UPDATED: Mass Public Shooting in Florida occurred in ANOTHER gun-free zone: 49 dead in a shooting at an Orlando nightclub

12 Jun , 2016  

From the UK Daily Mail:

The suspected Islamic extremist who killed about 50 people after taking party-goers hostage inside a gay club in Orlando has been identified.

Law enforcement sources have identified the shooter, who was wielding an assault rifle and a handgun, as US citizen Omar Mateen, from Port St. Lucie in Florida.

The gunman, who was born to Afghan parents, was carrying a suspicious device, possibly a suicide vest, when he opened fire on the dance floor inside Pulse in the early hours of this morning.

At least 50 people were killed and 53 others were injured in the shooting in the deadliest mass shooting in US history. . . .

To make things worse, it took three hours from the time of the attack until the police entered the building.

5 a.m. About three hours after the standoff began, Orlando police chief John Mina says the decision was made to storm the club and “rescue patrons (hiding) in a bathroom” and others still trapped inside the club in an effort to minimize loss of life. The police, Mina said, used a BearCat armored rescue vehicle to “get through a club wall.” . . .

On Friday singer Christina Grimmie’s was murdered in a gun-free zone in Orlando. Early this morning, at least 50 people were fatally shot at an Orlando night club — also a gun-free zone.  In both cases the media has yet to report that these attacks occurred where general citizens couldn’t defend themselves.

Since at least 1950, only slightly over 1 percent of mass public shootings have occurred where general citizens have been able to defend themselves. Police are extremely important in stopping crime, but even if they had been present at the time of the nightclub shooting, they may have had a very difficult time stopping the attack. Attackers will generally shoot first at any uniformed guards or officers who are present (the Charlie Hebdo attack in Paris last year illustrates that point).  Alternatively, they will move on to another place without uniformed officers.

The first person shot at in the Orlando attack was indeed an off-duty officer who was guarding the nightclub was shot at before Omar Mateen entered the nightclub. “He first came into contact with an off-duty police officer working security who exchanged gunfire with Mateen near an entrance.

In this particular case the police only arrived on the scene after the attack occurred. That illustrates another point: it is simply impossible for the police to protect all possible targets.

It is hard to ignore how these mass public shooters consciously pick targets where they know victims won’t be able to defend themselves (herehere, and here).  And they do so for good reason given the number of mass public shootings that have been stopped by concealed handgun permit holders.

State laws on whether bars (places where more than 50% of revenue obtained from selling alcohol) are gun-free zones.

Florida’s law on where people can carry guns is very clear:

From the relevant statute (790.06):

(12)(a) A license issued under this section does not authorize any person to openly carry a handgun or carry a concealed weapon or firearm into: . . .
12. Any portion of an establishment licensed to dispense alcoholic beverages for consumption on the premises, which portion of the establishment is primarily devoted to such purpose;
Among the recent states that allow permitted concealed handguns in places that get more than 50 percent of their revenue from alcohol are: Georgia (2014), Iowa (2011), Louisiana (2014), North Dakota (2015), North Carolina (2014), Ohio (2011), South Carolina (2014), and Tennessee (2009).  Besides Florida, other states that prohibit them are: ColoradoIllinoisKentuckyNebraskaNew MexicoOklahomaSouth DakotaTexas (Texas Penal Code § 46.03), Washington and Wyoming.    However, some states such as California issue so few permits that they might as well be banning be banning them in bars.  There is no evidence of problems despite people being able to carry in states that allow people to carry in bars.  Despite the many millions of permit holders in these states, no examples are offered of drunk patrons with permits causing trouble.
Many of the states that allow one to carry a gun in a bar still prohibit you to consume alcohol.  Here are some other state laws: AlaskaAlabamaArizona, Arkansas (as long as some food is served there), ConnecticutDelawareHawaiiIdahoIndianaKansas (not legal where individual drinks are served, but legal in cases where drinks are served by the pitcher), Michigan (allows you to open carry if you have a concealed handgun permit, conversation with Michigan Firearms lawyer Steven Dulan), and Montana (allows you to openly carry a gun into a bar), New York, OregonPennsylvaniaSouth CarolinaVirginiaWest VirginiaWisconsin.
People are allowed to carry in restaurants that don’t get more than 50% of their revenue from alcohol in all the states (again, Montana only allows you to do so as open carry with a permit).  Again, there is no evidence of problems despite people being able to carry in places that serve alcohol across the entire country.
Media discussions today on assault weapons, background checks, but not relevant to the case here.  But the easiest thing for these reporters to check and know for sure, that this was another attack in a gun free zone, is never mentioned once anywhere in the media.  Hillary Clinton and President Obama both used the attack to call for more gun control.  But there is no explanation on how any of Clinton’s proposals would accomplish this:
“We need to keep guns like the ones used last night out of the hands of terrorists or other violent criminals,” Clinton said. “This is the deadliest mass shooting in the history of the United States and it reminds us once more that weapons of war have no place on our streets.” . . .

The Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence has many errors on state laws regarding where one can carry.  This article in the New York Times was wrong about many state laws at the time that it was written.


191 Responses

  1. Stu Strickler says:

    Another gun free zone that was not……………..

    • Owen says:

      yeah its so sad they couldn’t defend themselves

      • andy says:

        But surely if you had no guns in the first place you wouldn’t need to defend yourself? It really is that simple.

        • TiLT says:

          Wow that is a completely stupid statement! Your government will ALWAYS carry guns and if you think its to protect you, keep drinking that punch, you idiot! Bad guys will always get guns and that is why having a gun or any weapon to defend ones self is a birth right! Go ahead and cower in a corner if this horrific incident should every come your way. You’ll be glad if someone there is shooting in the opposite direction!

          • lynn says:

            Very well put

          • Tatum says:

            That is ludicracy we have in the constitution if you want to debate this A right to form a malita to bear arms not to just carry arms around a milita can hold guns at town hall until the need arises to use a gun against the government now this may not work in places like nyc but in small towns it would work

        • DonC says:

          So I, and everybody so inclined until encountering the wisdom of your position, should no longer hike through areas where it is common to interact with coyotes, bears, and cougars? Let’s just leave potentially dangerous areas to the source of that danger. Right? Then with no credible deterrent we should probably hide in our homes as we wait for the criminals who own our public streets and transportation to show up. Maybe we’ll wet our pants, too.

        • Kiko70 says:

          ..it’s so obvious that you are simple minded..

        • Simon says:

          more than 340 million firearms in america alone. Thats just the ones we know about. How would we even begin to take thoughs away from law abiding citizens. Even if that were possible it wont stop true criminals from obtaining them from different countries or the black market.

        • Doug says:

          If there weren’t any guns, society would be at the mercy of the biggest and ‘toughest’ people; firearms are the great equalizer. Before firearms, it was generally the biggest and strongest who were the ‘leaders’, because they were the ones who could force you to their will. With the advent of firearms, whomever is the biggest and strongest is irrelevant; it only takes 5 pounds of pressure to pull a trigger, making the 4 foot 10 inch, 90 pound woman the equal of the 6 foot 6 inch, 270 pound man that is trying to rape her.

        • gene says:

          ANDY, if you will go get all of the guns from the bad people, terrorists, murderers, and crazy people, I will then take the guns away from all the good people.

        • Addam Simons says:

          Umm its not that simple. guns exist. criminals will not give them up, being that they are criminals and all.. Banning guns will only effect law abiding citizens. Therefore the gun violence that impacts largely gun free zones will plaque the whole country if government tried to eradicate guns in all of US.

        • Jeff says:

          What about the UNARMED British soldier who was stabbed to death on the streets of London? No gun was used, so I guess he didn’t need to defend himself!

        • MATT says:

          Agreed, because no one ever got murdered or attacked before guns were invented.

          Just look in a history book, and it’s pretty clear the entire planet was just rainbows and waterfalls as far as the eye could see before firearms came along.

