Quote:

---

endogenous said:
This is from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lonnie-and-sandy-phillips/lucky-gunner-lawsuit_b_8197804.html?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592

We knew the risks of bringing the case. We knew that Colorado and Congress have given special protection of the gun industry, and we knew that under Colorado law we could even be ordered to pay attorneys' fees because of those special protections.

---

Quote:

---

The horrific and public execution of our daughter Jessi and 11 other beautiful young lives has given us a brief window of opportunity to bring awareness to the number one public health crisis facing this nation today which is rampant gun violence.

---

Quote:

---

Salomon said:
likely badgered by emotion and pressure from their lawyers to enter such a law suit.

---

Quote:

---

Treant said:
Read like half of it and it got too long.

They tried suing a ammunition distributor because their daughter was shot with a bullet bought from them?

What in the fuck?

They should fine them for wasting the state's time on top of the $203,000.

---

Quote:

---

Shiithead said:

Quote:

---

Salomon said:
likely badgered by emotion and pressure from their lawyers to enter such a law suit.

---

Lol you're a walking contradiction man.

---

Quote:

---

Salomon said:

Quote:

---

Shiithead said:

Quote:

---

Salomon said:
likely badgered by emotion and pressure from their lawyers to enter such a law suit.

---

Lol you're a walking contradiction man.

---

enlighten me

---

Quote:

---

Shiithead said:

Quote:

---

Salomon said:

Quote:

---

Shiithead said:

Quote:

---

Salomon said:
likely badgered by emotion and pressure from their lawyers to enter such a law suit.

---

Lol you're a walking contradiction man.

---

enlighten me

---

You are redirecting their responsibilities to "pressure from their lawyers"

---

Quote:

---

Shroomslip said:

Quote:

---

endogenous said:
This is from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lonnie-and-sandy-phillips/lucky-gunner-lawsuit_b_8197804.html?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592

We knew the risks of bringing the case. We knew that Colorado and Congress have given special protection of the gun industry, and we knew that under Colorado law we could even be ordered to pay attorneys' fees because of those special protections.

---

Nothing more needs to be said. They knew the risks, they took the risks.

Oh and then this too:

Quote:

---

The horrific and public execution of our daughter Jessi and 11 other beautiful young lives has given us a brief window of opportunity to bring awareness to the number one public health crisis facing this nation today which is rampant gun violence.

---

Gun violence is a symptom. The real crisis is how many mentally unhinged insane people are out there who think killing a bunch of people is a good idea.

---

Quote:

---

Salomon said:
do you sue the ISP for allowing computer user that trolled your kids into suicide?

do you sue the mcdonalds cooperation for allowing an employee to serve your obease cousin a big mac, that later caused his heart attack?

do you sue the walmert that knowingly sold  that kitchen knife set to the angry looking man that used them to stab your wife to death?


no,no, and no.

this is no different.

---

Quote:

---

koods said:
Yes. A symptom of having too many guns.

But you're totally fine with selling unhinged people 4000 bullets.

---

Quote:

---

Shroomslip said:
I haven't really read the whole story, but it doesn't just apply this one story. How do you really know what a person intends to do with the ammo or if they're mentally unstable. Socio/psychopaths cannot be simply diagnosed like that. They're highly charismatic and to someone who's spent all of 5 minutes talking to them, they appear to be absolutely normal. There are plenty of people out there right now who have guns and it's pretty likely that a good number of them really shouldn't have them. Being irresponsible can even be just as bad and that would be even harder to "diagnose". Then there are yet even more cases where when someone obtained their gun/ammo they were actually stable and normal but some life event altered that. Are we supposed to look into everyone's future to determine if it's safe for them to have a gun?

The gun violence is not a symptom of having too many guns, it's a symptom of fucked up people who want to kill people. Assume every single person in the US is absolutely sane, clear headed and overall a good person. What do you think the murder rate by gun would be? Let's double the amount of guns out there, you think that's going to result in a significantly higher rate of murder by gun? Then let's compare the complete opposite variable. Assume every single person in the US is mentally unstable, violent and has no regard for human life, how do you think the murder rate would compare? Let's HALVE the guns out there, do you think the sane people with 4x the amount of guns would have murder rates that would even get close to comparing with the insane population?

Gun violence is a symptom of unstable people with no regard for life. The sane, clear headed good people don't have much of a reason to go attempting murder. Yes it WOULD still happen, because sometimes our emotions get the better of us, I don't believe it would happen at anywhere near the same rate however.

