(Thanks to TM for the image)
USA Today has an editorial about the recent shooting in Connecticut and gun-free zones.
Excerpt:
“After a shooting spree,” author William Burroughs once said, “they always want to take the guns away from the people who didn’t do it.” Burroughs continued: “I sure as hell wouldn’t want to live in a society where the only people allowed guns are the police and the military.”
Plenty of people — especially among America’s political and journalistic classes — feel differently. They’d be much more comfortable seeing ordinary Americans disarmed. And whenever there is a mass shooting, or other gun incident that snags the headlines, they do their best to exploit the tragedy and push for laws that would, well, take the guns away from the people who didn’t do it.
There are a lot of problems with this approach, but one of the most significant is this one: It doesn’t work. One of the interesting characteristics of mass shootings is that they generally occur in places where firearms are banned: malls, schools, etc. That was the finding of a famous 1999 study by John Lott of the University of Maryland and William Landes of the University of Chicago, and it appears to have been borne out by experience since then as well.
In a way, this is no surprise. If there’s someone present with a gun when a mass shooting begins, the shooter is likely to be shot himself. And, in fact, many mass shootings — from the high school shooting by Luke Woodham in Pearl, Miss., to the New Life Church shooting in Colorado Springs, Colo., where an armed volunteer shot the attacker — have been terminated when someone retrieved a gun from a car or elsewhere and confronted the shooter.
Policies making areas “gun free” provide a sense of safety to those who engage in magical thinking, but in practice, of course, killers aren’t stopped by gun-free zones. As always, it’s the honest people — the very ones you want to be armed — who tend to obey the law.
Here’s Dr. John R. Lott to make the case.
Excerpt:
It wasn’t supposed to happen in England, with its very strict gun-control laws. And yet last week, Derrick Bird shot twelve people to death and wounded eleven others in the northwestern county of Cumbria. A headline in the London Times read: “Toughest laws in the world could not stop Cumbria tragedy.”
But surely this was an aberration. Because America has the most guns, multiple-victim public shootings are an American thing, right? No, not at all. Contrary to public perception, Western Europe, most of whose countries have much tougher gun laws than the United States, has experienced many of the worst multiple-victim public shootings. Particularly telling, all the multiple-victim public shootings in Western Europe have occurred in places where civilians are not permitted to carry guns. The same is true in the United States: All the public shootings in which more than three people have been killed have occurred in places where civilians may not legally bring guns.
Look at recent history. Where have the worst K–12 school shootings occurred? Nearly all of them in Europe. The very worst one occurred in a high school in Erfurt, Germany, in 2002, where 18 were killed. The second-worst took place in Dunblane, Scotland, in 1996, where 16 kindergartners and their teacher were killed. The third-worst, with 15 dead, happened in Winnenden, Germany. The fourth-worst was in the U.S. — Columbine High School in 1999, leaving 13 dead. The fifth-worst, with eleven murdered, occurred in Emsdetten, Germany.
It may be a surprise to those who believe in gun control that Germany was home to three of the five worst attacks. Though not quite as tight as the U.K.’s regulations, Germany’s gun-control laws are some of the most restrictive in Europe. German gun licenses are valid for only three years, and to obtain one, the person must demonstrate such hard-to-define characteristics as trustworthiness, and must also convince authorities that he needs a gun. This is on top of prohibitions on gun ownership for those with mental disorders, drug or alcohol addictions, violent or aggressive tendencies, or felony convictions.
The phenomenon is not limited to school attacks. Multiple-victim public shootings in general appear to be at least as common in Western Europe as they are here. The following is a partial list of attacks since 2001. As mentioned, all of them occurred in gun-free zones — places where guns in the hands of civilians are outlawed.
He then lists about two dozen incidents – all occurring in gun free zones.
Related posts
- Police threatened to charge man who defended his wife with attempted murder
- Couple arrested for using legally-owned gun to defend home from burglars
- Armed bystander stops stabbing outside school
- Obama campaign contributor and gun control advocate ran Fast and Furious
- If you defend your home from armed intruders in the UK, you get arrested
- UK family arrested for defending their home from burglar
- Police warn UK woman for scaring away burglars with kitchen knife
- 61-year-old British man convicted for cutting up fruit with a Swiss Army knife
- Could tougher gun control laws lower the violent crime rate?
- Pregnant woman uses her shotgun to scare burglars out of her home
- Crime rates in Chicago and DC drop after gun control laws are struck down
- Do gun control laws cause crime rates to go down?
- Do gun-free zones prevent multiple victim shootings?
- John Stossel makes the case against gun control in 6 minutes
- Do guns reduce crime? Watch this debate and hear both sides
- Liberal MSNBC says that more legal firearm ownership reduces crime rates
- John Stossel makes the case against gun control in 6 minutes
- Formal debate on gun control featuring John Lott and Gary Kleck
- Tom Sowell on gun control and judicial activism
- Grandmother jailed for five years for owning family heirloom handgun
- Do gun-free zones prevent multiple-victim public shootings in Europe?
- Understanding how concealed carry laws save lives
- Why do people favor legal private ownership and concealed carry of handguns?
Filed under: Commentary