        • Amy says:

          So explain to me how you get all the guns out of all the criminal’s hands…

        • Mona says:


        • Common Sense says:

          No, unfortunately, it’s not that simple. The sad fact is, in these kinds of occurrences, we are dealing with suicidal law breakers. This particular individual broke various laws during this horrendous act. As did every one of the other people that committed mass shootings in this country. Who truly believes that one more law would have stopped any of these terrible events? One more law would have made no difference to any of these delusional people…in the end, every one of these people, turned the mass shooting into a suicidal action, anyway. If guns were totally outlawed, these mentally disturbed people would find a way to obtain a gun, if they wanted it…a law won’t stop them. However, the result of such a law would leave you, me and every other law abiding citizen defenseless against these heinous actions. But, for the sake of furthering this discussion, let’s assume that all guns in the world have been destroyed (the ONLY way to assure criminals can’t obtain a gun, by the way). These falsely motivated people would choose another weapon to commit the same act…perhaps a machete. Now, image someone on a rampage, in a nightclub, with a machete. You, me and everyone else in that club would be praying for a gun.

        • Cameron says:

          You wouldn’t need to defend yourself if there were no guns?!?! HAHAHAHAHAHAH! So if a group of people with machetes come at you, your gonna wish you have a gun. 3 people break into your house with machetes, what cu gonna do? Have a knife fight with 3 guys? Have you ever heard of the LA riots? Korean store owners defended themselves and their business from hundreds of rioters, with what?!? GUNS. From hundreds of people who had bars and knives.

        • ThinkLonger says:

          Maybe in fantasy land. What about knives, bombs, cars, trucks, chemicals, fists.
          Also, think about how well the ban on illegal drugs is going.

          • Frank says:

            In the US, 30,000 people get killed by fire arms each year. Your “protection” is killing you.

            Just compare to other countries that don’t sell arms like candies: the number of homicides is more than 5 times lower… unless they are under a civil war.

        • Laura says:

          That is a simple-minded statement. It is a known fact that criminals have no problem getting guns, while law-abiding citizens’ hands are tied by a denial of the Second Amendment.

        • william says:

          Explain how stop criminalsfrom getting them let’s be real here guns in good normal people can save lives just thought of the victims have a gun will slow the enemy down for the cops to come or stop them then run reports the cops

        • David says:

          Since only 4% of all crimes involve a gun, it is obvious you’re an ignorant simpleton

        • Dakota says:

          Ok say we got rid of the guns, the criminals will still find a way to get the weapons they need. The gun control only keeps the guns from the honest people. But the honest people are the ones who should be able to have the guns. If this was not a gun free zone someone could have had a permit to carry and could have stopped it before it got out of hand. Yes I know that you cant have the guns in bars in Florida but maybe we should rethink what we ban. A 22 in the hand is better then 911 on the phone. Just like Sandy Hook it took 4 mins for the cops to show up and another 4 mins to go in after the guy shot himself. If there was one person that could have carried at any of these places it could have changed what happened. Its not the guns that kill is the people. People will still find ways to find guns to kill no matter if there is a gun ban or not that’s why they are criminal they dont fallow the rules.

        • Brent says:

          FYI, they can be obtained illegally still. Someone could have shot the attacker dead if there had been armed patrons.

        • Pablo Dias says:

          Good Andy.
          Now give us the magic wand that you use to make all guns in the world disappear and to make people forget how to make them. If you have such wand, I’ll be all for gun banning. If not, shut up.

        • Marty Wayne says:

          Then everyone would be carrying baseball bats.

        • Bob says:

          That is really a naive response. Bad guys don’t care about the law. Take away legally owned guns and the only people who will have them is the bad.

      • Hal Herrington says:

        Every gun owner I know carries where they want. Gun-free zones aren’t designed to disarm responsible gun owners,it applies to crimes committed with a gun free zone are punished with mandatory minimum sentences to keep criminals off the street longer..besides,pretty hard to defend against an assault rifle if youve been drinking and don’t expect it or hear it clearly
        with loud music

      • Jacquie says:

        There were good guys with guns there. There was highly trained armed security. It didn’t stop it.

        • Bob says:

          They hid along with all the other cowards. 350 to one, you don’t need a cop or a gun just a little guts and a brain. The dead crowded themselves in bathroom stalls, no way out like shooting chickens in a hen house. They died because they didn’t fight back, what is America coming too. If i’m gonna die it won’t while sitting on a toilet.

    • pmmb says:

      Trump wants to take away gun free zones.

      • fVckTrump says:

        And guns from most minorities…Hypocrisy at it’s finest.

        • Tom says:

          Please show me where Trump wants to take anyones guns from them

          Cite source……….

        • Non Hyphenated American says:

          Are you a racist? Sounds like it, because your espousing that most minorities are criminals. If your talking about project Exile that cracks down on illegal gun possession along with harsher penalties for gang bangers, drug dealers and felons caught with guns whats wrong with that. Trump has never said anything about taking guns away from law abiding minorities. Everyone should want thugs whether a minority or not to be prosecuted for gun crimes. If you feel a criminal should have leniency shown to them just because their a minority then your part of the problem.

        • pacorona says:

          That is ridiculous!

      • dirk says:

        That’s why i’m voting for Mr. Trump now

      • Jake says:

        Trump can take away the gun free zones in his own properties first. He does not even need to wait for the election.

      • william says:

        About time

  2. It is not illegal to carry a gun in a nightclub or bar in Maine: see http://www.mainelegislature.org/legis/statutes/17-A/title17-Asec1057.html. The two exceptions are (1) that the carrier may not be intoxicated, and (2) that the owner has not posted that guns are prohibited. On point (2), I still have to see a bar that is posted.

  3. […] Florida state law 790.06 says that no gun permit allows the permit-holder to carry a gun into “any portion of an establishment licensed to dispense alcoholic beverages for consumption on the premises, which portion of the establishment is primarily devoted to such purpose.” […]

  4. […] invaluable Crime Prevention Research Center has already weighed in on the […]

  5. Franco says:

    Sad to say they are already telling lies on TV about gun laws. Blaming the gun instead of their registered Democrat shooter. It’s almost like the gun chanted to the innocent Muslim extremists to go kill 50 unarmed innocent people that were not allow to defend themselves.

    • Michael says:

      This is proof that more Americans should carry guns, even in bars.

      • ArmedAmerican says:


      • raduchiha@hotmail.com says:

        80+% of mass shootings happen in gun free zones. We need to end gun free zones!

      • Viviana says:


      • andy says:

        Yeah, just give everyone more guns. Then, you can just have a lovely ongoing shooting match where everyone gets killed. Brilliant! More guns. Just a thought though- how about you actually ban all guns forever. It really is that simple. No guns, no shootings. Duh!

        • Austin says:

          Even if a universal gun ban were Constitutional, which it is not, it is just a law. Criminals who want to obtain guns will continue to do so regardless of whether it is illegal, that is what makes them criminals – disregard of the legality of their actions. So, your suggestion to “ban all guns forever” would not only be an unconstitutional stripping of a protected freedom, but also ineffective as to your actual goal of eliminating gun violence. Criminals don’t care about gun bans, they always find a way to get them. Without a gun ban, law-abiding citizens at least stand a chance against criminals who chose to bear arms.

        • Luky says:

          Can you close Pandora’s box and magically remove all guns from the USA (and the rest of the world)? How can you guarantee that all of the criminals (and criminals in other countries) will turn in their guns for destruction (because guns DO move across borders)? You can’t! So in your ignorance you are perpetrating the fraud that by removing firearms from all the “law abiding” people of the world, that bad people will naturally stop doing bad things to good people too.

        • Clyde says:

          The short sighted-ness of your solution to the problem at hand is uncanny. How would you go about making something that already exist cease to exist? Banning guns won’t stop extremist or criminals from getting their hands on guns. If I want to shoot up a building, I’m already disregarding laws in the first place. Do you think my mentality is to legally obtain means to execute an illegal action?
          Come on and look at the reality that we’re living in.