I'll admit I really have no ideas on how to fix this system or how to identify the psychos who are going to shoot people, but IMO it's better to admit that than act as if removing guns is the solution to this problem.

For the second part: the media loves to throw around the huge numbers of rounds, it's just a knee jerk thing. 4k rounds sounds like a lot, but it's not really when you're always going to the range, it's extremely common for people to buy thousands of rounds, it doesn't mean you're insane or you plan to go fuck shit up. Ammo is fucking expensive and buying in bulk REALLY cuts down on the costs. It is very common for people who have been collecting and firing guns for a decade or two, to have 10's of thousands of rounds. Right this very minute I have 3-4k rounds in my closet (plus the brass to make another 1-2k). I'm not going on a shooting spree, it's just you simply get hosed making range trips and buying a few boxes (50-100 rounds per box) of ammo at a time.

All that said, no I am not okay with giving mentally unhinged people guns nor ammo. The problem is, their issues are usually only found/noticed after the fact. Until you can identify them consistently, then this is just the way things are going to be.

Also as a side note, this article makes it seem absurd he was able to order thousands of rounds off the internet with no ID. Well, it happens. All an ID tells you is the person's physical appearance and age. When you order ammo online (as I do) someone who is 18/21 has to sign for it. All a website can really do, is try and ensure it's not a minor buying them.

EDIT: Before you go there, yes people do slip through the cracks and they were known to be unstable and managed to obtain a gun anyways. I think this problem should be fixed. Technically, they shouldn't have been able to obtain them anyways. I dunno about other states but the registration paperwork we fill out in Texas asks about mental disabilities. If you answer yes you have one, you're not getting the gun. But not much is being done to ensure that is true. It's an issue and should be addressed.

---

Quote:

---

koods said:
You just said the problem is mentally unhinged insane people. How do you plan on solving that problem?

---

Quote:

---

I'll admit I really have no ideas on how to fix this system or how to identify the psychos who are going to shoot people, but IMO it's better to admit that than act as if removing guns is the solution to this problem.

---

Quote:

---

koods said:
Exactly. When gangs have easy access to guns, they use them

---

Quote:

---

(...)a brief window of opportunity to bring awareness to the number one public health crisis facing this nation today which is rampant gun violence.

---

Quote:

---

Gun Violence and a public push for a debate on new gun control laws is a hot topic, especially after even more recent shootings. I was interested in what the actual, unbiased statistics were as far as how many gun related murders are committed each year in the United States. I did my own digging around on the FBI’s website for violent crimes here: Crime in the United States – FBI Statistics

The result might be shocking to some of the people raising an outcry, and especially to the media who seems to be covering the issue nonstop.

The Straight Statistics:

1995: 16,305 murders involving firearms (a 46.3% increase compared to 1985)

2007: 10,129 murders involving firearms (out of 14,916 murders total)

2011: 8,583 murders involving firearms (out of 12,664 murders total)

Results: Murders involving firearms have dropped by 50% in the last 15 years roughly. They have also been steadily decreasing a substantial amount each year over the past 5 years.

---

Quote:

---

endogenous said:
This is from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lonnie-and-sandy-phillips/lucky-gunner-lawsuit_b_8197804.html?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592

Lonnie and Sandy Phillips

We have been getting a lot of questions about our lawsuit against Lucky Gunner, the online company that sold ammunition to the man who murdered our daughter Jessica along with 11 others in an Aurora, Colorado, theater. Especially after the Rachel Maddow Show covered us twice, people ask us about the judge's order that we pay Lucky Gunner's attorneys' fees, since our lawsuit was unsuccessful.

We brought our lawsuit because we thought it was outrageous that companies could sell a dangerous man an arsenal without getting any information about him, and without making any effort to see if he was a dangerous killer -- which he was. When the killer had left a voicemail with a shooting range, the range operator knew that he was bad news and shouldn't be given access to guns. But these companies set up their business so people just like this killer can arm themselves at the click of a mouse. We wanted to change that. And we still do.

Attorneys at Arnold and Porter and the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence brought the lawsuit for us, pro bono. We knew the risks of bringing the case. We knew that Colorado and Congress have given special protection of the gun industry, and we knew that under Colorado law we could even be ordered to pay attorneys' fees because of those special protections.

