TOTALLY GEEKED!

Members Login
Username 
 
Password 
    Remember Me  
Post Info TOPIC: Here’s How Many Lives Were Taken in Just 8 Armed Attacks in Gun Free Zones


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 25897
Date:
Here’s How Many Lives Were Taken in Just 8 Armed Attacks in Gun Free Zones
Permalink  
 


Here’s How Many Lives Were Taken in Just 8 Armed Attacks in Gun Free Zones

 

Calls for more gun control almost always follow a public crime or terror attack in which the attacker–or attackers–use a gun. Yet many of the most infamous attacks take place in gun free zones–places where law-abiding citizens disarm themselves to comply with the rules while criminals take advantage of disarmed masses and open fire.

What follows are just a few of the many examples of shootings in gun free zones that could be listed. There is not one type of firearm that can be blamed–the weapon used was sometimes a handgun, sometimes a rifle, other times a shotgun–nor is there one specific race that can be pinpointed–the attackers come from various races/ethnicities. Nor is this a situation where expanding background checks would have made even the slightest difference–all the attackers listed but one, Adam Lanza, passed a background check for their firearms. Lanza opted to steal his guns instead.

The common thread is that the attacks took place in areas where the gunman knew he could inflict damage at his own pace, without the threat of reprisal from armed citizens:

Lafayette Grand Theatre: On July 23 John Russell Houser allegedly opened fire with a .40 caliber pistol, killing two people–Mayci Breaux and Jillian Johnson–and injuring nine others in a gun free zone.

Chattanooga: On July 16 Mohammad Youssef Abdulazeez opened fire on two military locations–one a recruitment office, the second a Navy Operational Support Center. The attack killed five people–USMC Gunnery Sgt. Thomas Sullivan, USMC Lance Corporal Squire K. Wells, USMC Staff Sgt. David Wyatt, USMC Sgt. Carson Holmquist, and US Navy Petty Officer Randall Smith–in a gun free zone.

Fort Hood (2014): On April 2, 2014, Army Spc. Ivan Lopez opened fired on fellow soldiers, killing Sgt. 1st Class Danny Ferguson, Sgt. Timothy Owens, and Staff Sgt. Carlos Lazaney-Rodriguez, and wounded 16 others in a gun free zone.

DC Navy Yard: On September 16, 2013, Aaron Alexis opened fire with a shotgun, killing 12 people in a gun free zone. WSB-TV reported those 12 included 59-year-old Michael Arnold, 53-year-old Sylvia Frasier, 62-year-old Kathy Gaarde, 73-year-old John Roger Johnson, 50-year-old Frank Kohler, 46-year-old Kenneth Bernard Proctor, and 61-year-old Vishnu Pandit. Eight others were wounded.

Sandy Hook Elementary: On December 14, 2012, Adam Lanza opened fire with a rifle in a gun free zone, killing 20 students and 6 unarmed staff. The New York Daily News listed the names of those killed: Charlotte Bacon (DOB 2/22/06), Daniel Barden (9/25/05), Rachel Davino (7/17/83), Olivia Engel (7/18/06), Josephine Gay (12/11/05), Ana M. Marquez-Greene (4/4/06), Dylan Hockley (3/8/06), Dawn Hocksprung (6/28/65), Madeleine F. Hsu (7/10/06), Catherine V. Hubbard (6/8/06), Chase Kowalski (10/31/05), Jesse Lewis (6/30/06), James Mattioli (3/22/06), Grace McDonnell (11/04/05), AnneMarie Murphy (07/25/60), Emilie Parker (5/12/06), Jack Pinto (5/6/06), Noah Pozner (11/20/06), Caroline Previdi (9/7/06), Jessica Rekos (5/10/06), Avielle Richman (10/17/06), Lauren Russeau (6/1982), Mary Sherlach (2/11/56), Victoria Soto (11/4/85), Benjamin Wheeler (9/12/06), and Allison N. Wyatt (7/3/06).