        • James M. says:

          Let’s take away the guns, then there will be no gun crimes! After all, it worked perfectly in Mexico, where there is only one place to legally buy guns in the whole country. Now the whole place is completely crime free!

        • JackTheDog says:

          I agree, we should ban all guns. We could model the ban on the “War on Drugs” initiated in 1971. Since that went into effect 45 years ago illicit drugs have been virtually eliminated from….. Oh, wait, never mind.

        • wabbisaurus says:

          u see good sir, illegal drugs are illegal and well….

        • Samantha says:

          Oh it is that easy is it? So poof America becomes this holy land of no guns every not one person on the face of America has a gun? None of them? They’ll just cease to exist. You know just like how all of those controlled substances are considered
          “illegal” and oh what do you know, people find a way to get them dont they?? Illegal smuggling, illegal buying and illegal dealing. Now, dont you think the same damn thing would happen to fire arms????????? You think that justbecause its illegal and banned in the country that suddenly all those criminal (who dont follow the law by the way) will suddenly have no interest in killing others in anyway!? No! They will fucking find a way! America needs to stop being so fucking week and allow guns to be a priority in education, and make people able to defend themselves, not create a whole damn country full of victims to whoever decides to throw a bomb at us or do so much as shoot up a university or a bar…

        • Alex says:

          Because that has worked so well in the past. Taking guns from the citizens is a very very bad idea.

          On the other hand, Mao Tze Tung, Adolf Hitler, and Josef Stalin would agree with you.

        • Non Hyphenated American says:

          Then whats the next witch hunt. knives, then maybe bats, how bout golf clubs, then maybe you have to wear giant pads on your hands when you go out in public for fear you might beat someone to death. You people who believe the 2nd is all about self defense are ignorant of the intent. The 2nd has already been gutted to the point that the founders wouldn’t believe it. An individual should be able to have access to any weapon the standing army has. Yes if I want a bazooka I should be able to have one or a fully automatic weapon for that matter. The full auto weapon is possible but the govt has made that extremely expensive to achieve. The 2nd is about arming the people to be able to defend against the tyranny of an oppressive govt. Its not about hunting. Check your history. The first thing oppressive govts and dictators who became mass murders did was disarm their people. Mao Zedong-60 Million killed. Stalin-40 Million killed. Hitler-30 million. Pol Pot 1.7 million. It goes on and on.

        • Myself says:

          Yes, because criminals will definitely NOT figure out a way to make a gun and shoot people! Especially if they are knowingly unarmed. It’s really that simple, unfortunately taking guns away is NOT the answer because criminals are not going to care what the law says about it—that’s why they are criminals 😉

  6. Alessio Ventura says:

    We must KILL all of the Islamic radicals (ISIS, Taliban, Al Qaeda, et al) or they will continue their mass slaughter of innocent people.

    It’s time.

    • Enzo says:

      Just what we need now. More hating, crazy idiots. Guys like YOU are the reason we cannot get farther ahead with the idea that we deserve to carry the means to protect ourselves.

    • Vic says:

      That is a sick statement.

      • andy says:

        They are actually all sick statements. What I really don’t get is how you people can only express yourselves in terms of who can carry guns or where you can carry guns. Just a little idea here, but how about no one carries any guns at all. In other words ban all sales of all guns, because if you can’t own a gun and none are made available, then it’s going to be just a teensy bit harder to use one. Is this a concept that is so so hard for you all to understand???!!!

        • Luky says:

          Can you close Pandora’s box and magically remove all guns from the USA (and the rest of the world)? How can you guarantee that all of the criminals (and criminals in other countries) will turn in their guns for destruction (because guns DO move across borders)? You can’t! So in your ignorance you are perpetrating the fraud that by removing firearms from all the “law abiding” people of the world, that bad people will naturally stop doing bad things to good people too.

        • Greg says:

          Take away all Gun’s in the united States of America and we’ll be attacked and overthrown within a year. And half or more of the people here would be dead. Why is it so hard for you to see that!!!!!!!!!!

        • Handyman says:

          Sure, maybe you can ban all the guns in the world. Maybe you can even go around and collect all the banned guns and destroy them. Nirvana. But the very next day, people everywhere will enter their basements, garages and workshops and make new ones. It’s just not that hard. And so, on the day after that, you’re exactly where you were before you banned the guns. Then what?

        • Markus Uralius says:

          Cain killed Abel with a rock. Should we ban rocks too?

        • Addam says:

          Your a very simple guy!! Your concepts are lacking all logic and reasoning skills. It will only take being a victim or having a loved one victimized for you to understand.. Good luck with that little brain and ignorance..

        • Cisco_Conservative says:

          I agree with you except one thing. Even if you can get rid of ALL guns, we’ll see knife incidents rise…Its not the weapon…Its the mindset. The shooting happened in a legal “gun-free-zone”. Its the law. Still…that animal broke the law & slaughtered those defenseless people with extreme malicious hostility. I’d just liketo see our leaders come to the realization you have to meet such evil on equal terms. ARM THE CITIZENS AGAINST SUCH EVIL!

        • Tommy says:

          Then the criminals have guns you ignorant puppet

        • Bob says:

          Dosen’t matter. The goverment will put more weapons in the hands of terriost then lose them and then tell you what they will do to keep you safe until they get your vote.

        • Bj says:

          Honestly you guys have to be truly honest with yourselves here and use common sense, do you really think banning gun sales is giving us a advantage? No, think about illegal drugs for example cocaine it’s not made in the US but some how there are still shit tons of it every where, so banning guns is just going to have the people eligible to carry legally stuck while people still smuggle them in the US and sell them to all the people who want to shoot shit up so why not just excercise your right to have a gun if you can, protect yourself. And remember guns don’t kill people, people kill people.

        • JOE says:

          Crystal meth and heroine aren’t made available. Their sales are banned. You know where else gun sales are banned and they’re not made available? Paris, France. We don’t understand why this TRUTH (not concept) is so hard for YOU to understand.

        • Samantha says:

          Yes its hard for me to understand. Let me see if i can grasp your concept here Andy. Now lets say I am a criminal. One that has had a past of breaking a few laws. Well then you know the U.S. decides that yes all fire arms should be considered illegal and all selling will stop. Well darn, I cant buy any of my fire arms legally like I as a criminal would want to do, with a background check and a permit I would need to pay for. So how can i get my hands on some guns? Well I know a few of my friends have guns, acquaintances who have some and so I’m going to get some from them. I now have the already bought and payed for, or the already stolen fire arms, and now I am going to go shoot a university and kill a bunch of people because I am a criminal and there are tons of victims without guns like I have.
          So say the government finds a way to completely remove all guns from the possession of permit holders. Yeah it will make it “a teensy bit harder” to find one but you know me as a criminal I have my ways. I know people who have smuggled some in, I also know people who are selling some under the radar. So there again I have some guns and im going to shoot up another school.
          So yeah wow, looks like that plan really fucking works doesn’t it? Maybe you dont understand the word CRIMINAL! and how they dont fucking go by the law! Taking away guns creates victims, do you want to be a victim of a mass shooting? Or would you rather like to know that some sort of an official, or someone who knows how to use a gun properly could possibly help to defend you and other citizens in the event of one of these shootings? Because just like illegal drugs theyve found their way into America and you know what? They are also illegal! What!? Is that right?! An illegal substance is still found all over the place killing people in America even though its fucking ILLEGAL? Yes. Being illegal doesn’t magically make said thing not exist, yeah it makes it “a teensy bit harder” but you know when a criminal or anyone for that matter is determined to get their hands on something, they find their ways.

        • Billy says:

          Good Idea! I mean, look at all the drugs that are banned and nobody can buy or use those. Wait, yes they can.

