The way Politifact sees it, there are NO "Gun Free Zones", because police carry.

[actaeon277]

I'm putting this in General Politics, though I'm not sure it should be here.


While I was looking up stats for a FaceBook argument, I found this.

https://www.politifact.com/florida/...do-most-mass-shootings-happen-gun-free-zones/
Do most mass shootings happen in gun-free zones?

By Amy Sherman on Tuesday, February 21st, 2017 at 3:13 p.m.


"There’s an obvious logical problem with such a conceptualization: How can a place be a gun-free zone if guns are present?" Klarevas writes. "The implication is that rampage shooters are only deterred by armed civilians, not by armed guards and cops. But that’s an absurd suggestion."

Of course, this ignores most places with "no guns allowed" signs, or laws against guns, do NOT have armed guards there, and police are not there 24/7.
The White House is a "gun free zone". Probably not going to be a lot of murder there, cause of all the guards/agents.
The mall, or an unarmed school though, until most recently schools rarely had officers there.

Also, they talk about there not being a consensus on what is a "mass shooting".
Congratulations. Pro-gunners have argued the same point when the anti-s twist the number of people necessary to call it a mass shooting.

 

[actaeon277]

No one agrees or disagrees?

 

[Liberty Sanders]

As a retired cop myself, I consider the presence of an armed guard to be ineffective to prevent an attack by a determined assailant owing to the fact that a uniformed guardian is identifiable and therefore avoidable. This is why I consider so-called "school resource officers" to be nothing but political theater.

Many years ago during my first year in law enforcement I became acquainted with the proprietor of a high end jewelry store who asked me to work off-duty in the establishment to provide security during the Christmas season. He anticipated me doing this in uniform. I told him that was out of the question for the reason cited above.

I accepted the gig under the conditions that: 1) I would be dressed no differently than the store employees and 2) that it would be considered a given that anyone entering the store who produced a weapon or alluded to one in furtherance of a robbery would not be leaving the store alive, nor would they be challenged or warned before I took action (did I mention that this was many​ years ago?). The owner agreed to this.

It remained only for me to sternly instruct the store personnel that if I were to yell "DOWN!!" that they were to flatten themselves on the floor and so remain until told by me to do otherwise.

The gig was both lucrative and uneventful.

 

[Expat]

Politifacts is a left wing propagandist. They willingly bend the truth when needed to support their team’s position.

 

[BillD]

Politifacts is a left wing propagandist. They willingly bend the truth when needed to support their team’s position.

Seems there's a lot of that happening.

 

[Expat]

Seems there's a lot of that happening.

Yep, I have quit following a lot of stuff on FB because of it. Both sides seem to be pretty comfortable just making stuff up and posting it on social media. Although sometimes the "watch so and so destroy the other so and so" can be pretty funny. Then you watch the clip and think... i must have missed the destroyed part.

 

[BillD]

I've never seen more disinformation in my life than I have on Facebook.

 

[Mongo59]

Hey, wait a minute... that IS on the internet tho...

 

[IndyTom]

Hey, wait a minute... that IS on the internet tho...

So . . . it is pornography?

[video=youtube;LTJvdGcb7Fs]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LTJvdGcb7Fs[/video]

 

[actaeon277]

So . . . it is pornography?

[video=youtube;LTJvdGcb7Fs]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LTJvdGcb7Fs[/video]

That claim could be more true, than the claim that there is no such thing as a gun free zone.

 

[KellyinAvon]

I'm putting this in General Politics, though I'm not sure it should be here.


While I was looking up stats for a FaceBook argument, I found this.

https://www.politifact.com/florida/...do-most-mass-shootings-happen-gun-free-zones/
Do most mass shootings happen in gun-free zones?

By Amy Sherman on Tuesday, February 21st, 2017 at 3:13 p.m.


"ThereÂ’s an obvious logical problem with such a conceptualization: How can a place be a gun-free zone if guns are present?" Klarevas writes. "The implication is that rampage shooters are only deterred by armed civilians, not by armed guards and cops. But thatÂ’s an absurd suggestion."

Of course, this ignores most places with "no guns allowed" signs, or laws against guns, do NOT have armed guards there, and police are not there 24/7.
The White House is a "gun free zone". Probably not going to be a lot of murder there, cause of all the guards/agents.
The mall, or an unarmed school though, until most recently schools rarely had officers there.

Also, they talk about there not being a consensus on what is a "mass shooting".
Congratulations. Pro-gunners have argued the same point when the anti-s twist the number of people necessary to call it a mass shooting.

A comparison I have made for GFZs is the Indiana Statehouse and schools in rural areas. The Statehouse has limited entrances, each one being a choke point. State Troopers and Capitol Police, contractors operating metal detectors, badged entrance for vetted individuals only. A school in rural area might get a Town Marshall and a DNR Officer in 10 minutes on a good day.

Deterrence works. Verbal gymnastics are for those educated beyond their intelligence.

 

[jamil]

Politifacts is a left wing propagandist. They willingly bend the truth when needed to support their team’s position.

I don’t think they know the truth and then knowingly lie to support their team’s position. I think they believe everything they say. They’re rationalizing the thing they already believe.