Aurora Movie Theater: On July 20, 2012, James Holmes opened fire with a rifle in a gun free zone at a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado. He killed 12 innocents and Fox News reported their names as 26-year-old Jonathon Blunk, 18-year-old Alexander Boik, 29-year-old Jessie Childress, 51-year-old Gordon Cowden, 24-year-old Jessica Ghawi, 27-year-old John Larimer, 27-year-old Matt McQuinn, 23-year-old Micayla Medek, 6-year-old Veronica Moser-Sullivan, 27-year-old Alex Sullivan, 24-year-old Alexander Teves, and 32-year-old Rebecca Wingo. 70 additional persons were listed as injured. All killed in a gun free zone that was only “gun free” for law-abiding citizens.

Fort Hood (2009): On November 5, 2009, Nidal Hasan opened fire on his fellow soldiers in a gun free zone at Fort Hood, killing 13. The Huffington Post listed their names: 62-year-old Michael Grant Cahill, 52-year-old Maj. Libardo Eduardo Caraveo, 32-year-old Staff Sgt. Justin M. DeCrow, 56-year-old Capt. John Gaffaney, 29-year-old Spc. Frederick Greene,  22-year-old Spc. Jason Dean Hunt, 29-year-old Sgt. Amy Krueger, 19-year-old Pfc. Aaron Thomas Nemelka, 22-year-old Pfc. Michael Pearson, 51-year-old, Capt. Russell Seager, 21-year-old Pvt. Francheska Velez, 55-year-old Lt. Col. Juanita Warman, and 23-year-old Pfc. Kham Xiong. Hasan shot and injured at least 30 others in the gun free zone.

Seung-Hui Cho (Virginia Tech): On April 16, 2007, Seung-Hui Cho used a handgun to open fire on fellow students in a gun free zone at Virginia Tech. He killed 32 and wounded 17 others.  NBC News listed those killed: Liviu Librescu, Ryan Clark, Kevin Granata, Juan Ramon Ortiz, Ross Abdallah Alameddine, Christopher James Bishop, Brian Bluhm, Austin Cloyd, Jocelyn Couture-Nowak, Daniel Perez Cueza, Kevin Granata, Matthew Gwaltney, Caitlin Hammaren, Jeremy Herbstritt, Rachael Hill, Jarrett Lane, Matthew Le Porte, Henry Lee, G.V. Loganathan, Partahi Lombantoruan, Lauren McCain, Daniel O’Neil, Minal Panchal, Erin Peterson, Michael Pohle, Julia Pryde, Mary Read, Reema Samaha, Waleed Shaalan, Leslie Sherman, Maxine Turner, and Nicole White.

There you have it–eight attacks over the last 8 years in which gunmen opened fire in places where citizens were disarmed by policies that treat law-abiding citizens and criminals alike. The result? 105 innocent lives taken and more than 150 others injured by gun fire in gun free zones.

The bottom line–gun free zones are not gun free for criminals. Rather, they are soft targets that offer an invitation to attackers who do not want to face the possibility of would-be victims shooting back.

Follow AWR Hawkins on Twitter: @AWRHawkins. Reach him directly at awrhawkins@breitbart.com

 

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/08/02/heres-how-many-lives-were-taken-in-just-8-armed-attacks-in-gun-free-zones/



__________________

https://politicsandstuff.proboards.com/



Give Me Grand's!

Status: Offline
Posts: 13802
Date:
Permalink  
 

This is just from American soft targets. I think Europe has had as many or more attacks on soft targets.

The Norwegian attack on a camp jumps to mind for me. If I remember right, 56 were killed by that nut.

France has had numerous attacks on soft targets recently. We just don't hear to much about it here due to media being controlled, IMHO.

__________________

I drink coffee so I don't kill you.

I quilt so I don't kill you.

Do you see a theme?

Faith isn't something that keeps bad things from happening. Faith is what helps us get through bad things when they do happen.



Frozen Sucks!

Status: Offline
Posts: 24384
Date:
Permalink  
 

The article would carry more weight with me if it included the attacks in areas where guns were allowed. Then we can have a real conversation about gun control. I do not like slanted articles.