        • Nicole says:

          You cannot simply ban guns. There os no way.. yeah you cann stop the sale of guns and ammo .. but most people have an abundance of guns and ammo… like me, just two of us living here and we have 10+ guns.. doesn’t mean I’m going to go shoot up a gun free zone, it means that I have the right to have them, protect myself.. etc. It’s like an under age kid wanting beer… it’s illegal.. but they always find a way to get it. And if people want to be technical, a automatic gun can shoot 900+ rounds in onee min. At 15 is about 50-60 per minute.. a hand gun would be about the same, with extra mags. S pistol was the reason for a massacre in 2004? 170 rounds shot (using 17 mags) .
          I don’t think people actually know he difference between guns..

        • Alex says:

          Harder is not the same as impossible. Then the criminals and the government will have guns and you wont. Unless you become a criminal yourself and break the law in order to protect yourself. How will you ensure guns are not made available. Do you intend to stop all countries in the world from manufacturing fire arms?

        • Non Hyphenated American says:

          I bet the millions of victims over the years that fell due to being disarmed wish they hadn’t given away their rights so easy. If you don’t want to arm yourself don’t. But don’t advocate for my rights being taken also. Its people like you when the crap hits the fan wonder how did this happen. Why cant we all just get along, Why do they hate me now, I was on their side. Some people just have to learn the hard way.

        • Idoldog says:

          It must be hard for you to understand. Criminals don’t abide by laws. Do you think they will give up their guns like law abiding citizens would? The gun is not a hard thing to make even if you can’t buy one. Even if we would ban a tool such as a gun we have already banned violence yet people are still dying. If criminals and the government will be the only ones with guns I would prefer to keep mine. Thanks anyway.

        • Charlie says:

          You are something special Andy… As if guns can’t be made out of a piece of pipe and a explosive charge… Also what happens with hunting? Now people who hunt have to get rid of the guns and in some ways change how they put food on the table? Also good luck removing all the guns all ready in existence. You really think banning guns is the answer when over 80% of shooting happen where guns are banned? Yep that makes sense SMDH!

  7. John Gardner says:

    Obviously the “gun free zone” sign needs to be large and in neon …


      My, but you’re giftedly stupid! You think that will keep a criminal from carrying a gun into a gun free zone? Here’s a clue: it won’t. Now, on the off chance you were being sarcastic, then please disregard, but if not, the statement stands!

  8. Mark says:

    Let’s say for the sake of argument we let everyone have guns, anywhere. If I were a terrorist, I would have to increase my weapon arsenal due to everyone being armed. So grenades bombs and other weapons would be used. This whole idea of arming everyone makes zero sense. Your gonna arm grandma really?

    • William says:

      BS. the hudlums are not going to uop their armaments if more are armed. If more are armed that’s a huge deterrent. All you ahve to do is some curosry research to se the VAST VAST majority of these incidents occur in turkey shoot zones. When confronted with an armed citizen in the vast majority of cases they either flee..or die much before any further damage is done.

      Now i DO say one thing. I think folks should have firearms training to know how to safely handle a weapon. I and my oldest daughter have been attending classes and have been shooting for a bit now in a range. Once we get our certificates then we will ahve personal arms to protect ourselves and our home. My youngest is being taught to not fear guns but how to respect them…in her case not to touch them. However in a few years she will go through training jsut like i and her older sister have done.

    • Marsha says:

      This 69 year old “grandma” is armed, has a concealed carry .. not afraid to pull the trigger!

      • Budreaux says:

        As is this 72 y/o Grandpa.

      • Viviana says:

        You go girl!!!

        • andy says:

          Yeah right on man, I think the government should just give everyone some automatic weapons and a tank each, hell that would be a really great solution.
          ( for those unaware, this is high sarcasm)

          • Cisco_Conservative says:


            You were OK until you went back to your mantra…
            “the government should just give everyone..” The government was setup per the constitution for a FINITE number of tasks. We are granted the right to bear arms. We, as citizens, need to understand the significance of the privilege and ACT accordingly. When we are confronted with deadly force, we need to be well prepared to meet it such confrontations IN KIND and vanquish it. Once our enemies figure out more will fight back, the cowards will not try. Any idiot can shoot fish in a barrel.

      • Michelle says:

        I’m an armed grandma

    • Viejito says:

      Mark, most grandmas attain such status around age 50. Is your point that females are incapable of being safely and effectively armed or is your contempt more generally directed at folks in their fifties?

    • Tom says:

      they are already using all those items , its just not common in the U.S. yet

    • pacorona says:

      This is one pistol packing Grandma!! Never leave home without it!! Just try to threaten my kids or grandkids or great grandkids and you’ll see what I mean! Age has nothing to do with being trained and able to defend yourself!

    • Braden Lynch says:

      MARK you are dead wrong. Arming everyone and you would see rape and robbery drop to near zero levels. When you are likely to get shot for such crimes you will be lucky to do them only a few times before your criminal career is ended.

      Please tell me how being UNARMED makes any sense? It makes ZERO sense since your attacker has every advantage.

      Regarding resorting to other weapons such as explosives and arson, you are correct that this can occur. However, a firearm might still help if you can stop the threat with it. For me, if a rioting crowd is coming down my street with molotov cocktails, I am not going to wait for them to get within throwing range before using a long gun. If I see a creep arming a backpack bomb or a pressure cooker I am going to intervene. If apprehended they may defuse the bomb to save their skin. Finally, there have been plenty of cases where suicide vest terrorists have been put down at a safe distance. If we were allowed to carry firearms on aircraft it would have been a mess, but I doubt that islamic a-holes would have commandeered the crashed aircraft. So you are completely wrong.

    • Alex says:

      Not everyone should carry a gun, not every one is capable. Nothing wrong with my grandma having a gun, shes an excellent marksmen.

  9. […] Florida state law 790.06 says that no gun permit allows the permit holder to carry a gun into “any portion of an establishment licensed to dispense alcoholic beverages for consumption on the premises, which portion of the establishment is primarily devoted to such purpose.” […]

  10. […] And, of course, you just knew the nightclub was a “gun free” zone. […]

  11. Correction says:

    Just a quick correction: http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2016/06/12/orlando-nightclub-shooting/ notes that “the suspect exchanged gunfire with an officer working at the club around 2 a.m., then went back inside and took hostages among more than 300 people inside.”

    So in fact, there was an officer working at the club.

  12. Brando says:

    Why did the NRA push for comprehensive product liability protection for gun mfr’s in 2005. shortly after the assault weapons ban was lifted in 2004? Because they KNEW incidents like this were a STATISTICAL INEVITABILITY, plain and simple. Understand? OK then, times like these call for gun-zombies across this Great Nation do what your thought-controllers have programmed you to do: Go forth, buy MORE GUNS and especially ASSAULT RIFLES and HIGH-CAPACITY MAGAZINES, and be sure to STOCKPILE LOTS OF AMMUNITION because THE GOVERNMENT is coming to take them all away!!!!

    • Non Hyphenated American says:

      So you think Ford and Chevrolet should be responsible every time a drunk driver gets behind the wheel and goes out and kills someone. You people who want to sue someone any time some thing goes wrong are the same ones who have destroyed the Country and the economy. Your probably one of those , ” it takes a village” kind of people instead of its an Individuals responsibility.

    • Braden Lynch says:

      Brando: Read what the Hildabeast and the POTUS have said in praise of the Australian style confiscation schemes and get back to us you ignorant fool.

      No one has assault rifles. They are defined as select fire (i.e. they can fire on fully automatic) and are of intermediate (i.e. less than battle rifle) calibers.

      The M4 used by the military and the police is an assault rifle. The look-alike rifle used by real Americans is not the same. It is semi-automatic only. get you fact straight before spouting off.

      The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act is there to prevent your desired “lawfare” against our Second Amendment rights. You are being deceitful if you do not acknowledge that the entire purpose of litigation is to bankrupt the firearms manufacturers. To sue a manufacturer for a product for the misuse by a criminal or terrorist is absurd and you know that or you are a total idiot.

