undefined | Better HN

0 pointsbmelton12y ago0 comments

Honestly, I'd say it's fairly likely. DOJ reports and CJIS statistics have pointed out that criminals, by and large, prefer their would-be victims to be unarmed, and will actively seek out targets they believe to be unarmed.

This is likely the reason that the Aurora shooter went 20 miles out of his way, passing both the closest theater to his home, and the largest theater in range, to perform his assault at the one theater in the (otherwise gun-loving) Aurora, Colorado area that specifically banned guns.

This is also a potentially contributing factor as to why a majority of mass murders are committed in areas labeled "gun free zones", like schools, college campuses, Fort Hood, etc.

0 comments

2 comments · 1 top-level

darkarmani12y ago· 1 in thread

> This is also a potentially contributing factor as to why a majority of mass murders are committed in areas labeled "gun free zones", like schools, college campuses, Fort Hood, etc.

Aren't those areas that are labeled "gun free zones" because it's easy to commit mass murder there? It's not the signage that makes it happen.

bmeltonOP12y ago

There are many more areas conducive to mass murder than there are areas where guns are specifically disallowed. As I mentioned already, the Aurora, CO theater was likely targeted specifically because it was the one theater in the area in which guns were specifically banned.

Schools might have ostensibly been labeled as 'gun free zones' as an attempt to stymie attempts at committing mass murder within them, but even if we can't prove their effectiveness, we can't deny that their lack of armed defenders makes them an attractive target for someone trying to inflict the most damage.

Edit: And for clarity, I wasn't suggesting that the signage causes mass murders to happen - but it does somewhat accentuate that if I were looking for somewhere to wreak havoc, I'd have little opposition in areas with 'gun free zone' signage.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse