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.
I’d suggest placing retired cops and military men in the schools with AR-15’s or something similar. Pay them a small stipend.
Thanks for dropping in to make that announcement.
Apparently, AC has kept her sanity about guns. This is a good article.
Well, if liberals have the inability to separate the message from the person, why not freepers like you?
Until conservatives start looking at politics in a tactical manner, we’ll have more 2012’s. Enjoy the next four years!
What happened to that deliciously delightful Ann Coulter posting rule?
Then why did you click on this thread and waste your time and others' by posting on it -- more than once?
“I, on the other hand, do not care to see anything written or said by her anymore — especially on FR. “
-
I’m confused. If you feel that way why on earth did you click onto this thread? Her name is in the header for Pete’s sake.
.
“To protect children, one must define the danger and develop and implement a trained (practiced and effective) defense.”
Protecting children at school should be the easy part. Give them the same protection our lawmakers have, armed guards at their workplace/school.Children are at risk coming and going from school also. Do away with school buses(a major attack waiting to happen) Protecting our children is a major problem as they are prime targets. A ban on black guns won’t do a damned thing to prevent another attack on our children
This makes their proposition a tautology -- an offense against logic and on-the-square debate.
Also known as sharping or pencil-whipping the other guy.
Basically, it's dishonest, and that's all we need to know. But we knew that as soon as Ann told us a liberal had said it with a straight face.
Nah. Shotguns. Avoid overpenetration, accidentally killing Mrs. McGillicuddy in her clapboard house 1-3/4's miles away.
Something like that happened in the 1992 L.A. riots. The Korean shopkeepers cranking rounds at the rioting black mob nailed a Hispana coming home from the grocery on foot. She was something near two miles from the riot zone [TIME reported] when she stopped a big-bore pistol bullet with her forehead. She dropped dead on the spot.
Then there was the Philadelphia woman who had a late-night visitor in the form of a .223-cal. round come through her apartment wall just above her head, from a LE/SWAT/SpecOps live-fire exercise in a vacant high-rise a mile or so away. A round got away and came to see her. Interrupted her bedtime reading.
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...
I have a relative whose favorite tactic is to dismiss anything that didn’t emanate from the union front office. Sad.
THIS IS NOW ABOUT COLLECTING EMAIL LISTS FOR 2014.
All the petitions from democrats is to isolate and divide the ignorant into the lefts fold. (see all they want is peaceful coexistance)
Teachers and administrators act in loco parentis. Laws and regulations which actively and positively prohibit these people from protecting those in their care ARE against the general welfare of the public in general and the responsibilities of the positions they hold.
We have volunteer firemen all over this country because not all people would run into a burning building to put it out - nor are they equipped or trained to do so.
How about volunteer parents, grandparents, ex-police, ex-military, or CCW holders who are vetted, trained, and willing to provide immediate deterrence and protection while the school is in session?
They don't have to teach or even interact with students. Their only purpose is to deter and prevent murder and mayhem until the police arrive 10-20 minutes later. Their responsibility is be on site and immediately available with communications and weapons, perhaps under the direct supervision of an off duty or retired policeman. Volunteers can work in shifts and are not "full time". Then you have on site defense in depth.
By the way, this is a similar model to that which prevented the massacre in the Colorado Springs church shooting a few years ago.
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.