__________________

Sometimes you're the windshield, and sometimes you're the bug.

Frozen is the bestest movie ever, NOT!



Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 9186
Date:
Permalink  
 

I know what to do_sometimes wrote:

The article would carry more weight with me if it included the attacks in areas where guns were allowed. Then we can have a real conversation about gun control. I do not like slanted articles.


Absolutely right.

Still, I think the idea of advertising a place as a soft target is STUPID STUPID STUPID.

 



__________________

The Principle of Least Interest: He who cares least about a relationship, controls it.

Always misinterpret when you can.



Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 10215
Date:
Permalink  
 

I know what to do_sometimes wrote:

The article would carry more weight with me if it included the attacks in areas where guns were allowed. Then we can have a real conversation about gun control. I do not like slanted articles.


I don't think the point of the article is that "gun free zones" necessarily are more dangerous than other places--but the fact is that they don't work.  Criminals aren't going to abide by such laws and are going to take their guns wherever they damn well please.  Gun free zones are stupid because the only people that will obey such zones are the people who wouldn't shoot anyone, anyway.  



__________________

I'm not arguing, I'm just explaining why I'm right.

 

Well, I could agree with you--but then we'd both be wrong.



Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 3029
Date:
Permalink  
 

The only people that will honor "gun free" zones are law abiding citizens. Law abiding citizens don't shoot innocent people whether it's a "gun free" zone or not though.

__________________


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 9186
Date:
Permalink  
 

WYSIWYG wrote:

The only people that will honor "gun free" zones are law abiding citizens. Law abiding citizens don't shoot innocent people whether it's a "gun free" zone or not though.


When will people realize that "gun free zone" actually means "free fire zone" to a crazy psychopath? 

If I am going somewhere and see a "gun free zone" sign, I'M LEAVING. And I'll tell the management why (but not in person, since I'm not going there.)



__________________

The Principle of Least Interest: He who cares least about a relationship, controls it.

Always misinterpret when you can.



Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 25897
Date:
Permalink  
 

ed11563 wrote:
WYSIWYG wrote:

The only people that will honor "gun free" zones are law abiding citizens. Law abiding citizens don't shoot innocent people whether it's a "gun free" zone or not though.


When will people realize that "gun free zone" actually means "free fire zone" to a crazy psychopath? 

If I am going somewhere and see a "gun free zone" sign, I'M LEAVING. And I'll tell the management why (but not in person, since I'm not going there.)


Free Fire Zone to Crazy Psychopath!  That is exactly what that should say Ed!!  smile 



__________________

https://politicsandstuff.proboards.com/



On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

Status: Offline
Posts: 27192
Date:
Permalink  
 

huskerbb wrote:
I know what to do_sometimes wrote:

The article would carry more weight with me if it included the attacks in areas where guns were allowed. Then we can have a real conversation about gun control. I do not like slanted articles.


I don't think the point of the article is that "gun free zones" necessarily are more dangerous than other places--but the fact is that they don't work.  Criminals aren't going to abide by such laws and are going to take their guns wherever they damn well please.  Gun free zones are stupid because the only people that will obey such zones are the people who wouldn't shoot anyone, anyway.  


 I don't really agree with that.  A "gun-free" zone advertises to shooters that no one will be armed to defend themselves. 



__________________

LawyerLady

 

I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you. 



Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 3029
Date:
Permalink  
 

A "gun-free" zone advertises to shooters that no one will be armed to defend themselves.
- Lawyerlady

_____________________________

I agree with that. "Gun free" zones only disarm the law abiding. Advertising the area as "gun free" advertises it as a repercussion free (until the police arrive) shooting gallery for those that wish to cause harm and chaos.

__________________


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 10215
Date:
Permalink  
 

Lawyerlady wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
I know what to do_sometimes wrote:

The article would carry more weight with me if it included the attacks in areas where guns were allowed. Then we can have a real conversation about gun control. I do not like slanted articles.


I don't think the point of the article is that "gun free zones" necessarily are more dangerous than other places--but the fact is that they don't work.  Criminals aren't going to abide by such laws and are going to take their guns wherever they damn well please.  Gun free zones are stupid because the only people that will obey such zones are the people who wouldn't shoot anyone, anyway.  


 I don't really agree with that.  A "gun-free" zone advertises to shooters that no one will be armed to defend themselves. 


But most places that are prone to gun violence don't advertise as "gun free"--but people aren't generally carrying guns there, either.   



__________________

I'm not arguing, I'm just explaining why I'm right.

 

Well, I could agree with you--but then we'd both be wrong.



On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

Status: Offline
Posts: 27192
Date:
Permalink  
 

huskerbb wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
I know what to do_sometimes wrote:

The article would carry more weight with me if it included the attacks in areas where guns were allowed. Then we can have a real conversation about gun control. I do not like slanted articles.


I don't think the point of the article is that "gun free zones" necessarily are more dangerous than other places--but the fact is that they don't work.  Criminals aren't going to abide by such laws and are going to take their guns wherever they damn well please.  Gun free zones are stupid because the only people that will obey such zones are the people who wouldn't shoot anyone, anyway.  


 I don't really agree with that.  A "gun-free" zone advertises to shooters that no one will be armed to defend themselves. 


But most places that are prone to gun violence don't advertise as "gun free"--but people aren't generally carrying guns there, either.   


 Schools?  Movie theaters?  Those advertise as gun-free zones.



__________________

LawyerLady

 

I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you. 

FNW


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 18703
Date:
Permalink  
 

I remember visiting Biloxi after Hurricane Georges. I saw a HUGE sign someone made and nailed to what was left of their home, "No Trespassing or Looting. I am armed and will shoot." Made me stop and think before stopping the car.

I agree that "gun-free" zones are making themselves a target for crime.

__________________

#it's5o'clocksomewhere



Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 10215
Date:
Permalink  
 

Lawyerlady wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
I know what to do_sometimes wrote:

The article would carry more weight with me if it included the attacks in areas where guns were allowed. Then we can have a real conversation about gun control. I do not like slanted articles.


I don't think the point of the article is that "gun free zones" necessarily are more dangerous than other places--but the fact is that they don't work.  Criminals aren't going to abide by such laws and are going to take their guns wherever they damn well please.  Gun free zones are stupid because the only people that will obey such zones are the people who wouldn't shoot anyone, anyway.  


 I don't really agree with that.  A "gun-free" zone advertises to shooters that no one will be armed to defend themselves. 


But most places that are prone to gun violence don't advertise as "gun free"--but people aren't generally carrying guns there, either.   


 Schools?  Movie theaters?  Those advertise as gun-free zones.


 Violence happens in more than just those places.



__________________

I'm not arguing, I'm just explaining why I'm right.

 

Well, I could agree with you--but then we'd both be wrong.



On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

Status: Offline
Posts: 27192
Date:
Permalink  
 

huskerbb wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
I know what to do_sometimes wrote:

The article would carry more weight with me if it included the attacks in areas where guns were allowed. Then we can have a real conversation about gun control. I do not like slanted articles.


I don't think the point of the article is that "gun free zones" necessarily are more dangerous than other places--but the fact is that they don't work.  Criminals aren't going to abide by such laws and are going to take their guns wherever they damn well please.  Gun free zones are stupid because the only people that will obey such zones are the people who wouldn't shoot anyone, anyway.  


 I don't really agree with that.  A "gun-free" zone advertises to shooters that no one will be armed to defend themselves. 


But most places that are prone to gun violence don't advertise as "gun free"--but people aren't generally carrying guns there, either.   


 Schools?  Movie theaters?  Those advertise as gun-free zones.


 Violence happens in more than just those places.


 But that's what is talked about in the OP - along with gun free military zones (WTH??? - that's just nuts).  And those are the places people congregate that allow for mass shootings. 



__________________

LawyerLady

 

I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you. 

Page 1 of 1  sorted by
 
Quick Reply

Please log in to post quick replies.



Create your own FREE Forum
Report Abuse
Powered by ActiveBoard