But we thought it was important to take a stand, to fight to prevent other families from suffering as we have. We did not seek any money in our case. We just wanted injunctive relief -- to have these companies act reasonably when they sold dangerous materiel, like 100-round ammunition magazines, ammunition, body armor, and tear gas.

The judge dismissed our case because, he said, these online sellers had special immunity from the general duty to use reasonable care under the federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act and a Colorado immunity law. If you couple the PLCAA law with Colorado's law HB 000-208, (which says in essence: If you bring a civil case against a gun or ammunition seller and the case is dismissed then the plaintiff must pay all the defendant's costs), you have an impenetrable barrier to using the judicial system to effect change in gun legislation in Colorado.

Everyone else in society has a duty to use reasonable care to not injure others -- except gun and ammunition sellers.

To make matters worse, the judge ordered that we pay $203,000. This is an outrageous amount, especially given that this case was decided after one single motion! Lucky Gunner has said that it is going to donate all these fees to "gun rights" groups. The thought is disgusting to us that Lucky Gunner does not even plan to use this money to pay for their attorney's fees.

Lucky Gunner wants to use blood money to fund the NRA and like-minded groups. See for yourself. Check out Lucky Gunner's self-serving description of our case then click on "Head Here" (the green words at the end of Lucky Gunner's last sentence) to find out how the money is to be distributed.

The law says we are responsible for these fees, which we recognize. We do not have the money to pay this amount. The Judge insinuated in his order that Brady should pay since he said they were the instigators. If this was a ploy designed to give the appearance that Brady was responsible and turn us against each other, it did not work.

Brady is still fighting for us pro bono and we see no evidence that the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence will not help us raise funds if and when that time comes.

We believe that the judge's decision was wrong, and that it is unconstitutional to financially punish people for bringing a lawsuit, especially a public interest case that did not seek a dime. But rather than risk possibly being ordered to pay even more fees, we are changing our focus from going after these laws in the judicial branch (we have dropped our appeal) to getting them overturned on the legislative level.

We have brought attorney Dan Wartell with the law firm Jones & Keller into our team who is also helping us.

We hope that we are spearheading a movement to expose these egregious and unconstitutional laws for what they really are. They are an attack on our civil liberties. With these laws in place ordinary citizens are effectively barred by the exorbitant cost from bringing any civil action against sellers of firearms and ammunition.

It is un-American and outrageous that these special laws can deny us our day in court simply because we were victimized by the gun industry. Our lawsuit was not frivolous. Our Jessi was shot multiple times with high-velocity, armor-piercing bullets that were designed by our military to inflict maximum damage on enemy combatants.

One of the six, steel-jacketed bullets that killed her slammed through a theater seat, entered her left eye and left a five-inch hole in her face as it blew her brains out on to the theater floor. The other five specially designed bullets tumbled when they tore through her flesh and did devastating damage to both legs, arms and intestines.

Those bullets were six of 4,000 that Lucky Gunner sold to a mass murderer in one sale without even checking his driver's license.

Why is there a law that says you cannot sue an ammunitions dealer that allowed 4,000 rounds of armor-piercing bullets into the wrong hands?

How else are we as citizens going to get them to stop doing that?

No other industry has this immunity.

The horrific and public execution of our daughter Jessi and 11 other beautiful young lives has given us a brief window of opportunity to bring awareness to the number one public health crisis facing this nation today which is rampant gun violence. It is unfathomable to me that the billion dollar gun lobby can intimidate our Congress and some state legislatures into passing laws that give the gun industry immunity against irresponsible acts that enables them to arm, and profit from, domestic terrorists, and other killers.

It is abhorrent to us as the parents of a child who has been killed by a person with outwardly obvious mental issues who was able to easily access a one hundred round magazine and 4,000 rounds of armor-piercing bullets online without a valid ID.

Who is our last line of defense that makes that conscious decision to not ask for ID before selling large orders of lethal, military-grade armament? Online sellers, knowing they are shielded by immunity laws, refuse to put into place even minimal safeguards that would save lives. That is abhorrent to us.

One of the ways that we can level the playing field is to create precedents in our court rooms that make gun and ammunition dealers pay a price for conduct that contributes to gun violence. Another way is to lobby our state and federal legislators to repeal these laws. That is our objective.

We are calling on the citizens of this country and the gun violence prevention community to stand ready to help us get in the face of state and national legislators. Join us in helping to get the word out to the American citizens who are not aware of how these laws take away the rights of victims of gun violence.

