Posted on 12/19/2012 4:41:19 PM PST by fkabuckeyesrule
In the wake of a monstrous crime like a madman's mass murder of defenseless women and children at the Newtown, Conn., elementary school, the nation's attention is riveted on what could have been done to prevent such a massacre.
Luckily, some years ago, two famed economists, William Landes at the University of Chicago and John Lott at Yale, conducted a massive study of multiple victim public shootings in the United States between 1977 and 1995 to see how various legal changes affected their frequency and death toll.
Landes and Lott examined many of the very policies being proposed right now in response to the Connecticut massacre: waiting periods and background checks for guns, the death penalty and increased penalties for committing a crime with a gun.
None of these policies had any effect on the frequency of, or carnage from, multiple-victim shootings. (I note that they did not look at reforming our lax mental health laws, presumably because the ACLU is working to keep dangerous nuts on the street in all 50 states.)
Only one public policy has ever been shown to reduce the death rate from such crimes: concealed-carry laws.
Their study controlled for age, sex, race, unemployment, retirement, poverty rates, state population, murder arrest rates, violent crime rates, and on and on.
The effect of concealed-carry laws in deterring mass public shootings was even greater than the impact of such laws on the murder rate generally.
Someone planning to commit a single murder in a concealed-carry state only has to weigh the odds of one person being armed. But a criminal planning to commit murder in a public place has to worry that anyone in the entire area might have a gun.
You will notice that most multiple-victim shootings occur in "gun-free zones" -- even within states that have concealed-carry laws: public schools, churches, Sikh temples, post offices, the movie theater where James Holmes committed mass murder, and the Portland, Ore., mall where a nut starting gunning down shoppers a few weeks ago.
Guns were banned in all these places. Mass killers may be crazy, but they're not stupid.
If the deterrent effect of concealed-carry laws seems surprising to you, that's because the media hide stories of armed citizens stopping mass shooters. At the Portland shooting, for example, no explanation was given for the amazing fact that the assailant managed to kill only two people in the mall during the busy Christmas season.
It turns out, concealed-carry-holder Nick Meli hadn't noticed that the mall was a gun-free zone. He pointed his (otherwise legal) gun at the shooter as he paused to reload, and the next shot was the attempted mass murderer killing himself. (Meli aimed, but didn't shoot, because there were bystanders behind the shooter.)
In a nonsense "study" going around the Internet right now, Mother Jones magazine claims to have produced its own study of all public shootings in the last 30 years and concludes: "In not a single case was the killing stopped by a civilian using a gun."
This will come as a shock to people who know something about the subject.
The magazine reaches its conclusion by simply excluding all cases where an armed civilian stopped the shooter: They looked only at public shootings where four or more people were killed, i.e., the ones where the shooter wasn't stopped.
If we care about reducing the number of people killed in mass shootings, shouldn't we pay particular attention to the cases where the aspiring mass murderer was prevented from getting off more than a couple rounds?
It would be like testing the effectiveness of weed killers, but refusing to consider any cases where the weeds died.
In addition to the Portland mall case, here are a few more examples excluded by the Mother Jones' methodology:
-- Mayan Palace Theater, San Antonio, Texas, this week: Jesus Manuel Garcia shoots at a movie theater, a police car and bystanders from the nearby China Garden restaurant; as he enters the movie theater, guns blazing, an armed off-duty cop shoots Garcia four times, stopping the attack. Total dead: Zero.
-- Winnemucca, Nev., 2008: Ernesto Villagomez opens fire in a crowded restaurant; concealed carry permit-holder shoots him dead. Total dead: Two. (I'm excluding the shooters' deaths in these examples.)
-- Appalachian School of Law, 2002: Crazed immigrant shoots the dean and a professor, then begins shooting students; as he goes for more ammunition, two armed students point their guns at him, allowing a third to tackle him. Total dead: Three.
-- Santee, Calif., 2001: Student begins shooting his classmates -- as well as the "trained campus supervisor"; an off-duty cop who happened to be bringing his daughter to school that day points his gun at the shooter, holding him until more police arrive. Total dead: Two.
-- Pearl High School, Mississippi, 1997: After shooting several people at his high school, student heads for the junior high school; assistant principal Joel Myrick retrieves a .45 pistol from his car and points it at the gunman's head, ending the murder spree. Total dead: Two.
-- Edinboro, Pa., 1998: A student shoots up a junior high school dance being held at a restaurant; restaurant owner pulls out his shotgun and stops the gunman. Total dead: One.
