Sikh temple was in fact a gun free zone. Actually in most states even with conceal carry permits, places of worship are off limits. 

also the private places, were gun free zones too, like the Aura, CO shooting. the threatre banned guns.

John Lott's study showed gabby giffords shooting to be the only shooting in 50 years to happen in a non gun free zone.

i used to have a list of all mass shooting and where they took place, and whether or not in a gun free zone, i cant seem to find it. i could have sworn I had it bookmarked. now, im pissed about it. ill keep looking for the list.

study: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=272929

edit: John Lott has actually revised his findings, its actually 2 shootings that werent in gun free zones. He mis-catagorized the IHOP shooting. http://johnrlott.blogspot.com/2013/01/consensus-and-disagreement-on-multiple.html

I fully agree with this.

Banning alcohol from cars and gas stations doesn't solve DUI's, still we think it's a good idea. Keeping guns out of the hands of untrained professionals seems a good idea too.

"NOT A GUN-FREE ZONE: Nothing restricted the possession of a !rearm on the property. Wisconsin state
law permits people to carry their guns in temples and other places of worship unless there is a sign or they
have been personally noti!ed that carrying !rearms is prohibited by the property owner or occupant.
Amardeep Kaleka, whose father founded the temple and was killed during the attack, con!rmed that
there was no such sign on the property"

I'm curious how gun-free zone is defined. Seems like you're just counting at as any place where it was understood you shouldn't bring a gun, but to me I think it has to be an official stance with some kind of sign or law specifying it otherwise I don't really know what public places would n't be called Gun-Free zones since I assume most places act under the assumption that you shouldn't bring your gun. The Navy Yard hat armed guards on the premises so what would be not a gun-free zone?

How about banning people that are taking antidepressants from owning a gun?  Better yet... ban antidepressants.

“No guns [were] allowed in the temple,” Kulbir Singh, an attendee of the Sikh Temple of Wisconsin, told FoxNews.com. “Everyone knows that it’s not allowed, anywhere in the temple.” . . .

in 2011 it became legal in wisconsin to carry in places of worship.
ive heard mixed reports on whether or not there was a sign posted.

as for the Navy Yard shooter, as with all gun free zones, the police are exempt. For everyone else its a gun free zone. Only MP's can carry, So even though in my civilian life, ive used and owned weapons, and concealed/open carried everyday. And the joined the marine corps, and again they trained me in the use of a multitude of weapons, i cant have any of my guns on base. I cant defend myself.

Ahh gun control, yet again ye rear ye ugly head.

Thing is, I really think "guns" are small fry compared to what 3D printers will give us in the next 10-30 years. We already have 3D printed guns, and some printers can even print them in metal. Can you say pirated gun?

But even that's a drop in the bucket. Imagine what will happen when one of those survivalists gets his or her hands on a 3D printer. Nuclear reactors? Jet planes? Cruise missiles? And might I remind you that between the course that 3D printers are on and our world governments' inability to control the internet, this looks to be nearly inevitable.

Fact is, peace by keeping things away from people doesn't work in the information age.

The list is bullshit and you should research any amazing claims twice before swallowing anything as fact. Especially considering John Lott's standing you should know better than to just read his blog and swallow up what he has to say.

To get to his conclusions you have to exclude a large number of spree killings. The only way you can get to his claim is to discount a large number of spree killings and operate with a very weird definition of gun free zones.

I agree, a lot of the problem is education, and psychological. Americans needs to invest more into country wide mental health facilities, and education (I believe your federal education department is often laughed at). However, as someone from a city where less then 3% of people own a hand gun (never mind carry it), I still don't feel comfortable in Texas and Nevada. Why do you need a gun for protected when mace has been proven to be just as effective? Why do you need a gun when you're 3x more likely to get shot during a home invasion? I just don't feel "free" when I know anyone can walk up and kill me if they felt like it. I think I have the freedom to safety, right?

F your property, if someone robs you at gun point, don't argue. I think this Canadian mentality is also why much less Canadians get shot during a home invasion then Americans.

take this with a grain of salt, if you score to high on your IQ test you can't join the police force.
http://nyletterpress.wordpress.com/2008/02/29/police-reject-candidate-for-being-too-intelligent/

Banning anything only results in the creation of criminal underworlds that deal in such taboo goods.