_______________

Lonnie and Sandy Phillips' daughter, Jessica Ghawi, was murdered in the Aurora, Colorado theater massacre in 2012. Since then, they have become advocates for common-sense gun laws in America. Their non-profit, Jessi's Message, allows them to take their trailer and travel the country telling their story and working with fellow victims and survivors of violence.

---

I love stories with happy endings.

Quote:

---

flickedbic said:

Quote:

---

Gun Violence and a public push for a debate on new gun control laws is a hot topic, especially after even more recent shootings. I was interested in what the actual, unbiased statistics were as far as how many gun related murders are committed each year in the United States. I did my own digging around on the FBI’s website for violent crimes here: Crime in the United States – FBI Statistics

The result might be shocking to some of the people raising an outcry, and especially to the media who seems to be covering the issue nonstop.

The Straight Statistics:

1995: 16,305 murders involving firearms (a 46.3% increase compared to 1985)

2007: 10,129 murders involving firearms (out of 14,916 murders total)

2011: 8,583 murders involving firearms (out of 12,664 murders total)

Results: Murders involving firearms have dropped by 50% in the last 15 years roughly. They have also been steadily decreasing a substantial amount each year over the past 5 years.

---

The trend continues: http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2014/02/19/fbi-report-shows-violent-crime-decreased-as-gun-purchases-increased/

---

Quote:

---

koods said:
Exactly. When gangs have easy access to guns, they use them

---

Quote:

---

endogenous said:
We have been getting a lot of questions about our lawsuit against Lucky Gunner, the online company that sold ammunition to the man who murdered our daughter

---

Quote:

---

Prisoner#1 said:
the theater made the victims easy targets, ever wonder why the mass shooting take
place in areas where guns are banned?

---

Quote:

---

r.lutece said:

Quote:

---

Prisoner#1 said:
the theater made the victims easy targets, ever wonder why the mass shooting take
place in areas where guns are banned?

---

Let's not confuse correlation with causation. Theaters, malls, schools, etc. aren't chosen because the victims aren't likely to be able to defend themselves (though that's almost always the case). Rather, they're chosen because large numbers of people have gathered and the assault can have the most impact, which is why these institutions ban weapons.

---

Quote:

---

zappaisgod said:
These idiots don't know what unconstitutional means.  I will say that it is rare to be awarded attorney's fees.  The judge must have thought that the case was egregiously stupid.

---

Quote:

---

r.lutece said:

Quote:

---

Prisoner#1 said:
the theater made the victims easy targets, ever wonder why the mass shooting take
place in areas where guns are banned?

---

Let's not confuse correlation with causation. Theaters, malls, schools, etc. aren't chosen because the victims aren't likely to be able to defend themselves (though that's almost always the case). Rather, they're chosen because large numbers of people have gathered and the assault can have the most impact, which is why these institutions ban weapons.

---

Quote:

---

Enjoywho said:
Shit I couldn't even sneak in a soda one time. How do you hide a fully automatic gun.

---

Quote:

---

On the subject I get where the family is coming from. That fee is exorbitant. But its a business its not like he bought the gun off them. Fuckin shitty stuff. Reading that there daughter got hit by 6 bullets is just appalling. I don't believe in hell but I hope there is one for people like this.

---

Quote:

---

luvdemboomers said:

Let's not forget "assault rifles" were banned between 1994 and 2004.

---

Quote:

---

zappaisgod said:
They are the ones who brought the suit..  Nobody forced them to.  They lost money to their own idiocy.  The legal system exists to settle disputes.  If an idiot brings a stupid suit that costs a defendant money to counter than the idiot is responsible for harming the defendant.  Not the legal system.

---

Quote:

---

Prisoner#1 said:

Quote:

---

r.lutece said:

Quote:

---

Prisoner#1 said:
the theater made the victims easy targets, ever wonder why the mass shooting take
place in areas where guns are banned?

---

Let's not confuse correlation with causation. Theaters, malls, schools, etc. aren't chosen because the victims aren't likely to be able to defend themselves (though that's almost always the case). Rather, they're chosen because large numbers of people have gathered and the assault can have the most impact, which is why these institutions ban weapons.