    • Viejito says:

      Brando, the Clinton gun ban was allowed to expire because it did nothing to reduce violent crime. In fact, in 2014, more Americans were kicked to death than were killed by rifles.

  13. Joe says:

    So now you want drunks in clubs to carry guns?

    • johnrlott says:

      Please read post. “Again, there is no evidence of problems despite people being able to carry in places that serve alcohol across the entire country.”

      • Viviana says:

        exactly, people here seem to write comments because is free and have nothing better to do. Read people, read! and then give an opinion

    • LarryArnold says:

      Not everyone who goes to a club gets drunk. Not everyone even drinks any alcohol. Remember “designated drivers?”

    • Addam says:

      People that cannot read correlate highly with anti gun/rights enthusiasts. If you would have read, you would have found out that many places do not allow drinking or intoxication if carrying at that time. Just as “drunk” thugs in clubs already carrying guns with no shits given about carry laws, law abiding citizens should be able to feel secure from those individuals…

  14. Ken says:

    5 items:

    1. FL 790.06(12)(a) very specifically states that ONLY the area of the establishment where alcohol is sold is a gun-free zone. Therefore, anyone in any other part of the establishment could have shot this badass the minute he walked in the front door. Or, anyone walking by could have known what was going on and shot the guy through a window or door. Trust me, no one would arrest you.
    2. Your arms are broken? A person can’t view 360 degrees at the same time. Pick your spot, then bring him down. 300 people against 1? I’d like those odds! Trust me, it feels 1000% better than standing 25-ft away and impersonally plugging someone, which takes no guts at all to do.
    3.The only “God given rights” that we have, the ONLY ones NOT written by men, are “Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”. Being surrounded while with my small children, by concealed and open carriers. tramples on all three of those rights. And “God-given (unalienable) rights” always trump flawed and changeable Man made ones.
    4. The 2nd Amendment (what’s left of it) was mutilated and abridged by Antonin Scalia and other activist judges. It was an intact statement, only to be read and followed in its entirety. Put back the other half, I’d support it. Come on – literalists, originalists? It’s bullshit that you can just let this travesty slide.
    5. ‘You think that a large percentage of the gay people at that club would carry if they could? Or even, you think you want to form a posse that hangs out in gay bars to protect the patrons? Man, you are wayyy nice people. I think those 5 and 6 year olds at Newtown should have been armed too (of course they couldn’t pick up the gun let alone reach the trigger.)
    Everything that pro-gun ppl favor requires more guns to accomplish. No gun free zones? OK, shoot outs everywhere, and not between people you can identify, nor which side they’re on,nor how many participants there are. Your solution to everything is more guns. That’s like a solution to termites being to keep adding layer after layer of protective coverings, to everyone and everything that could get eaten by termites. At some point, you need to get rid of the real problem, not band-aid a solution.
    If there were less guns, there would be less guns req’d to protect against them.
    You’ve heard of the cowboy city Tombstone. The first thing you had to do when entering the town limits was give up your gun and belt to be locked up be the sheriff til you leave. See? No guns, no guns needed!

    • Non Hyphenated American says:

      And I quote “Being surrounded while with my small children, by concealed and open carriers tramples on all three of those rights”. Really? Hows that? How does someone carrying a firearm around you, especially concealed, trample on your right to life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness? As far as your, put back the other half and you’d support the 2nd amendment statement. Im guessing you think that the SCOTUS disregarded the well regulated militia part huh. Maybe you should dig a little into the federalist papers and find out what the founders where thinking and debating and why they wrote what they did. The militia was then and still is the people of the state. Its not the national guard or the US military. Lastly, you say you have small children, but I take it your putting you faith in the police or those you say or trampling on your rights that carry around you to protect you in case some terrorist or thug turns their vengeance toward you. If that’s the case, your a fool and I feel sorry for your kids, they deserve a better provider.

    • ThinkLonger says:

      “ONLY the area of the establishment where alcohol is sold is a gun-free zone.”
      Is it possible the entire area inside that club is considered the area alcohol is sold? I doubt this area is marked with yellow tape. Looking at another state with a similar law, the only exception may be a if the club had a restaurant area where anyone under 21 is allowed. You also have the issue of who wants to risk carrying a gun in there when the law is not specific enough to convince them it is legal to do so.

    • Christine says:

      Totally agree with Non Hyphenated American. It is so refreshing and encouraging to read your post! Please God let there be more sensible people like you out there. I fear for a world of gun toting “sheriffs ” on the loose! Perhaps that is what the “bad guys” think they are! Just a consideration.

  15. Doc says:

    Only gun free for the innocent. When will they get smart? One hostage with a CCW equals early night for the terrorist.

  16. […] was a gun free zone https://crimeresearch.org/2016/06/mas…ndo-nightclub/ ybotq.push(function() { googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.display('Btf_300x250_1'); […]

  17. Non Hyphenated American says:

    Time for some common sense. The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. If your a gun hater…. tough. The 2nd amendment has been watered down enough as it is. The idea of the 2nd was that the people be just as well armed as the Federal Govt’s military to oppose tyranny and for individual protection and to guarantee the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness . Gun free zones are killing fields and increase the number of casualties and dead when a bad guy goes off. Laws work, when their enforced, but political correctness has negated effective application of laws that work to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and to imprison those who break gun laws. Its time to embrace the 2nd and not try to figure out ways to make it less effective. God Bless America. If your one of those people who hate it……..leave.
    •The strongest reason for the people to keep and bear arms is to protect themselves against tyranny in government. – Thomas Jefferson

    •Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of arms. – Thomas Paine

    •The Constitution preserves the advantage of being armed, which Americans possess over the people of every other nation. – James Madison

    •Laws that forbid the carrying of arms…disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. – Thomas Jefferson

  18. […] invaluable Crime Prevention Research Center has already weighed in on the […]

  19. […] Originally Posted by Beavis Anyone who thinks banning a certain type of gun will solve America's gun violence issue is thick as shit. People in the USA were getting murdered long before AR15's were a thing. Surprise surprise, it's also a "gun-free zone". UPDATED: Mass Public Shooting in Florida occurred in ANOTHER gun-free zone: 50+ dead in a shooting a… […]

  20. brad says:

    amazing that California allows guns in bars and they just did that bs with conceal carry

  21. The family should automatically be deported. This would be a huge deturent for future incidents. The shooter does not care about themselves but do care about their families. This was one of Trumps points that we agree on

  22. Merlin says:

    Cleansing by blood and fire. Those not weeded out by Natural Selection will be weeded out by the process. Arms to all, will ensure all a restful night. Why fight it, the weeding process is already upon us. Lock and Load. Stand your ground.

    • andy says:

      Or, ban the sale of all guns!!!! And ban all gun manufacturers!!! That might ensure an even more restful night!!!!!

      • PaulBrevik says:

        So the entire country could become like Chicago and DC? Like the entirety of South America? Yes, those places are all crime-free utopias because of the legislation you propose.

      • Becca says:

        I agree. Look at the facts, countries that have stricter gun laws have way way way way less shootings. Even in a daily basis there are shootings in the states. I remember being in Chicago for a weekend a hearing that over 70 shootings took place! 70! How on earth!! Whereas as in Canada, you cannot carry a hand gun or own one and there are next to no shootings. It’s facts!

      • VonZorch says:

        No, that would ensure that the weak would be at the questionable mercy of the strong. An 80 lb woman can successfully defend herself from a 200+Lb man who wishes to do her harm, without that gun she would end up robbed, raped and murdered.
        Or do you hold that a woman strangled with her own clothing is somehow morally superior to one standing over the body of her assailant?

  23. Entropy says:

    Making good people defenseless will NOT make criminals harmless.

    I am a Conservative, and it is horrific what happened in Orlando. Thoughts and prayers to the victims and their families. It’s a terror issue, not a gun issue. Time to take the gloves off and deal with these terrorist groups.

