Gun Free Zones are the real problem.

[Zundfolge]

Virginia Beach shooting victim considered taking gun to work over concerns about colleague, lawyer says

Kate Nixon had considered taking a gun to work on May 31, the day a co-worker killed her and 11 others in the country's deadliest mass shooting this year, a family attorney said on a radio show Monday.
The public utilities engineer was concerned about DeWayne Craddock "as well as one other person," said Kevin Martingayle, an attorney working with Nixon's family. So on the night of May 30, Nixon had discussed with her husband, Jason, "whether or not she should take a pistol and hide it in her handbag," Martingayle said. She decided against it because of a city policy that prevents employees from bringing weapons to work.

The next day, Craddock, who had worked as a city public utilities engineer for nine years, used a .45-caliber handgun with a legally purchased silencer to fire at colleagues in Building 2 of the city's Municipal Center in Princess Anne.

...

source (https://pilotonline.com/news/local/virginia-beach-mass-shooting/article_3843db5c-8b9e-11e9-b87f-e3e87b2a3b42.html)

[Skip]

Yup.

And it sounds like, just like in many other "mass shootings," that people knew the shooter was a threat long before the murders took place.

Horrible position to be in to have to decide between keeping your job and being able to protect yourself, but we've all been there.

[Gman]

Libtards think that if you make a policy to remove guns from the situation, there's never a gun problem. They also can't grasp that criminals don't follow the established 'rules'. Their desired vision of what they want the world to be is unrealistic/unsustainable.

[Skip]

Libtards think that if you make a policy to remove guns from the situation, there's never a gun problem. They also can't grasp that criminals don't follow the established 'rules'. Their desired vision of what they want the world to be is unrealistic/unsustainable.

What is interesting to me is that when a freedom oriented policy fails (abuse of rights) the Left will call it intolerable and the system of values that created it "broken." Even when that failure is statistically irrelevant. There is no forgiveness.

When a collectivist policy fails, and fails to a greater degree, they will ignore it and continue to promote that policy. And they expect everyone else to forgive that failure.

[Zundfolge]

What is interesting to me is that when a freedom oriented policy fails (abuse of rights) the Left will call it intolerable and the system of values that created it "broken." Even when that failure is statistically irrelevant. There is no forgiveness.

When a collectivist policy fails, and fails to a greater degree, they will ignore it and continue to promote that policy. And they expect everyone else to forgive that failure.

Its because leftists are emotion driven and the "good" intentions behind a policy or law are more important than the actual real world consequences.

[Erni]

Hope the husband ends up owning half the city when this is done.

[Bailey Guns]

It almost seems that being a law-abiding citizen is the real problem.

[Little Dutch]

It's starting to look like being part of an unarmed group of any significant size is the problem.

[Irving]

Sorry, but I have zero fantasy that this outcome would have been any different if this lady had a gun in her purse. I could be wrong, but I bet I'm not.

A lot of factors could have changed the outcome of this event, but to focus so heavily on the presence of a gun, gives legs to the argument that "guns kill people," because it's the opposite side of "guns save people."

[Skip]

Its because leftists are emotion driven and the "good" intentions behind a policy or law are more important than the actual real world consequences.

Sure but this is only possible because the rest of us agree to insulate feels from consequences. And then we go the extra mile in allowing Libs to dominate us using our own resources.

In nature, this would be a fairly short lived experiment as the feels people suffered those consequences and/or the objective people separated themselves from those consequences denying the feels people resources/protection.



Sorry, but I have zero fantasy that this outcome would have been any different if this lady had a gun in her purse. I could be wrong, but I bet I'm not.

A lot of factors could have changed the outcome of this event, but to focus so heavily on the presence of a gun, gives legs to the argument that "guns kill people," because it's the opposite side of "guns save people."

The ability to project violence against violence absolutely matters in an active shooter scenario and a handgun offers an efficient way to respond. Any round she could have fired could have given him pause, given time for others to escape, or pinned him down while LE responded. This is the conscious/unconscious calculation in choosing "gun free zones." If these monsters want high body counts, they pick a GFZ.