---

if that were the case then why hasnt there been a mass shooting at a major
sporting event? oh, that would be because there are hundreds of people there with
guns making it more difficult to bring a weapon in and much more difficult to get
more than a few shots off before an armed security officer puts a few in the
shooter, I mean wouldnt the superbowl or an amusement park be a great place to
have a mass shooting, I mean how easy would it be to shoot people in a line
waiting to get on a ride, 500 people all packed into the corral, it's not like
they'll be getting out very fast, you could probably kill a hundred before the
survivors managed to get out of the area... but wait, I think something similar
has recently happened

2 fairs, both declaired a gun free zone, both become easy pickings for thugs to
commit crimes with the guns they've brought to the locations in violation of the
rules... so, do you honestly believe that when everyone else is disarmed that
this doesnt play a major role in choosing the target location? you'd be a fool to
continue to believe something like that


http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/oct/30/3-robbed-at-gunpoint-after-nc-state-fair-declares-/

http://www.inquisitr.com/2448460/washington-state-fair-three-armed-robberies-on-same-night-in-gun-free-zone/

---

Quote:

---

zappaisgod said:

Quote:

---

koods said:
Exactly. When gangs have easy access to guns, they use them

---

Felons do not have easy access to guns.  It is against the law for a felon to possess a gun.  How's that law working out?

---

Quote:

---

r.lutece said:

Quote:

---

Prisoner#1 said:

Quote:

---

r.lutece said:

Quote:

---

Prisoner#1 said:
the theater made the victims easy targets, ever wonder why the mass shooting take
place in areas where guns are banned?

---

Let's not confuse correlation with causation. Theaters, malls, schools, etc. aren't chosen because the victims aren't likely to be able to defend themselves (though that's almost always the case). Rather, they're chosen because large numbers of people have gathered and the assault can have the most impact, which is why these institutions ban weapons.

---

if that were the case then why hasnt there been a mass shooting at a major
sporting event? oh, that would be because there are hundreds of people there with
guns making it more difficult to bring a weapon in and much more difficult to get
more than a few shots off before an armed security officer puts a few in the
shooter, I mean wouldnt the superbowl or an amusement park be a great place to
have a mass shooting, I mean how easy would it be to shoot people in a line
waiting to get on a ride, 500 people all packed into the corral, it's not like
they'll be getting out very fast, you could probably kill a hundred before the
survivors managed to get out of the area... but wait, I think something similar
has recently happened

2 fairs, both declaired a gun free zone, both become easy pickings for thugs to
commit crimes with the guns they've brought to the locations in violation of the
rules... so, do you honestly believe that when everyone else is disarmed that
this doesnt play a major role in choosing the target location? you'd be a fool to
continue to believe something like that


http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/oct/30/3-robbed-at-gunpoint-after-nc-state-fair-declares-/

http://www.inquisitr.com/2448460/washington-state-fair-three-armed-robberies-on-same-night-in-gun-free-zone/

---

Don't think that I'm saying that advertising the lack of personal defense in a location won't invite crime, especially such as robberies. It certainly does, and those fairs are a good example of that. However, robberies and massacres are very different crimes, and the perpetrators of each look for different elements of a situation when choosing their venue.

As far as why there haven't been mass shootings at amusement parks, that I couldn't tell you. I haven't been to any where firearms of any kind were allowed, but it could have to do with the fact that many of them don't have large tight clusters of people IME. Even when waiting in lines, most of the individuals are pretty spread out. As far as sporting events go, it's a hard time sneaking in a bottle of water, let alone an assault weapon.

---

Quote:

---

Enjoywho said:
We were never that drunk. But having a couple beers its not like were black out drunk. Good lord. Just having a good time. Then when we got the fire rolling and night was dawning put it in the car now we can get wrecked. Me nor any of my friends are dead so ya. I'm sure you have no fuckin clue what your talking about.

---

Quote:

---

Enlil said:

Quote:

---

zappaisgod said:
They are the ones who brought the suit..  Nobody forced them to.  They lost money to their own idiocy.  The legal system exists to settle disputes.  If an idiot brings a stupid suit that costs a defendant money to counter than the idiot is responsible for harming the defendant.  Not the legal system.

---

This is true, but I think the lawyer should be the one forced to pay.  The client has limited knowledge in the area, and the lawyer knew or should have known that this was the likely outcome.

---

Quote:

---

r.lutece said:
Don't think that I'm saying that advertising the lack of personal defense in a location won't invite crime, especially such as robberies. It certainly does, and those fairs are a good example of that. However, robberies and massacres are very different crimes, and the perpetrators of each look for different elements of a situation when choosing their venue.