By contrast, the shootings in gun-free zones invariably result in far higher casualty figures -- Sikh temple, Oak Creek, Wis. (six dead); Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, Va. (32 dead); Columbine High School, Columbine, Colo. (12 dead); Amish school, Lancaster County, Pa. (five little girls killed); public school, Craighead County, Ark. (five killed, including four little girls).
All these took place in gun-free zones, resulting in lots of people getting killed -- and thereby warranting inclusion in the Mother Jones study.
If what we care about is saving the lives of innocent human beings by reducing the number of mass public shootings and the deaths they cause, only one policy has ever been shown to work: concealed-carry laws. On the other hand, if what we care about is self-indulgent grandstanding, and to hell with dozens of innocent children being murdered in cold blood, try the other policies.
Yes myself and a friend (who gave me the article) presented Arron Zellman's Interview from 1995-ish time frame in a Gun Magazine to Liberal friends, mine was a co-worker, his, his girlfriend. My co-worker turned white as a ghost when presented the evidence and mumbled away, ya but I don't care I still want the ban, his girlfriend was pissed and sort of had an answer similar to my friend..
You see you challenge their epistemology and it is to scary, that you are challenging how they know what they know. It makes all the liberal lies of what they know fall like a house of cards, and it is too painful, because you are going to their core.
They can't have it, they'd rather go on believing in the tooth fairy...
He has a good talk at the Heritage Foundation.
That's exactly the plan.
Many wise men and women pointed out that the dictator cannot thrive in a free society. He only can rise in a society where enough people beg him to come, rule over them and repair all the ills of the world.
The US society, even at this point, is perfectly capable of stopping the problem of armed madmen, and the article explains exactly how. However the people in power are not interested in that. They want to use the crisis to further their agenda of total dependency upon the government.
Disarming the population acts on several fronts. First, it monopolizes violence in the hands of the government. Second, it makes citizens into defenseless cowards who must beg the government whenever something untoward happens. But the government will not be quick with help (when does it ever happen?) This creates the atmosphere of terror within the society, when people know that they are vulnerable and helpless. In such an atmosphere a dictator can have a free reign, with full approval of the populace, just with a few show trials and a few flashy new measures that will have no effect (at best.)
Yet you’re posting on this thread.
Sorry elkfersupper, Ann HAS shamelessly supported too many RINO’s in her arguments. Political solutions involving “kicking the can down the road” RINO’s will solve very little in what needs to be done. Only a fool goes back to a dry well. She now rates as casual reading, if that.
Yes, just consider it’s my vote as a FReeper. And yes, you are correct; I posted on this thread several times.
I think you're going to be disappointed. She's a person with an opinion, I doubt she's aiming for the prophet label.
Gun control won't help. It didn't help stop the massacre in Oslo, Norway or the Beslan school attack in Russia. It also didn't stop the 911 terrorist armed with just box cutters from killing almost 3,000 people in NY, DC, and PA.
Increasing the odds of quickly stopping those determined to kill innocent people is the only way to minimize the damage of the next attack. If the next lunatic cannot get a hold of a gun, then a bomb, a machete, a car, or a baseball bat can be used to kill defenseless, unarmed innocents.
I never lost my love for Ann (I STILL WANT TO BEAR YOUR CHILDREN ANN!) even though she supported Romney when I didnt
(ITS OK HONEY YOU DONT HAVE TO AGREE WITH ME 100%)
I never lost my love for Ann (I STILL WANT TO BEAR YOUR CHILDREN ANN!) even though she supported Romney when I didnt
(ITS OK HONEY YOU DONT HAVE TO AGREE WITH ME 100%)
ABSOLUTELY NOT.
there are conservatives, like a friend I have,who do not understand about guns, but when I point out articles like this, they stop, think and reconsider their position.
I watched her interview. One seriously tough lady. Coiled like a spring, cool as ice.
The problem with the suggestion that principals and teachers start carrying in school is that teachers are a largely a bunch of nutso lefties who hate guns and wouldn’t pull the trigger if their own life depended on it.
Great idea, but I’m skeptical it would ever be implemented.
*
Depends largely on the school.
It would be pointless to authorize principals and teachers in urban schools. There's a high risk that the guns wend up in the wrong hands (the students').
Similarly, suburban schools -- which are largely populated by the sort you describe.
Rural schools? No problem. The administration, teachers and students all know what guns are for...and how to use them.
Mother Jones purposely left out the statistics that show THE OPPOSITE of the exact point they were trying to make
When you leave out the low body count killings, you eliminate most of the cases where ANOTHER GUN SAVED LIVES!
There are lies, dammed lies, statistics, and democrap talking points.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.