, but all the extra crud the cigarette companies put in make cigarettes extra addictive and deadly.

 

Did you read his diary? Because his diary makes no mention of 'gun free zones', but does make extensive mention which screens were likely to have the larger crowd and the easiest to access the weapons in his car. I'm happy to change my opinion if you link the testimony of the prosecutor's experts.

From everything I've seen, most mass shooters are targeting a specific location based on some perceived grievance, not the legality of carrying weapons at the location.

 

You're beating a dead horse , only you believe there isn't an ounce of correlative evidence between liberal gun free zones and gun villainy .

 

I don't argue that soft targets aren't more inviting to people whose goal is violence and mayhem. I will argue that "gun free zone" and "soft target" don't mean the same thing. Take the Twin Peaks shoot out. I would define the rally as a 'soft target' despite at least 1/3 of the crowd (including 20 police officers) being armed - 9 dead and 18 wounded.

In the grey area of 'soft target' is a gun store. Probably everyone is carrying, but are they mentally ready for a mass shooting? Incidentally, the Crime Prevention Research Center wouldn't consider this a mass shooting.

I will also argue that part of 'hardening' a public location is limiting weapons. If anyone carrying a firearm is treated as a threat, will they ever be able to get into a dominate position?

 

Yeah, it is. Just like every gang drive by is a soft target (which also aren't counted as mass shootings by the Crime Prevention Research Center) . The number of guns available doesn't define a soft target, it's a question of how much attention is being directed to detecting and deterring a threat.

And for the record - I'd bowed out of this thread to avoid the politics until Mack E-6 posted.

 

Mack aint wrong .

 

First off, correlation doesn't equal causation.

Secondly, why did the mafia ban guns in their 'social clubs'? Also, what tamed the Wild West? Specifically what did Wyyat Earp do in every town that he became sheriff of?