Sunday, December 16, 2012


What is the common feature of these shocking, mass attacks? They take place where guns are banned.

Take the Aurora, Colorado movie theater example: there were seven movie theaters showing the movie Batman within a 20-minute drive of where the killer lived.

He didn't go to the movie theater closest to his home. He didn't go to the movie theater with the largest audience. He went to the one movie theater -- the only one -- that posted a sign that banned concealed handguns from the theater.

Look at gun bans more generally: Now if you look at bans generally, you can't point to a place, Chicago and Washington, D.C., where we ban guns with positive results. Instead, murder rates and violent crimes went up afterwards. In the U.K. and Jamaica, Ireland, island nations that have banned guns -- you can't find a place where murder rates have actually gone down. They have gone up usually by large amounts.

Let's look at gun-free zones hypothetically on a personal level: Let's say someone was stalking you. That person was threatening violence against you and your family. Would you feel safer putting a sign in front of your home that read, "This home is a gun-free zone"?

Would that deter someone intent on violence -- or encourage one? In fact, nobody would put a sign like that in front of their home. Yet some businesses and offices think posting such a sign, at movie theaters and malls will help -- when common sense would tell us that it does not.

Rather than repelling criminals, gun bans actually encourage violence. Gun-free zones instruct the malevolent criminal where victims can't defend themselves.

The reason these mass attacks occur is because the killer wants to commit suicide. If you read the notes they leave or their diaries, if you watch their videos, you'll find that -- time after time -- they want to kill themselves in a way that will make people notice them. In their sick minds, they want to go out in a blaze of violence that will have people pay attention to them.

In these mass attacks, 75 percent of the time the killers die at the scene; the other 25 percent they planned on dying, but they couldn't bring themselves to finish the act of suicide.

These people want to get media attention. They know that the more people they kill, the more media attention they'll get. So they target the places where they can kill as many people as possible. And they're planning these things months and months in advance.

Should schools have armed guards? We should learn something from Israel. They've had a terrorist problem since the forties. For years they tried to do just that - have more police, more military, more armed security guards and they discovered they simply didn't have enough money. Terrorists have huge strategic advantages to patiently find weak points.

In the early seventies, Israel finally realized they couldn't flood areas with enough military or police. They instead began permitting citizens to carry concealed weapons. About 15 percent of citizens are so licensed.

At the time of the Virginia Tech shooting, something similar was attempted. Before the shooting, you had about one police officer for every 80 acres of campus. After the attack, it was one officer for every 40 acres. It doesn't scale.

You see this in the methodical way these killers choose locations now. They find places where people cannot defend themselves.

Do gun bans work? The natural reaction is to say, "If I can just get rid of the gun, I can stop bad things from happening." You don't think about all of the unintended consequences of that:

What about all of the successful defensive uses of guns?

More importantly, can you prevent evil individuals from getting guns? You can't find a country around the world that ever imposed a gun ban where murder rates actually fell after the ban.

Even island nations -- you would think these would be the ideal experiment -- with gun bans are unable to prevent criminal gangs from bringing in guns, drugs, and other contraband.

It's the good, law-abiding citizens that are impacted by gun bans, not criminals. To the extent that you disarm law-abiding citizens and not the violent, you find the perverse result that things get worse. This occurred in Washington, DC and Chicago. After their gun bans, violent crime and murder rates spiked.

The question you have to ask yourself about gun laws: who are you most likely to disarm: the law-abiding citizen or the criminal?

The gun-free zone provides a clear field for evil to carry out mass murder. It creates sitting ducks for violence. Those who push gun control may mean well (or not), but they haven't thought through what they want to do.

If gun-control zealots could point to even a few countries where gun bans lowered murder rates, they might have a legitimate argument. But they can't, because they don't exist.

Europe has about the same rate of public shootings per capita as the U.S., yet it has far more draconian gun regulations. Germany, which has two of the worst four school shootings, has a year-long waiting period with two psychological screens. When you have people who take months to plan attacks, and are willing to die to pull the attacks off, will not be deterred.

If you want to stop these attacks, you can take two actions:

(1) The media can stop giving publicity to these killers. The media shouldn't name the killers. This would reduce to a large extent the motivation for the attacks.

(2) We must reduce and eliminate "gun-free zones". Since at least 1950, with but one exception, all public shootings with three or more victims have all taken place in venues where guns were banned. The theater shooting, the Sikh Temple shooting, the school shootings, you go down the list and in each case, the gun-free zone is the place the killers always choose.

Via Professor John Lott, the world's foremost expert on the impact of gun control laws on society. Paraphrased from an interview on The Mark Levin Show (MP3).


Anonymous said...

Doug, do you want to take a look at this sentence? I think it may not have come out the way you intended.

