Not what the left calls them but every bit as accurate a description.
How the Left Is Creating Dangerous ?Target Enrichment Zones?
How the Left Is Creating Dangerous ?Target Enrichment Zones?
Target rich environment
- Thread starter LDB
- Start date
What next, Dangerous Wal-Mart Enrichment Zones? You purport to being a red blooded, gun toting, 2nd Amendment, card carrying conservative. Yet, much of the crap you post makes a better case for gun control and liberals in general. Are you sure you aren't a dumber than dirt liberal secret agent?
Home Depot allows open and concealed carry in their stores, so I'm sure there are never any robberies there, like the examples of Target in Georgia.
Oh, wait...
Hot dog vendor robbed, attacked with hammer at Ferguson Home Depot : News
A hot dog vendor at a Home Depot in Ferguson was robbed of his cellphone Wednesday and then struck in the head with a stolen hammer, police say.
Home Depot Robbed | News - Home
The Home Depot in La Quinta was robbed just before 11 am Monday. The suspect fled out of the store, and injured a security guard who suffered a cut to his arm.
Man, 70, Robbed At Gunpoint In Parking Lot Of Delaware Home Depot « CBS Philly
Police are searching for the armed suspects who robbed a 70-year-old man in the parking lot of a Home Depot in Delaware. Police say one of the suspects displayed a semiautomatic handgun and demanded money from the elderly victim. The second suspect rifled through the victim’s pockets and removed his wallet which contained an undisclosed amount of cash and personal property.
http://www.kktv.com/home/headlines/Colorado-Springs-Home-Depot-Store-Robbed-227554521.htmlA man is on the run after robbing a local hardware store at gunpoint. It happened at the Home Depot store on Academy and Woodmen in Colorado Springs. Investigators told 11 News they were called to the Home Depot after a man walked in with a handgun, then took off with an entire cash register drawer.
Oh, wait...
Hot dog vendor robbed, attacked with hammer at Ferguson Home Depot : News
A hot dog vendor at a Home Depot in Ferguson was robbed of his cellphone Wednesday and then struck in the head with a stolen hammer, police say.
Home Depot Robbed | News - Home
The Home Depot in La Quinta was robbed just before 11 am Monday. The suspect fled out of the store, and injured a security guard who suffered a cut to his arm.
Man, 70, Robbed At Gunpoint In Parking Lot Of Delaware Home Depot « CBS Philly
Police are searching for the armed suspects who robbed a 70-year-old man in the parking lot of a Home Depot in Delaware. Police say one of the suspects displayed a semiautomatic handgun and demanded money from the elderly victim. The second suspect rifled through the victim’s pockets and removed his wallet which contained an undisclosed amount of cash and personal property.
http://www.kktv.com/home/headlines/Colorado-Springs-Home-Depot-Store-Robbed-227554521.htmlA man is on the run after robbing a local hardware store at gunpoint. It happened at the Home Depot store on Academy and Woodmen in Colorado Springs. Investigators told 11 News they were called to the Home Depot after a man walked in with a handgun, then took off with an entire cash register drawer.
So we should NEVER do ANYTHING to even TRY to defend ourselves. NO chance at defending ourselves is FAR better than having a chance of surviving an attack.
Kinda like CPR, which almost never works, it's best to do nothing than try. Let's abandon CPR too.
Kinda like CPR, which almost never works, it's best to do nothing than try. Let's abandon CPR too.
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
Nope, that's not the point at all ...
It's just that some people wanna play cops and robbers really, really, really bad ...
Apparently they never got it out of their system ...
The point is that there is no point supporting the 2nd Amendment. The article linked by the OP and the comments that follow are ammunition (pun intended) for the anti-gun crowd. If I was a dumber than dirt, anti-gun liberal I'd be sending that link to every one I know.
Either you and Leo didn't read and/or comprehend the article or you are both secret agents promoting the liberal agenda and undermining the 2nd Amendment. Leo, please read the entire article and responses that follow it. If you can ever again use the line "dumber than dirt liberals", and actually mean it, then you are dumber than a dumber than dirt liberal.
Careful. Words hurt.
Well...Did you know 15 minutes can save you 15% on your auto insurance?