In this case, that monster had a personal beef with the location which happened to be a GFZ but I'm not unconvinced the values employed to create a GFZ don't extend to other bad decisions and policies (i.e. keeping a problem employee for 2+ years). Public schools have been notorious for this as well.

[Irving]

Those ideals are nice, and usually sound, but whether they translate into the desire results in actual situations isn't guaranteed. I'm not saying I disagree.

Let me explain where I'm coming from. I have a friend who is into guns, but his wife isn't. After changing jobs where she is often at the office by herself, she started thinking about a way to defend herself should she need to. I suggested pepper spray, but my friend wasn't going to miss an opportunity to buy another gun, so she ended up with a .38 spl in her purse. We were camping and she was trying to show her gun to her dad. Neither of them could get it out of the holster and they were taking turns flagging each other trying (I didn't directly see this part so couldn't have said anything at the time). Anyway, she has no idea what she's doing and is not in any way more safe now than before she had a gun. In fact I'd argue that anyone around her is now considerably less safe.

I don't know the lady in the story, or her background or training, but I feel pretty confident that when you've selected guns as a hobby and have put in the requisite amount of training, then the choice between potentially protecting your life, or leaving your gun at home because it isn't allowed is an easy decision. Just tossing a gun into your purse is stopping zero shootings.

[Gman]

Why restrict the scenario to this one individual armed employee? Just because there's one being highlighted, that doesn't mean she could have been the only one.


When a collectivist policy fails, and fails to a greater degree, they will ignore it and continue to promote that policy. And they expect everyone else to forgive that failure.
Their argument is usually that the policy didn't go "far enough".

[Irving]

Those are the ones trying to make the news. I already said, I don't disagree with the sentiment, but this story is just as much fake news BS as any other media spin. The fact of the matter is that this lady didn't bring her gun to work, so it's the same as 1,000 other dudes chiming in and saying, "Well, if this had happened at MY work, things would have gone differently." I suppose if people are going to be gullible enough to think that every shooting is some false flag event, then might as well fight fire with fire and start getting people to come out of the woodwork after each one and say, "Well, I was going to bring my gun to work/school that day and could have protected everyone, but the laws didn't let so..."

[Skip]

Those ideals are nice, and usually sound, but whether they translate into the desire results in actual situations isn't guaranteed. I'm not saying I disagree.

Let me explain where I'm coming from. I have a friend who is into guns, but his wife isn't. After changing jobs where she is often at the office by herself, she started thinking about a way to defend herself should she need to. I suggested pepper spray, but my friend wasn't going to miss an opportunity to buy another gun, so she ended up with a .38 spl in her purse. We were camping and she was trying to show her gun to her dad. Neither of them could get it out of the holster and they were taking turns flagging each other trying (I didn't directly see this part so couldn't have said anything at the time). Anyway, she has no idea what she's doing and is not in any way more safe now than before she had a gun. In fact I'd argue that anyone around her is now considerably less safe.

I don't know the lady in the story, or her background or training, but I feel pretty confident that when you've selected guns as a hobby and have put in the requisite amount of training, then the choice between potentially protecting your life, or leaving your gun at home because it isn't allowed is an easy decision. Just tossing a gun into your purse is stopping zero shootings.

That's a great example of thinking a gun is a magic talisman. So I get what you're saying.

But a policy that disallows CCW and creates a GFZ doesn't just prevent the "magic talisman" carrier but also those who train and are capable. It creates a safety vacuum by making pretty darn sure the only armed person is the BG. Ironically, there is a collective benefit to CCW as well not just by collapsing that vacuum but being able to rely on others.

There's no way one person can be everywhere or see everything but if I'm surrounded by carriers my confidence goes up that a situation can be handled. Doesn't necessarily have to be by me.

[Irving]

I agree, I'm just hesitant to get on board with a narrative that is just as false as the one used against the case for bearing arms.

[CS1983]

Maybe I'll get HBAR to make me a special Thoughts and Prayers OWB holster for work. Will be detailed to look like a tiny trash can.

[Gman]

I could just see it in a Dirty Harry context;

"I've got your so-called worthless thoughts and prayers right here. Go ahead. Make me pray."

[Bailey Guns]

The reality is this woman wasn't given a chance or the opportunity due to policy. She may have been the first one shot even if she had her gun. On the other hand, she may have responded and stopped the BG either by shooting him or causing him to flee or whatever. We'll never really know the what the outcome would've been. But we certainly know the outcome of denying her the ability to bring her gun with her.

On the other hand, every single day in this country untrained individuals successfully protect themselves and others with guns. And I'm talking about people who know just enough to point the business end at the threat and pull the trigger. Or sometimes just the perception on the BG's part that someone else has a gun is enough to make his/her behavior change. It happens thousands of times per year.

So I wouldn't be too quick to dismiss the idea this lady might've changed the outcome somewhat. I don't disagree with your overall take on the situation but I definitely think there's more to it that should be considered. And like Skip said...these policies also prohibit highly trained and motivated gun owners from carrying, too. People who would have a high percentage of success in an armed conflict.

My wife has a permit to carry. My wife knows only the very basics about operating her gun. She has never been in any type of physical confrontation or life/death struggle and I thank God for that. But I also have serious reservations about her ability to successfully employ her gun in a life threatening situation. But, if it does happen, at least she has the opportunity to prove me wrong.

[Irving]

I'm on board with all of that.

[TFOGGER]

It's all about the odds. Similar to the lottery, her chance of defending herself and/or others with her gun would have been minute, but without a gun it was zero.

[Zundfolge]

The other issue is the opportunity cost of ALL of the victims and potential victims being disarmed by the policy.

We have no way of knowing how many of the victims were gun owners that would have been armed had it not been against policy. As such maybe this woman being armed wouldn't have mattered at all, but if one of the first victims would have been armed and engaged the shooter at the beginning of his spree, how many of the 12 dead may have survived?

[O2HeN2]

We have no way of knowing how many of the victims were gun owners that would have been armed had it not been against policy. As such maybe this woman being armed wouldn't have mattered at all, but if one of the first victims would have been armed and engaged the shooter at the beginning of his spree, how many of the 12 dead may have survived?
Bingo, I was about to post almost the same but you nailed it.

And what if it wasn't a gun free zone, would he have showed up to shoot up the place to begin with knowing full well that he might have lead coming his way before he even started out making his mark in history?

O2

[Gman]

We have no way of knowing how many of the victims were gun owners that would have been armed had it not been against policy. As such maybe this woman being armed wouldn't have mattered at all, but if one of the first victims would have been armed and engaged the shooter at the beginning of his spree, how many of the 12 dead may have survived?
It may not even have come to a conflict if he had the understanding that not everyone in the building was a non-threatening target.

If it's agreed that there are a lot more law abiding people than law breakers, an even distribution of firearms should assure that the bad guys don't run roughshod over everyone.

[Zundfolge]

The vast majority of these mass shooters are cowards acting out some twisted "God of Death" fantasy ... which is why so many of them stop killing innocents and turn their guns on themselves the instant they meet up with armed resistance.

Like the kid at New Life ... like the guy in Oregon (Clackamas Town Center) ... like the kid at Sandy Hook ...like Elliot Roger ... like the guy in Vegas (assuming we have any idea what really happened) ... like many others.

[Skip]

The vast majority of these mass shooters are cowards acting out some twisted "God of Death" fantasy ... which is why so many of them stop killing innocents and turn their guns on themselves the instant they meet up with armed resistance.

Like the kid at New Life ... like the guy in Oregon (Clackamas Town Center) ... like the kid at Sandy Hook ...like Elliot Roger ... like the guy in Vegas (assuming we have any idea what really happened) ... like many others.

Yes and this is where motives matter. I hate to give the monsters attention but this is why we should be objectively reviewing the manifestos.

When the monster writes or says...

I'll do this in a populated and confined place with no meaningful resistance, where I will have the power to decide who lives and who dies, to try and outdo the Columbine body count and be even more infamous

(or something to that effect) ...we should be paying attention.

A policy that forbids standard capacity magazines isn't addressing motive like that. A policy that provides resistance to this violence, does address it.

[Gman]

A policy that provides resistance to this violence, does address it.

"Violence never solves anything." [Sarcasm2]