  24. Mark mark says:

    More propaganda from gun loving rednecks. Florida isn’t a GUN FREE ZONE they permit the carry of concealed weapons but it’s convenient to push your message after 50 people have been murdered.

    • johnrlott says:

      Have you actually read the post? Yes, people in Florida can carry just about anywhere, but these attacks always seem to occur in the small percentage of places where general citizens can’t have guns.

    • Non Hyphenated American says:

      More Ignorance of the facts from a 2nd amendment hating fool. Who said Florida was a gun free zone. No one. The club was though. Try and get a grasp of the facts before posting, and proving your ignorance.

    • Jay Stevens says:

      No one said Florida is a gun free zone; bars and nightclubs are in Florida. Read the article and know your facts before you start commenting. Much like Bernie Sanders calling for a ban on automatic weapons when !. the weapon used was a semi-automatic (huge difference) and automatic weapons are in effect “banned” since they require a Class 3 federal license which is extremely difficult to get. Typical liberal, don’t let the facts get in the way of a good argument.

  25. […] members of the militaryfrom being armed!). The invaluable Crime Prevention Research Center has already weighed in on the […]

  26. Gayle says:

    The worst mass murder in US history was in 1890 at Wounded Knee. Over 300 Native Americans were slaughtered by Federal forces. Just sayin’

    • VonZorch says:

      Most of them women and children, all of them disarmed.
      And leftards say it could never happen here.

  27. Tom Campbell says:

    “Florida’s approach to gun laws does nothing to prevent these types of tragedies—in fact, quite the opposite—and makes it all too easy for people intent on doing harm, from terrorists to domestic abusers to violent felons, to get guns,” said Dan Gross, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.”

    Interesting that Dan Gross said the above, because he refutes his own argument as soon as one substitutes ‘California’ for Florida and notes that CA has this nation’s most restrictive gun laws, which did squat to prevent San Bernadino, or Oregon, or Connecticut.

    He admits, therefore, straight up that gun restrictive laws do not deter or stop criminals.

    Therefore, what will stop or deter criminals MUST now be brought forward: 1. Eliminate gun-free zones nationwide; 2. Encourage law-abiding citizens to obtain the means and training to be responsible for their own self defense, because the police cannot be everywhere. 3. Develop legal and Constitutional means to intervene more decisively when clues of radicalization rise to the attention of authorities.

    • andy says:

      Er, is there absolutely no room in your mind for a fourth option? Banning the sales of all guns forever!! Might just conceivably prevent people from shooting each other? No guns at all that is. It goes like this – no guns available, no one able to shoot and murder.

  28. Marc says:

    Hello from Europe. NOBODY is allowed to carry a gun. You can’t buy a gun without background check, exams and a clean rap-sheet. In my country they check all this every 5 years. You have to shoot at least 12 times a year in a registered club.
    I’m a gun owner (a rare one) and divided on the subject.
    -It should be allowed to carry a gun, but only for people who know how to use it.
    -It should be prohibited to carry (own) a gun when convicted for a crime.
    -I’m happy nobody is allowed to carry, so I don’t have to drag my 1911 with me all the time.
    -I do not know of any gun incident in my 54 years on this globe, in my country, where I could have made de difference.
    -I am not allowed to shoot an intruder in my house, and that is a shame….. but it prevented me from shooting my drunk son one night.

    You have lot’s of accidents with people carrying a gun in the cocked state (especially the ones without manual safety). This allows for children to pull the trigger and “bang”.

    Carry an uncocked gun and a lot of misery can be avoided.
    All this said, in my country they killed 35 persons with bombs. No gun can prevent that.

  29. andy says:

    What on earth is the point of a gun free zone? The issue SURELY is why have you crazy people got laws that allow anyone to buy guns at all? Anyone can walk into a ‘gun free zone’ with a gun – obviously!! Wake up – it’s a very, very simple equation – what you do is, and this might sound terribly complex, is stop people buying guns and then you have less murders. Allow guns and you have more. Why is that so difficult for you to comprehend??? And while you’re at it, stop gun manufacturers as well.

  30. […] crimeresearch.org/2016/06/mass-shooting-in-florida-occurred-in-another-gun-free-zone-as-many-as-20-p… […]

  31. Paul Wrightsman says:

    Looking forward to my 8086th B’day in a few months. I stay out of gun free areas/establishments to the maximum extent possible. When it is absolutely necessary to enter such a place, it is a pain in the butt to get my pocket carried Curve, my OTW Glock, and my ITW S&W revolver in my truck’s glove compartment. Texas needs to continue their gun-friendly legal trend by removing all state sanctioned gun-free zones. We’d still have to shun federally designated gun-free areas but that problem can be solved by making the U.S. of A. a Democrat-free zone!

  32. David M. Bennett says:

    “A shoot-out is better than a massacre!”

  33. Dave says:

    According to the AP: “Early Monday, [Eddie] Justice was confirmed to be among the 50 people killed in the worst mass shooting in modern American history,” left to cower in a restroom for thirty minutes, legally prohibited from defending himself and those around him.

  34. PursueJustice says:

    This is Obama’s world. He can’t blame Bush any more. This is what Obama created. And expect this to become the norm now in America. There are thousands of people like this guy who hate America. Yes, it is true he targeted gays, but these terrorists hate all Americans, not just gays.

    As usual the liberals cannot get it into their heads that banning guns would have stopped this. Would banning guns have stopped the Boston bombers? I suspect this guy would have figured out a way to blow everyone up in there if had no guns.

    I feel for the losses of friends and family members in Orlando. Loss of life because of hatred.

    If you want more of this support Obama 2 in the form of the criminal Hillary and you can expect lots more of this. Our border is so porous anyone and everyone is coming through.

  35. “A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks.” – Thomas Jefferson, letter to Peter Carr, August 19, 1785

  36. “The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes…. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”
    – Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776

  37. “For it is a truth, which the experience of ages has attested, that the people are always most in danger when the means of injuring their rights are in the possession of those of whom they entertain the least suspicion.”
    – Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 25, December 21, 1787

  38. sgtxray says:

    These are very troubled times to say the least! I am former military and a former police officer. If you value your families safety I would recommend arming yourself. There is a clear and present danger in our country from radicals. We are all programmed to believe the police will protect us, we don’t need guns and live in a safe country. Don’t listen to the “elite” that make up these silly laws and rules. They don’t obey the law and surround themselves with heavily armed security. Do as they do not as they say. Your life and your families lives depend on your actions. This is reality period! If you do decide to arm yourself obtain some qualified training and use it safely. Stay away from gun free zones they are a real target. Be smart and stay safe.

  39. Shad says:

    I think there needs to be a choice. If a bar wants to ban guns, and I get why they would. Alcohol and guns don’t mix! It’s really that simple.

    So a bar can ban guns, but the bar should be required to have 2 or 3 well trained sober staff on hand that can carry concealed. I think this should be the same for schools too….both grade schools and colleges. In today’s world, not public place should be left vulnerable to these attacks.

    Banning guns won’t help, getting rid of guns is a joke. Look how well be ban drugs in this country………yeah, not so good and most shootings happen by criminals, not be legit citizens who legally own guns.

    So a bar can either ban guns and then take it upon themselves to arm some of their staff or they shouldn’t ban guns at all. But in my opinion, people who are drinking shouldn’t be carrying firearms. So maybe those who go in armed have to show the staff that they are armed and they are not allowed to purchase alcohol. I don’t know…..but there is a way to do it safely……..we can figure this out so all are safe.

  40. TX says:

    There was an armed officer outside working security. It didn’t change anything.

  41. Mikey says:

    Did you confuse Montana with Wyoming? Wyoming is an open carry state – no restrictions. From what I found, Montana bans guns at bars period – concealed or open.

  42. David says:

    Very sad events. I think it irresponsible to not be armed in public. Staying away from gun free zones is good advice. My policy of not being in bars at 2:00 AM has also served me well. It is fine for others, just not me and mine. Yes, I train.

