Reply #33: If I hadn't seen it with my own eyes, I wouldn't have believed it. [View All]

[beevul]

Do you have any reason to believe that any person in that church would have been carrying a firearm at the time, if it had not been a "gun free zone"?

I'd like to know what you know.

Because I have grave doubts that anyone at all attending an event at a Universalist Church would ever be carrying a firearm.

I think we can pretty much dismiss your proof of the utter failure of "gun free zones" as utter crap.

Virginia Mountainman says "Even more proof of the utter failure of... "gun free zones" - referring to yet another gun free zone that wasn't gun free after all - and then comments "They are ONLY gun free, for the law abiding".

And you go off on a rant about about whether or not he has any reason to believe that any person in that church would have been carrying a firearm at the time, if it had not been a "gun free zone", rather than simply acknowledge that the "gun free zone" in question was indeed NOT a "gun free" zone after all. Whether someone would have had a firearm if the place had not been a gun free zone, is not relevant to whether the gun free zone actually succeeded in being gun free or not, but of course you know this.

But wait, theres more:


You go on to say "I think we can pretty much dismiss your proof of the utter failure of "gun free zones" as utter crap", in spite of the fact that the gun free zone in question FAILED, as most of them do when someone with bad intentions takes a gun into one and shoots people, which was ENTIRELY the point that Virginia Mountainman made.


You sure can muddy the waters of intelligent discourse, I grant you that.