Wyoming Republicans Push to Eliminate Gun-Free Zones in Public Places

[Swordsmyth]

[h=2]Wyoming State Sen. Anthony Bouchard (R-Cheyenne) is pushing to eliminate gun-free zones on college and K-12 campuses as well other public areas that currently ban concealed carry.[/h] KOTA reports that Bouchard’s bill, Senate File 75, would not impact the ability of private property owners to set their own policies, but it would prevent publicly funded entities from restricting the exercise of Second Amendment rights.
Part of the motivation for the bill came from the University of Wyoming’s continued ban against concealed carry for self-defense.

More at: https://www.breitbart.com/politics/...-push-eliminate-gun-free-zones-public-places/

 

[Stratovarious]

Gun Free zones are Killing Zones, liberals are ok with that.

 

[Zippyjuan]

Gun Free zones are Killing Zones, liberals are ok with that.

Which killers said they chose their targets because they would be in "gun free zones"? What percent of "gun free zones" have had killings? Most killings actually happen in the home (suicide being #1 cause of gun death- most people are killed by somebody they know or are related to). Most mass killings were chosen because the shooter had a beef with somebody at that location- not because it was gun free. Gun Free Zones have even less impact on killings than banning automatic guns would have. Mass shootings are more likely where there are masses of people.

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u....cement/expanded/expanded-homicide-data-figure

 

[Swordsmyth]

Gun Free Zones have even less impact on killings than banning automatic guns would have.

So why violate people's rights by imposing them on public property?

 

[Stratovarious]

Which killers said they chose their targets because they would be in "gun free zones"? What percent of "gun free zones" have had killings? Most killings actually happen in the home (suicide being #1 cause of gun death- most people are killed by somebody they know or are related to). Most mass killings were chosen because the shooter had a beef with somebody at that location- not because it was gun free. Gun Free Zones have even less impact on killings than banning automatic guns would have. Mass shootings are more likely where there are masses of people.

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u....cement/expanded/expanded-homicide-data-figure

Media focus is on mass shootings in public places
they invariably occur in 'gun free zones' , I assume you
can read at least half as well as you troll.

 

[Zippyjuan]

Media focus is on mass shootings in public places
they invariably occur in 'gun free zones' , I assume you
can read at least half as well as you troll.

If mass shootings occur in public spaces and only in places called "gun free zones"- then if we get rid of all "gun free zones" will that mean there will be no more mass shootings? Mass shootings may get lots of press coverage but are very rare events.

The chance of you dying in a mass shooting in the U.S. is about 0.00000143%. (Almost one in a million)

 

[Swordsmyth]

If mass shootings occur in public spaces and only in places called "gun free zones"- then if we get rid of all "gun free zones" will that mean there will be no more mass shootings? Mass shootings may get lots of press coverage but are very rare events.

The chance of you dying in a mass shooting in the U.S. is about 0.00000143%. (Almost one in a million)

It will mean that the number one way that a mass shooting is stopped will be much more likely: A good guy with a gun will be there and stop it before it goes very far.

 

[Swordsmyth]

[h=3]FBI Data Shows Armed Citizens Have 94% Success Rate Stopping Would-Be Mass Shooters[/h]

 

[Brian4Liberty]

If mass shootings occur in public spaces and only in places called "gun free zones"- then if we get rid of all "gun free zones" will that mean there will be no more mass shootings?

And are you trying to say that gun-free zones have prevented even a single shooting?

Mass shootings may get lots of press coverage but are very rare events.

Mass shootings get press coverage and form the emotional basis for gun control measures. Perhaps you can bring this up next time there is a mass shooting at a school (gun-free zone) when the media and left-wing politicians are having hysterical meltdowns.

 

[Zippyjuan]

And are you trying to say that gun-free zones have prevented even a single shooting?



Mass shootings get press coverage and form the emotional basis for gun control measures. Perhaps you can bring this up next time there is a mass shooting at a school (gun-free zone) when the media and left-wing politicians are having hysterical meltdowns.

No. I claim that gun free or not gun free had zero to do with the choice of target.

 

[Swordsmyth]

No. I claim that gun free or not gun free had zero to do with the choice of target.

But it has everything to do with the targets' ability to defend themselves.

FBI Data Shows Armed Citizens Have 94% Success Rate Stopping Would-Be Mass Shooters


Please explain what benefit there is to robbing people of their rights and why you are defending the practice.

 

[Zippyjuan]

That link notes:

I don’t think it particularly wise to draw conclusions from the below chart for a few reasons.

First, the data pool isn’t big enough. 283 total events equate to about 5 1/2 per state on average … over an 18 year period. For example, North Dakota had 1 incident with a population of fewer than 1 million people. Its possible another 10 years could go by without any more incidents so calling it a high probability Active Shooter State is logically unsound.

and were successful in reducing the loss of life in an additional 18.2% (6) of incidents.

So in only six incidents was the loss of life considered reduced by the presence of another civilian with a gun. 283 incidents.

 

[Swordsmyth]

That link notes:





So in only six incidents was the loss of life considered reduced by the presence of another civilian with a gun. 283 incidents.

Explain why ANYONE should be lose their life or be deprived of their rights zip.

And stop lying, the 283 incidents were NOT all involving a civilian with a gun:

Of all the active shooter events there were 33 at which an armed citizen was present. Of those, Armed Citizens were successful at stopping the Active shooter 75.8% of the time (25 incidents) and were successful in reducing the loss of life in an additional 18.2% (6) of incidents. In only 2 of the 33 incidents (6.1%) was the Armed Citizen(s) not helpful in any way in stopping the active shooter or reducing the loss of life.

The 6 incidents were the times the attack wasn't stopped but the loss of life was reduced, in 25 the attack WAS STOPPED COMPLETELY.

THAT MEANS THAT IN 31 OF 33 INCIDENTS WHERE AN ARMED CITIZEN WAS PRESENT THE LOSS OF LIFE WAS REDUCED OR ENDED.

 

[Stratovarious]

If mass shootings occur in public spaces and only in places called "gun free zones"- then if we get rid of all "gun free zones" will that mean there will be no more mass shootings? Mass shootings may get lots of press coverage but are very rare events.

No kidding , that is what I said, they 'get a lot of coverage'.
The media's goal (aim) is to increase them, demonize all
weaponry to the point that society is willing to see the Population
disarmed.