  43. PaulBrevik says:

    So would clinton be okay with allowing terrorists to obtain firearms that are NOT cosmetically similar to the one used by Mateen? Would it have been any less tragic if he used a different weapon?

  44. Becca says:

    Such a tragedy! I can’t even express the sadness I have for the LGTB community and for the United States. Just a thought though, as a Canadian Citizen we cannot have handguns and carry guns anywhere. We also have next to no mass shootings. I know our population is significantly smaller..but it does make me wonder. Prayers for all the families and friends of the loved ones who were shot and killed by such a hateful individual.

  45. Old Soldier says:

    The overly simplistic ideology of ‘no guns, no gun crime’ is naïve and beyond any logical reasoning. If all guns and their manufacture were banned in the US, a gun black market would erupt emulating the illicit drug market. Besides, blaming the ‘gun’ for the massacre equates to blaming the fork and spoon for obesity, or the pencil for misspelled words… Banning the gun does nothing to address the heart and mind of sick people – it only adversely affects the law-abiding citizens’ ability to adequately protect them self. I have carried various guns for years – in the military and personally, and I am quite capable and resolved to use one if required. Fortunately such an occasion has not occurred; but should you, Andy, find yourself in an active shooter situation, you better pray that I am near.

  46. Erik says:

    I live only a few miles from where this happened and I am extremely angry about the fact that this could have been prevented had it not been for our suicidal politically correct and undisciplined force fed diversity. However I am being shamed and even losing “friends” on FB for pointing out the uncomfortable truth they refuse to hear. Instead the typical liberal self defense mechanism kicks in and they label me a racist and just blame the NRA which is the most nonsensical irrational thing I have ever heard!

  47. John E says:

    Alcohol and Guns do not mix just like Alcohol and Driving do not mix. There is no reason though to prevent Conceal and carry in an establishment just because they primarily serve Alcohol. The reason should be that the person going intends to drink. Those who do no drink should not be restricted from protecting themselves.

  48. Thang Nguyen says:

    My question is not regarding upgrading gun laws. My question concern about how a double investigating link to terrorist by the FBI (not some easy buying police officer from somewhere in Mexico) can buy the gun without raising any flag ? Somewhere someone is sleeping on the job. Instead of blaming the gun laws holes, we can focus to fire those sleep on the job officers then these similar things will not happen again without knowledges firsthand.

  49. Rich says:

    Do You Patronize Gun Free Zones That Undermine Your Freedoms – Fact is, mindless gun-free zones are what mass shootings have in common. They are Killing Zones, free from good guys with guns. That’s why the Aurora movie theater killer chose the more distant theater where guns were not allowed and thus where he wouldn’t have to worry about his plan being foiled.

  50. Paul DiNatale says:

    whoppi goldberg on the View said that it is wrong that people can go out and buy a ar-15 machinegun and was not corrected by the other idiots on the panel. they should rename the program- the liberal view,slanted view , idiot’s view,one sided view, worthless view,etc . plus lets make it a law that gun free zones must have armed security and if anybody kils/wounds anybody in such zones and is recorded on video then the perp should be executed a month after conviction of such crime. bring back the firing squads using 3 live rounds and 5 blanks randomly among the executioners. the aclu will of course say it is wrong!!

  51. […] That "Gun Free Zone" will not protect you. Gun control will not protect you. It's delusional to think that removing guns from law abiding citizens will do anything to prevent this kind of thing from happening. Even if you do magically remove all the guns from everybody there are other methods to kill, maim and create havoc. Two people were just arrested the other day not far from here for making and possessing numerous pipe bombs. Maybe they had a purpose other than mayhem and destruction in mind, I don't know. They could have been blowing up stumps on their property. My Grandpa was injured before my Mother was born making a pipe bomb when it blew up unexpectedly. He was blowing up stumps on the farm. They might have had destruction in mind, I don't know. Two People Arrested After Several Explosives Found at Madrid Residence Things like this are easy to make using readily available ingredients. Somebody intent on causing this kind of destruction will find a way. I believe it's fueled by publicity and all the media attention these nuts get only fan the flames. The next morning all we could get on the local morning TV news was coverage of this shooting over and over and over. Iowa is a long way from Florida. Don't take this the wrong way but I believe that if the media would quit all the sensationalism of this type of unfortunate event then that would take a lot of these nuts motivation away from them. I believe that the media should share in the blame of these events. I do feel so sorry for all the dead and injured. I wish a few of them would have disobeyed that gun free zone thing and given them all a fighting chance. I've known people that carried a gun on them all their lives, never shot a thing with those guns but a few rats and other varmints but they were prepared in the event that they happened to be at the mercy of some unfortunate event and I always felt safer to be around them. They were not law enforcement, just common everyday people. I read that the singer was shot in another one of those "Gun Free Zones". The only people that will not carry guns into one of those zones are the law abiding ones, the criminals like those zones. UPDATED: MASS PUBLIC SHOOTING IN FLORIDA OCCURRED IN ANOTHER GUN-FREE ZONE: 49 DEAD IN A SHOOTING AT… […]

  52. Frank says:

    Hi! I’ve been reading your web site for a while now and
    finally got the courage to go ahead and give you a shout out from Humble Texas!
    Just wanted to say keep up the excellent work!

  53. […]    Studies from the Crime Prevention Research Center show that, “Since at least 1950, only slightly over […]

  54. Gretna Bear says:

    Killers, mass, 1 or more or even self-inflicted, they don’t look around and think this is a ‘gun free zone’, thus I’ll pick another site. If this is the best research response you can present on your site to one more mass killing in America, your center is surely lacking in research talent.

    • johnrlott says:

      Did you notice in the post the links to the evidence that these mass public shooters consciously pick targets where they know victims won’t be able to defend themselves? That seems like it directly addresses your concern. Did you read the post?

  55. Gretna Bear says:

    Florida is a high concealed carry state per your recent report on that subject. Have the police indicted if anyone other than the shooter and security in the Pulse nightclub in Orlando had a concealed carry gun permit, and had their gun at the club and used it ? Now that would be good info to know, as would the effectiveness of concealed carry permit holders to impact the outcome in all situations where there is a murder, wounded or self-inflicted casualty .

  56. […] that Florida gun owners are not allowed to carry firearms in any part of an establishment that serves alcohol, so gun-free zones […]

  57. […] that Florida gun owners are not allowed to carry in any establishment that serves […]

  58. […] to the Crime Prevention Research Center, the vast majority of mass shootings, like the recent horrific nightclub shooting in Orlando, take […]

  59. Rand Pierson says:

    Gun control policy should be based on the whole volume of data involving homicide and violent crime, not from rare events such as sensationalized mass shootings. Being murdered is, for most people, a very low risk. Being killed in a mass shooting is by comparison an insignificant risk. Whatever crime or gun control policies are adopted should rationally be based on the former risk, and not the latter.

  60. […] know my relief is shared by the families of the 50 people killed in the Pulse nightclub attack, a gun free […]

  61. […] 99-percent of mass shootings since 1950 have occurred in these “gun free zones.” Far from being a safe space, they are easily-exploitable killing fields. […]

  62. […] every person in that room except for the one person who decided the law did not apply to him. This gun-free zone, by the inherent restrictions on a person’s right to defend his or herself, turned 50 people into […]

  63. David Platts says:

    My understanding is that Pulse had an arm guard. Further, I’ve followed CDC data for a number of years now. In 2015, the firearm death rate was 14.04, firearm homicide rate was 5.22 and the total homicide rate was 6.93 per 100,000 (firearm homicide made up 75.3% of that rate) in the South region with only the state of Maryland having a higher incidence of firearm ownership laws. Their firearm death rate was comparably low at 9.14. The firearm homicide rate was high at 4.17 (total at 6.48) ; yet the ATF reported 8,193 firearms found at crime scenes with 67% traced to a state of origin. Of that, 52% came from states outside of Maryland which is extremely high compared to states with little regulations(usually in the high teens to mid-twenties and certainly not at 52%). The problem came mostly from the Iron Pipeline in the Southeast.