I may not agree with every word written, and I didn't bother to read the irrelevant comments; but I agree with the gist of the article which is pretty well summed up in this paragraph:
"When criminals can knowingly walk into a store, a movie theater, a bank, or any other building that forbids guns, they can carry on with their crime without fear because they know the people who surround them will have no way of defending themselves."
"Dumber than dirt" is pretty mild compared to some of the vitriol thrown at conservatives by the radical and not-so-radical liberals. Yet any time a conservative responds in kind they are trashed as uncivilized, mean-spirited "haters", among other things that don't get past the censorship software. BTW, if you want to see some really stupid liberal comments just take a look on the Huffington Post or Daily Kos websites sometime. I'm sure there are other places on the web as well.
You're kidding - right? Save the condescending mini-sermon; if I'm too dumb to comprehend the article it won't do any good. On the other hand, if I'm smart enough to understand it I also understand we all should be able to voice our opinions without being called stupid by somebody that has a different take.
I'll bet all of these victims were unarmed, and so was the security guard. If the hot dog vendor had been packing the robber would have moved on to somebody else; likely the same thing for the 70 year old dude. Actually, I'm heading to Home Depot for some paint as soon as I finish this post - guess I'd better take take Mr Walther with me.
The point being, of course, is that Home Depot is not a "Target Rich Zone," yet crimes, including violent and gun crime is still committed there. How can this be? According to the link in the OP, and in particular the feel-good rhetoric summary you quoted in #11, and agree with, this should never happen except in "Target Rich Zones." If felonies only happened in these gun-free Target Rich Zones and not in other places, then you'd be on to something. But that's not the reality. At all.I'll bet all of these victims were unarmed, and so was the security guard. If the hot dog vendor had been packing the robber would have moved on to somebody else; likely the same thing for the 70 year old dude. Actually, I'm heading to Home Depot for some paint as soon as I finish this post - guess I'd better take take Mr Walther with me.
How many of these mass murders have taken place in "gun free" zones? Has having "gun free" zones stopped mass murders from taking place? How many "mass murders" have taken place where guns are allowed? How many have taken place where private firearms are encouraged?
I understand your frustration not sure what the answer is but it isn't arming the masses, guns do not make me feel secure.
Guns in the hands of government do not make me feel secure. An all powerful government that cannot be challenged, and controlled, by the People is a terrible thing. Those kinds of government killed millions upon millions of people last century and that continues today.
NO one is "arming" the masses. No one is requiring you to arm, if you choose not too. NO ONE has the right to go outside of the Constitution and remove right of the People to arm, or not arm, as they see fit. There is a very limited set of legal ways to alter the Constitution, and this government is no longer following them. That makes them dangerous.
I don't know that you understand my "frustration" or not. I seriously doubt that you do. That is NO meant to belittle, ridicule or anything of the like. I just doubt you really understand my concerns.
I don't know why you are concerned with law abiding citizens, who by definition, are not a problem, exercising their right to self defense and their right to own and carry arms. I think it would be a bigger concern to have government having control over the People. I don't know what you think, don't pretend too.
If you didn't read the comments following the article how do you know they are irrelevant? Is it because of the source of the article and you are familiar with the comments that would follow? Please re-read the article and the comments. As a supporter of the 2nd Amendment do you really believe that the linked piece and comments bolster the position of gun rights activists?
Are you suggesting that conservatives sink to the level of the radical and not-so-radical liberals by using childish name calling and throwing about a few incidents that support nothing. It is exactly that type of crap that makes 2nd Amendment supporters look like a bunch of kooks.
Of course there are really stupid comments by liberals. When you read these comments do you feel they support the agenda they are linked to or do you blow them off as exactly what they are, really stupid comments?
I called you neither dumb or stupid. I suggested that you either didn't read the article or you didn't comprehend it or both. I based that on your posting of the link about the armed psychiatrist, which didn't support the article linked by the OP. Even the OP couldn't come up with anything in support of it.
According to one of the most fervent vocal gun control groups on the planet, Mayors Against Illegal Guns, between January 2009 and September 2013, there were nearly two mass shootings per month in the U.S. They compiled the report to use as ammunition to make anywhere and everywhere a Gun-Free Zone, because, as the data shows, there are fewer mass shootings (defined as 4 or more killed) in Gun-Free Zones than in places where guns are allowed. The fact that the number of Gun-Free Zones is miniscule as compared to every other place is a fact that is lost of them.
