quote:

Interesting Mythbuster actually tried doing it but propane did not go off.

quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy

The issue here is weapons that killed 22 people in five minutes and Lanza barely tapped into his arsenal's capabilities.

The Aurora shooter's magazine jammed, and act of God that may have saved 22 or more lives.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nosathro
People sue for all kinds of reasons...very successfully as to what good it does, is anybody guess.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

Among the 62 mass shootings over the last 30 years that we studied, not a single case includes evidence that the killer chose to target a place because it banned guns. To the contrary, in many of the cases there was clearly another motive for the choice of location. For example, 20 were workplace shootings...

That's a cute dance step, but it doesn't address the issue. Nobody claimed that killers "chose" places because they ban guns. The point being deceptively ignored is that a gun free zone offers undefended targets no matter why it was chosen. And in addition to schools, many businesses do not allow employees to bring firearms into the workplace and thus are effectively gun-free zones as well.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

No less a fantasy is the idea that gun-free zones prevent armed civilians from saving the day. Not one of the 62 mass shootings we documented was stopped this way.

Another sleight of hand. They selected "mass shootings" where there were four or more dead. This is a convenient choice, because in attempted mass shootings where there was an armed victim or passer-by the shooter does not typically have a chance to get to four dead before being stopped. I'll offer just a couple of examples that I happen to remember offhand:

A Mississippi teenager killed his mother before driving to Pearl High School, where he killed two students and wounded seven more. An Assistant Principal ran to his vehicle, returned with a pistol, confronted the killer, and detained him until police arrived. The teenager had planned to drive to the local middle school and continue his killing.

A student killed three people at the Appalachian School of Law in rural Virginia. But he didn't get any farther. Two fellow students who had retrieved their guns from their cars ordered the killer at gunpoint to drop his weapon and held him until police arrived.

If these people hadn't had to run to their cars to get their guns, things would have ended even sooner. And these are not the only examples. The recent Cinemark shooting would be an obvious addition if the theater hadn't banned weapons.

A study published by Mayors Against Illegal Guns also tries to downplay the danger of gun-free zones. First, it includes 17 killings resulting from domestic violence in the home in its study of 43 carefully selected incidents. Then it reports that only one third of the study's incidents occurred in gun free zones. But this is grossly misleading. In actual fact, fully 61% of the killings in that happened in "public spaces" occurred in gun free zones. And this from a group with a public anti-gun bias.

Suggested reading: Pretend Gun Free Zones: A Deadly Legal Fiction

K.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyPact

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nosathro
People sue for all kinds of reasons...very successfully as to what good it does, is anybody guess.

Since I thought the thread was about the Adam Lanza case in particular, I'll work with that.

First, I would have to think that the complaint would have to prove that Nancy Lanza was negligent. Burden of proof isn't nearly as stringent as it is for criminal law, but you have to have something more to go on than people thinking she should not own guns. Evidence is way short here because there's a bunch of hearsay. All of that stuff that's getting reported as "news" hasn't had any actual evidence linked to it. To date, there hasn't been even one piece of paper in Nancy Lanza's handwriting or signed by her saying that she had reason to believe Adam was going to shoot people with the guns that she owned.

Most likely, the bulk of Nancy's estate has gone to her surviving son. From a practical standpoint, that's where any damages would come from. The bottom line on that is that the brother would be the person paying. That boils down to, in My opinion, making one brother suffer for the sins of another.

If that is the way we want our system to work, I might be a little more worried about revenge thinking against family members than I am about types of weapons.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nosathro
You should try being a excutor..my brother left a ton of debts....I had to work on. As to Nancy it would be something she should have thought about prior to all this.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyPact

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nosathro
You should try being a excutor..my brother left a ton of debts....I had to work on. As to Nancy it would be something she should have thought about prior to all this.

Those were debts that your brother legally occurred prior to his death, I'm guessing. Not debts that were accrued by a third party. (Unless he was married and they were joint debts.) Your brother's estate wouldn't have been liable had somebody walked into the room where he died, grabbed his credit cards, and went on a spending spree.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

And the writer David B. Kope works for a conservative think tank.... yeah, I think I will give it a miss....

Well I read the Mother Jones article, and in my opinion people who are only interested in reading stuff that agrees with them have told us all we need to know about where any genuine interest in facts and public safety rank in their priorities.

K.

quote:

My girl child