"Now if you look at bans generally, you can't point to a place, Chicago, D.C., where we ban guns -- murder rates and violent crimes went up afterwards."


Odel roo said...

Here's another fact. Maybe we should stop feeding people psychotropic drugs. How many of these shootings were the shooters on these drugs???? I'll wager 95%.

Just sayin maybe by trying the quick fix with drug cocktails we create these monsters.

CBMTTek said...

The thing that most bothers me about gun control laws is the large number of amendments in the bill of rights the laws violate.

Gun control laws say nothing more than: "You, Mr. LawAbidingCitizen, are no longer allowed to own or purchase this item that has been legally manufactured, legally bought, and legally owned for centuries, because someone you have never met, who may very well live several states away from you, might commit a crime with a similar item.

The assumption is that you are already guilty.

I see that as a clear violation of my 4th, 6th, and possibly 5th and 8th amendment rights.

Forget the 2nd amendment, we need to focus on the rest of the bill of rights if we want to squash gun control laws.

Joe Kidd said...

Saw these this morning. "Gags" has a nice blog too.

Which Of These Signs Will Prevent Another Tragedy?

Who Do You Trust?

GW said...

The Colorado shooting took place in a theater that was marked a gun free zone. Now, it would be difficult to sue the government for laws designating gun-free zones. That said, private entities that opt to disarm their patrons by designating their place of business a gun free zone, allowing a massacre to occur without anyone being able to defend themselves or others, ought to be sued for negligence. There is nothing like money damages to focus the issue.

Anonymous said...

Uk murder rate 1997 - 650 (The year the hand gun ban came in)

Uk murder rate 2011 - 550


Anonymous said...

Fort Hood - not a gun free zone.

The gunman killed 13 and wounded 29.

Anonymous said...

@Anonymous re:Fort Hood shooting:
The shooting did happen at the base but in a medical facility called the "Soldier Readiness Processing Center". Solders aren't armed, so that's the reason Hasan choose that facility. Otherwise, he would have been taken down.
Hasan was shot and stopped by Army Civilian Police officers.
So, he choose a place he knew none of the solders would be armed-like the school or movie theater.

manaranger said...

CBMTTek has a good point. The Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments cover "cruel and unusual punishment". But "if" the U.S Supreme Court (Eighth) and/or the various State Supreme Courts (Fourteenth) would determine that life in prison is 'not' considered cruel and unusual for any crime perpetrated with a gun we could go a long ways toward reducing these senseless activities. Knowing you would automatically be sentenced to life upon conviction might put enough fear in the minds of these perps to stop some of them before they terminate someone else's future.

Anonymous said...

Where the shooting took place on Ft. Hood, it was indeed a gun free zone. Soldiers on base need explicit authorization to have a firearm and ammunition. The shooting victims inside the meeting hall had to call for armed help.

UpChuck.Liberals said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
UpChuck.Liberals said...

The problem with throwing out numbers is that someone is likely to check them. So to the fool that tried to cherry pick the numbers @ 9:47pm. Before the ban on guns in the UK, the 15 year death rate was 8642 For the 15 years AFTER it was 11203. Yep, gun control works so well.

I'd deleted this to correct some grammatical errors.

Clayusmcret said...

Actually, with the exception of its small military or contract police force, military bases ARE gun free zones everywhere but on an active firing line of a rifle/pistol range. NOWHERE else on base are military personnel allowed to carry military weapons with ammo. With the exception of skeet ranges (if a base has one), NOWHERE are military personnel allowed to carry personal weapons, let alone personal weapons with ammo anywhere on base.

Anonymous said...

It seems like too many Americans are just dumb and don't want to do anything anymore, they expect everything done for them.

So let's create a safe haven for all the people who want to live in gun free zones.

We can call it California. Everyone who doesn't want to have any responsibility can go there and live a moochers existance. Though who they'll mooch off is beyond me.

Anonymous said...

Read and article that made the point that these killers are LOSERS and their muderous acts brings them recognition. With that in mind I suggest your either take down their pictures or label each pic as 'LOSER'

scotsman said...

Neither the UK or the Republic of Ireland 'ban guns' wholesale.

On the UK mainland, most (not all) handguns are banned, whilst they are legal in Northern Ireland. Assault rifles were banned in 1988 after the Hungerford massacre, but not in NI.

And rifles and shotguns are legal.

NI is the most free part of the UK: almost all guns are legal and even carrying in public is legal (usually). And theres a fairly high rate of ownership.

In the Republic of Ireland, guns are legal but licenced.

Eric Wright said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

In addition to not mentioning the killer's names - we should also stop mentioning the body counts. That's just a challenge to the next guy to beat the record...