What their statistics show, and what they begrudgingly admit is, "Contrary to rhetoric, gun-free zones are not the problem," Mayors Against Illegal Guns's communications director Erika Soto Lamb concludes in a statement.
And that in itself is a significant problem, for both sides. It completely blows out of the water the argument that Gun-Free Zones will reduce or eliminate mass shootings, and it utterly destroys the argument that Gun-Free Zones are somehow "Target Rich." What is shows, unambiguously, is that any correlation between gun-free and gun-allowed zones is a correlation which is at best an illusion, and at worst fabricated.
"Sixty-two of the 93 incidents (67%) took place wholly in private residences. Of the 31 incidents in public spaces, at least 17 took place wholly or in part where concealed guns could be lawfully carried. All told, no more than 14 of the shootings (15%) took place entirely in public spaces that were so-called “gun-free zones.”
So there ya go, 15% took place in these "Target Rich" gun-free zones. Clearly, the only people seeking out these "Target Rich" zones are those wanting to use them to further a political agenda. The shooters clearly are not.
Other noteworthy statistics from the report:
- In 57 percent of cases, the shooter killed a spouse or other family member.
- In 11 percent of cases, concerns about the shooter's mental health had been brought to the attention of a medical professional, school official or legal authority.
- Assault weapons or high-capacity magazines were used in 15 percent of the incidents. But those incidents were among the most deadly, with an average of 14.4 people shot. (Spin alert - not from the report...all long guns combined, including mean-looking guns, are used in fewer homicides than knives, according to FBI statistics. However, handguns kill them all in the statistics - 70% of all homocides are comitted with a handgun.)
- The shooter committed suicide in 43 percent of the incidents.
- In 14 percent of the shootings, law enforcement or military officers were targeted in the attack or killed or injured while responding to it.
Quite clearly, gun-free zones are meaningless, as they don't promote or dissuade gun violence one way or the other. It's also astoundingly clear that regardless of what you label it, there is no such thing as a gun-free zone in America, either because someone got a gun in, or there are armed security personnel inside the zone. The Colorado movie theater? It's not a place where people would normally carry a gun, but it's not a gun-free zone. The US Navy Yard in Washington, D.C.? Not even close to a gun-free zone.
Here's one for you: Has gun violence and gun-related deaths increased or decreased over the last 20 years?
According to a Pew Research poll, 56 percent believed gun-related crime is higher, 26 percent believed it stayed about the same, and 6 percent didn’t know. Only 12 percent correctly knew that it was lower.
And it's down dramatically from 20 years ago. According to DOJ’s Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. gun-related homicides dropped 39 percent over the course of 18 years, from 18,253 during 1993, to 11,101 in 2011. During the same period, non-fatal firearm crimes decreased even more, a whopping 69 percent. The majority of those declines in both categories occurred during the first 10 years of that time frame. Firearm homicides declined from 1993 to 1999, rose through 2006, and then declined again through 2011. Non-fatal firearm violence declined from 1993 through 2004, then fluctuated in the mid-to-late 2000s.
The DOJs numbers are a nightmare for gun-control advocates. And it's a nightmare that becomes Hеllish when you factor in that American gun ownership has been rising over that same time frame and is now at an all-time high, thanks in no small part to the dramatic increase in gun ownership since 2008, when the most successful firearms salesman in US history was elected to the presidency.
As much of a nightmare as the numbers are for gun-control advocates, it's just as big of a mistake for Second Amendment proponents to look at the rise of gun ownership and the decline in gun violence as being the cause and effect. There is no direct evidence for it. It's a correlation that isn't there. It's an illusion. It's junk science at its finest. There are simply too many other factors to consider.
Of the 62 public mass shootings over the last 30 years that were studied by the DOJ and the FBI, not a single one of them includes any evidence whatsoever that the killer chose to target a place because it banned guns. Not one.
But go ahead and campaign for your silly, meaningless gun-free zones, or absurdly rail against them as target-rich environments. All you're doing is focusing on a symptom rather than the problem. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Everything else is window dressing.
Last edited:
Prior to the conceal carry and open carry movement just about everywhere was a gun free zone. Target stores aren't banning guns but are discouraging their patrons from carrying guns in the store. As a red blooded, gun toting Texan, would you let a simple suggestion stop you from packing while shopping at Target?