Gunshot -> bleeding -> death == gunshot -> death

Gun-free zone -> attracts predators with guns -> not safe == gun-free zone -> not safe.

Gun free zones are objectively more dangerous than non gun free zones, because "gun-free" doesn't prevent bad people from doing bad things.

Neither did France, until it did. Bad people cause bad things to happen. You're blessed if Canada does not have that sort of bad people. Be careful about who you bring in.

What secret agenda? The media favors gun control. This is easily observed objective fact.

The fact is that the media does not report a death toll from wannabe heros accidentally killing bystanders.

Why are they silent about this when it could help the case for gun control? Do you think the Media has a secret agenda against gun control and buries these stories?

Not safe. All the victims were unarmed because California has very strict gun control laws, by the way.

You know it's already illegal to take guns into those public areas and shoot people, right?

What were the shooters stopped with? Police using guns to shoot bullets into them.

Were you not paying attention to the news? How did you not notice these shooters were stopped by filling them with bullets and killing them?

Because America is not a totalitarian society, unlike yours.

Nothing's totally safe, bub. Sitting in front of a computer increases your risk of bad posture, athritis, and becoming a fat neckbeard.

Goalpost shifting, eh? "Conclusive" to whom? You, the liar?

Innocent people don't shoot at cops, liar. Now go find some "conclusive examples".

Already linked it. Now get some integrity, and start doing your own research.

I pulled incident reports from the link that you didn't read, liar. Criminals with arrest warrants who pull out guns to shoot at the cops are not innocent people getting shot, liar.

List Joe Blows who have killed innocent bystanders while trying to stop a mass shooter.

Your use of "innocent people" is the exact opposite of the actual definition, liar.

You don't think you should be murdered in your sleep.

It can't progress because you're ignorant of what god is and how that has driven human philosophy for all of recorded history. That, or you're dishonest enough to pretend ignorance.

Either way, there is no debate to have because all you have on your end is mockery.

It might be an entertaining exchange of barbs, but it won't be a debate.

Getting shot didn't kill the victims, the bleeding did.

Useless distinctions are useless. Ineffective solutions are ineffective.

You don't understand the point. There are more than a dozen examples of "good guys with guns" stopping shootings without a single example of the imagined problem of friendly fire.

Go take a concealed carry class and ask the instructor.

All I'm noting is that there is no media reported death toll of "good guys with guns" accidentally shooting bystanders, nor is there one for cops mistaking "good guys with guns" for the mass shooter(s) and shooting them.

Practice > theory.

Lazy but effective. I don't care how complex you think your belief is, it can be summarized simply.

Truth is simple, and a pursuit of complexity for the sake of complexity is to flee true understanding.

Rambling off topic is not precise.

But they all have one thing in common: They believe God does not exist, or they wouldn't be atheists by definition.

Anyone with that response to the concept of god doesn't have the intellectual horsepower or integrity to be worth debate.

It's the most important question of human existence, because mankind needs to know if there is a higher authority we are accountable to. Everything else we do in life flows from the answer to that question.

That's not friendly fire, you illiterate moron.

Ignoring the difference between criminals and law abiding citizens? Dishonest political hack.

List how many Joe Blows have killed innocent bystanders when attempting to take down a mass shooter.

You can't. This whole fear of well-meaning gun owners accidentally gunning down bystanders is unfounded.

It is impossible for any person to answer the question without implicitly invoking "I believe". You are wrong about my state of confusion and the available choices.

"Is there a god?" is a yes/no question. A confused atheist's ability to give a rambling non-answer is irrelevant.

If you think there is a god, you're a theist. If you're not sure, you're an agnostic. If you think there's no god, you're an atheist.

You can invent however many permutations of answers that are not exactly "No", but I don't care. Either there is or there is not a god. Pick an answer to the question, or don't.

You're rambling.

Good enough. When's the last time you heard the Media reporting that a Joe Blow or Grandma caused the wrongful death of an innocent bystander?

If it's such a problem, why is the Media not reporting on it when it happens? Is it because gun manufacturers have silenced the Media?

Or is the Media not saying anything because it does not happen, because it's not actually a problem?

False conclusion. The data can't reveal the claimed relationship.