---

Quote:

---

As far as why there haven't been mass shootings at amusement parks, that I couldn't tell you. I haven't been to any where firearms of any kind were allowed, but it could have to do with the fact that many of them don't have large tight clusters of people IME. Even when waiting in lines, most of the individuals are pretty spread out. As far as sporting events go, it's a hard time sneaking in a bottle of water, let alone an assault weapon.

---

have you ever been to an amusement park? it would seem that your experiences dont
jibe with the rest, these are a few pictures of lines where people are waiting to
get on a ride, hundreds of people packed in together paying attention to
everything from their phone to their bratty kids. they pack them in tighter at
amusement parks than they do at theaters and schools and they're surrounded by
fences which would make escape even more difficult











now why dont these things happen at places like amusement parks? well, to walk in you have to of course go through the gate, in order to do so you go through a metal detector, you have an armed security officer that searches your bag and on occasion pats you down



it seems that the same thing goes on at concerts and sporting events while theaters,
county/state fairs, most schools and shit dont have the added security precautions
they simply post a sign that says no guns/weapons and expect the bad people to
adhere to it


hell, airports are another location where shooting would be easy, I know in some
you walk in and you're right at the baggage area, there's no metal detectors, no
searches of bags, no patdowns because there arent 'secure' areas, you dont get
subjected to this stuff until you go through the TSA checkpoints but you still
get crowds like these. I guess the reason it doesnt happen in these locations
couldnt possibly be because there are hundreds of armed security personnel in the
building at any given time

Quote:

---

zappaisgod said:

Quote:

---

Enlil said:

Quote:

---

zappaisgod said:
They are the ones who brought the suit..  Nobody forced them to.  They lost money to their own idiocy.  The legal system exists to settle disputes.  If an idiot brings a stupid suit that costs a defendant money to counter than the idiot is responsible for harming the defendant.  Not the legal system.

---

This is true, but I think the lawyer should be the one forced to pay.  The client has limited knowledge in the area, and the lawyer knew or should have known that this was the likely outcome.

---

I agree.

---

Quote:

---

Arctic W. Fox said:
Sue the ammo dealer?

• Sue the shell casing manufacturer.
  
• Sue the gunpowder maker.
  
• Sue the bullet mold maker.
  
• Sue the lead miner.
  
• Sue the rubber company, who made the tires, that go on the dump trucks, that are used in the open-pit mines, to haul out the copper, that are used for the shells.
  
• Sue the land owner, who leased the land to the mining company.
  
• Sue the parents of the land owner who gave birth to the man who leased the land to the open pit mining company.
  

There's a lot more that can be done here. Where are all the lawyers?! Sue, sue, SUE!!!

---

/motherfuckingthread. Genius goddamn reply.

Quote:

---

r.lutece said:
Right. A solid majority of them could shoot you.

Did I at some point accidentally say that the presence of guns wasn't a deterrent? I'm really not trying to imply that. My point is that regardless of concealed carry laws, shootings will happen because the guns aren't the base issue, and that shooters choose places with large groups.

Like, what is it you want me to say? That concealed carry should be allowed everywhere? I don't even have an opinion formed on that. I have no strong feelings one way or the other.

---

Quote:

---

r.lutece said:
I'll admit, I haven't been to many amusement parks; Cedar Point, Worlds of Fun, and Six Flags were it for me. My experience must have been very uncommon because during none of my visits did they crowds approach anything to that degree, even during the summer. Also, none of the parks I went to had metal detectors anywhere that I can recall. You walked up, handed them your ticket or showed them your stamp, and in you went.

I'm not sure you understand what I mean about how shooters appear to pick their targets. My point is not that guns don't deter them or that hearing about places that have carrying restrictions won't make them think twice. I'm just pointing out that they pick places where people will be grouped together, and that other considerations would follow that main intent of hurting as many people as possible. Gun ranges and stores and police departments not only have a relatively smaller grouping of potential victims, but obviously all of those victims can and will shoot you.

---

Quote:

---

Enlil said:
Well, that's not completely true.  Prisons, for instance, are government buildings, but guns are pretty much universally forbidden in a prison.  Courthouses have very strict gun rules for much the same reason.  If you can't see valid reasons for denying public possession of guns in these places, you haven't really thought it through.

---