They make dopes feel better. They make it easier for a nut job to pick a good target?

They make dopes feel better. They make it easier for a nut job to pick a good target?

Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

Because they don't work.

yep, it's a lot easier to open fire on a bunch of people when you know none of them have a means to fight back.

Most mass shooters are cowards and that is why they put a bullet in their own brain the minute they are engaged by the police. They are not prepared for a firefight where someone else will shoot back at them.

yep, it's a lot easier to open fire on a bunch of people when you know none of them have a means to fight back.

Most mass shooters are cowards and that is why they put a bullet in their own brain the minute they are engaged by the police. They are not prepared for a firefight where someone else will shoot back at them.

They probably know that their guns are "pretty useless".

if they are not well trained (most mass shooters aren't) and going against someone who is properly trained, then yes they are going to be at a disadvantage the minute they face any amount of resistance.

You would be shocked with how easily a trained pistol user can take down untrained rifle users provided they are not at distances exceeding 75 yards.

Exactly. AR15s are pointless as they are useless to defend and only are good for killing civilians.

So why are they needed again?

if they are not well trained (most mass shooters aren't) and going against someone who is properly trained, then yes they are going to be at a disadvantage the minute they face any amount of resistance.

You would be shocked with how easily a trained pistol user can take down untrained rifle users provided they are not at distances exceeding 75 yards.

(Before this gets derailed by BRick) Again, again - Ogie & Mike: which shooting locations were chosen because they were gun free?

Fort Hood is a prime example as military personnel cannot carry on base. School shootings are all gun free zones, Pulse Nightclub, etc.

Again I ask the question - Which shooting locations were chosen because they were gun free?

I'll ask you... which were not?
Do you know how many mass shootings were on gun free zones over the last 50+ years?

I'll ask you... which were not?
Do you know how many mass shootings were on gun free zones over the last 50+ years?

I give you more credit than that. Those locations were chosen for specific reasons...none of which were related to a concern of return fire. You know that, right?

(Before this gets derailed by BRick) Again, again - Ogie & Mike: which shooting locations were chosen because they were gun free?

That is part of it, but if there was a higher probability of someone being armed and able to intervene quickly, don't you think another target may have been considered? It's no coincidence that these people scope out and select places that are what we would call "soft targets". If the places they scoped out were populated by some people who may be equipped to return fire, then the plans very well may change.

I didn’t say there were. Logically I think it is easier to decide to attack the target where no guns are allowed. I would go there before say the police station for my massacre.

So an AR15 can take out trained military personnel but a trained pistol owner can easily take out an AR15?

Very confusing

Actually I don’t think that. These shooters are irrational are frequently targeting a location for a reason. Fired from a job, bullied at school, etc. I seriously doubt the idea of a soft target enters into their thought process.

A trained AR-15 user certainly can. I don't think you realize how many of us are ex-military and do spend a lot of weekends on the range. Now granted an untrained AR-15 user will be nothing but an easy target for infantry, but one who has undergone some training and is very familiar with their rifle would put up a solid fight and could even have the upper-hand if proper concealment is used for an ambush. Once again, the rifle gives you an effective range of 500 yards and anyone who has undergone military training should be able to use it to that range.

They do have a reason for the target, but I am saying they probably reconsider if they expect to encounter resistance. What they are doing has no point to them if they cannot go in unopposed and kill as many of their targets as possible. I'd say it is a mixture of the two that leads to them selecting their eventual location

Again I disagree. They are not normal. They aren’t concerned with consequences. They choose a specific location because their psychosis leads them there.

And I hesitate to note that there was an armed security guy at the school in FL.

So how is it "pretty useless" and no more effective than a pistol?

Whether it was Pulse, Stoneman Douglas, or Sandy Hook, a pistol would've been just as effective for the shooter and wouldn't have changed the death counts as the victims were all defenseless and unarmed in a confined space.

Do you believe that psychosis lead an armed assassin to choose a gun free zone by chance?
Bear in mind that over 95% of mass shootings happened at gun free zones.
That's just chance?