    I’ll cover total and firearm suicide here. people who commit suicide usually do not source weapons out of states while criminals do. This speaks to Maryland’s low firearm suicide rate. 78% of the Northeast region’s population resides within 5 states (NJ, NY, CT, RI, MA) with some of the strongest firearm regulations having been established there for many years. In 2015, that region’s firearm death rate was an extremely low 6.39 per 100,000, the lowest firearm death rate in the U.S. at 2.42 leading to an extremely low total homicide rate of 3.70 per 100,000 (the U.S. rate was 34.6% higher at 4.98) . So answer this question: gun free zones are few in the South comparable to states in the Northeast, so why is the overall firearm death rate was 220% higher in the South? This strong difference in rates has been going on for many years.

    Personally, taking a political stance and then attempting to use (or misuse) econometric analysis to prove your belief system is not viable social science research. Simply, it’s not objective with care to take preconceived believes out of the analysis. I used to be conservative on this issue being a gun owner for 47 years now. I’ve noted that when empirical evidence is first used to substantiate a premise, such as France has had a high incidence of mass shootings is not a good comparable reasoning. First analyze total data and compare that data to nations with a different approach but within the same socio-economic class. For example if the U.S. experiences an average high rate of death daily contributing to a steady rate of violent firearm death while France has a couple of incidences that makes strong use of the headlines as did Belgium, those empirical examples assumes a high firearm death rate and a belief that it’s growing at a substantial rate. The rates do not support the empirical reasoning as evidence of a persistent national problem. Simply put, we have consistently performed at poorer rates over time. That appears to shoot down the premise that gun free zones are deadlier than zones where firearms are often carried by citizens. Using the Northeast region data as a persistent gauge, the opposite appears to a more credible rationale.

    Also, I’ve read a complete discounting of firearm suicide on the premise that if laws impacted the firearm suicide rate, people would just choose another method. Perhaps, but are the other methods as successful and does the data support that analysis rather than use of empirical reference. 9 states (+DC) have had the lowest firearm suicide rate for a number of years and, coincidentally, the strictest firearm regulations in the U.S. NJ, NY, CT, RI, MA). I parsed the 41 states and 9 states to determine aggregate rate in 2015 (I have done this analysis since 2013 but I’ll provide only 2015 here though the findings are consistent through time). The 9 states had a population of 99,824,414 with total suicides at 10,048. The total suicide rate was 10.07 per 100,000. Total firearm suicides stood at 3,382 evidencing a rate of 3.39 per 100,000. Therefore, the suicide rate by all other methods stood at 6.68 per 100,000. Since the U.S. population was 318,907,401, the remaining 41 states with the weakest regulation had a population of 219,082,987. The total suicides in the U.S. stood at 42,826 and firearm suicides at 21,386. So, the 41 states had 32,778 total suicides and the firearm suicides were at 18,004. The total suicide rate for the 41 states was at 14.96 and the firearm suicide rate at 8.22 per 100,000. So, the suicide rate by all other methods in the 41 states had to be 6.74 per 100,000. Other methods virtually did not rise (0.9% higher in the 41 weakly regulated states) while the firearm suicide rate was 142% higher in the 41 states. When I began looking to see if a rationale existed or did not exist for strengthening laws, this stood out as a strong confirmation of strengthening firearm regulations in the U.S. It consistently appeared that when the firearm was not used, other successful methods took the firearms place. That’s simply not true. But were the laws causal? First, I ruled out geography since the 9 states were dispersed across the widest distance of all U.S. states in this aggregate analysis except for the clustering in the Northeast which was low in every schematic, gun free zones and all. A continuous search for oddities proffered nothing (I’ll refrain from claiming liberal states with strong guns laws perform much better than conservative states with few firearm regulations; one political division is brought into the conversations rather than examining the social disease pertaining to death from some certain method, the analysis loses complete value. I’ll come back to that soon.). Only regulations was the separating factor. Sometimes troubling over causality when correlation happens over and over again, then correlation with a high degree of probability is good enough (which is the case here).

    Again, I see no large aggregate evidence that gun free zones are more dangerous than areas where firearm carry is an accepted practice. On the contrary, among mass killings (4 or more violent deaths in one event), 36 occurred in 2015. 35 were by firearm while one in Oklahoma was by knife. of the 35 only 4 could be classified as having occurred in a gun free zone. 89% were not in absolute gun free zones at all. This is a limited consistent grouping but the point is clear. First, gun free zones are few in percentage in relationship to population centers so 4 out of 35 seem reasonable. It’s obvious are firearm deaths are much too high. However, saying gun free zones are necessary are not necessary is an unproven issue. Causal or correlated data considering the multiple questions arising from any making sense of any of that data based upon CCL, OC, GFZ in combination with high or low population density plus many other layers of uncertainty that this subject is mere opinion. No correlated or causal fact can be objectively found here. Therefore, I find politics is introduced into empirical examples, then, around it a structuring of odd statistical structure has been applied to aid in reaching the conclusion asserted by the previously cited political example. Simple circulation reasoning to manipulate proof to support a claim.

    In early 2013, I didn’t even consider firearm regulation an issue. Pure nonsense. I may not be well versed in econometric analysis but I have enough statistical training that when I see a conclusion has been reached before data accumulation and, then, data is manipulated around an effort to skew towards the likely conclusion previously reached in an effort to mimic the limited empirical evidence offered.

    I find that John Lott offered no compelling evidence that suggests he started without a preconceived belief system and used data objectively collected to make sense out of the information without prejudice. John Lott is extremely tainted in prejudice. In that vein, though he may assert skills higher than my own, I would ask for what purpose? If bias is introduced at every juncture, the conclusions are tainted. I am a fiscal conservative under the premise that Keynes even stated. In a downturn, monetary and fiscal tools may be used to resolve the problem. However, debt should not be accumulated but repaid. He had theories that have been used to good effect in the case of inflation and recession. He never faced stagflation and the only methods that made sense in the ’80’s came from Milton Freidman. Though it’s true that the cure cab be more painful then the disease, it’s still a cure and putting in place Keynsian policy would have continued an upward spiral that would have been even more devastating as time passed. The only reason I write this is to evidence that I may believe in policies that meet opportunistic solutions that may come from conservative and progressive camps (at least both camps perceived as such though more camps exist). However, in this case, I find strong national regulation pertaining to civilian possession vetting, training and storage are key to success in the rest of the developed world (which I’ve examined extensively) and would work in the U.S. John, your much too biased to provide objective reasoning. Purposefully skewed analysis leads to faulty conclusions. Somewhere along the way, I fear you forgot how to implement tools for good purpose. Instead, I think you saw a market you could take advantage of and you matched your skills to fit that hungry markets mindset. Earnings may be high but did moral fiber recede?

    • johnrlott says:

      The Pulse nightclub had an off-duty police officer as a guard. The point that I have raised is that having a police officer in uniform is like having a neon sign above him saying shoot me first, and indeed the officer was the first person shot at. This is something that you see regularly. For example, the Charlie Hebdo attack in Paris or the attack earlier this year in Istanbul. The point about gun-free zones applies to general civilians not being allowed to carry to defend themselves and others.

      As to your concern about my pre-existing views on these issues, the research isn’t just mine, but in conjunction with many others. Are you saying that all these people are biased?


  64. David Platts says:

    I apologize. The data was from 2014, not 2015, and the first rate of 14.04 firearm death rate should not have been penned as it was from 2015 which I have not looked at yet (analyzed the data).

  65. […] stop every shooting incident you should not try to stop any,” she moralized, ignoring the glaring detail of Pulse nightclub’s location inside a gun-free zone.“We did have an assault weapons ban for […]

Comments are closed.