There has been much talk recently about gun control and gun free zones in light of the tragic evil perpetrated in Newtown, Connecticut. Each issue must be discussed seperately.
The Danger of Gun Free ZonesAll the multiple victim public shootings (three or more deaths) since 1950 (except for one, i.e., the Gabby Giffords shooting where a concealed carry holder was very close to using his weapon to confront the killer but didn't end up having to) have occurred in an area where guns are banned. That is not a coincidence. A gun is needed to take down a mass-shooter, either by his own hand or in the hands of the innocent (citizen or law enforcement). A gun (or bomb) certainly makes it easier to kill 27 people. Too often, instead of having an armed citizenry with more concealed carry, the victims have to wait like sitting ducks for law enforcement to arrive, which means more death. That's what happened in Newtown, where the shooter was only taken out by his own weapon (the moment he heard first responders closing in). In choosing a soft target like an elementary school, this monster was bound to massacre the amounts he did. It's not the sort of target that is typically going to have anyone else around with any firepower, either citizen or security. In fact, many schools are by law considered "gun free zones," so in choosing this target in Connecticut which was by law a "gun free zone" he was certain there would be no opposition. This sorry excuse for a man that committed the heinous and cowardly Newtown massacre is a monster. And law-abiding citizens should be allowed guns, including the right to carry them, to protect themselves from monsters, in line with the Second Amendment.
Law-abiding citizens carrying firearms is not the same as devolving into the Wild West, as is heard so often from the anti-gun crowd. That rhetoric is not based in reality. For example, Florida just recently announced that it has over 1,000,000 licensed concealed carry holders in the State, the first State to surpass that mark. Yet the simple reality is that Florida has not devolved into the O.K. Corral with gunfights at every street-corner. Is anyone against concealed carry, and who fears gun ownership, actually afraid of visiting Florida after learning of this fact? Of course not, because even they know that law-abiding citizens are not the actual threat.
Even the mere presence of firearms, or the potential presence of firearms, deters the mass murderer. Does anyone seriously believe it is a coincidence that "gun free zones" are selected as targets in practically every instance?
UCLA professor emeritus James Q. Wilson, a respected expert on crime, police practices and guns, says, “We know from Census Bureau surveys that something beyond a hundred thousand uses of guns for self-defense occur every year. We know from smaller surveys of a commercial nature that the number may be as high as 2-and-a-half or 3 million. We don’t know what the right number is, but whatever the right number is, it’s not a trivial number.” Criminologist Gary Kleck estimates that 2.5 million Americans use guns to defend themselves each year. Out of that number, 400,000 believe that but for their firearms, they would have been dead. The point here is not to start arguing the statistics, or engage in a war of experts. It is only to show that, at the very least, it's not as you might hear from the anti-gun crowd, as the assertion that guns "cause more problems than they solve" is not so simple at all.
UCLA professor emeritus James Q. Wilson, a respected expert on crime, police practices and guns, says, “We know from Census Bureau surveys that something beyond a hundred thousand uses of guns for self-defense occur every year. We know from smaller surveys of a commercial nature that the number may be as high as 2-and-a-half or 3 million. We don’t know what the right number is, but whatever the right number is, it’s not a trivial number.” Criminologist Gary Kleck estimates that 2.5 million Americans use guns to defend themselves each year. Out of that number, 400,000 believe that but for their firearms, they would have been dead. The point here is not to start arguing the statistics, or engage in a war of experts. It is only to show that, at the very least, it's not as you might hear from the anti-gun crowd, as the assertion that guns "cause more problems than they solve" is not so simple at all.
The St. Louis Police Chief recommends arming civilian school personnel. That's because licensed and approved school personnel with weapons would not automatically mean more death. It would mean more lives saved. A school in Texas has had guns on its campus for three years without incident, from within the school or from outside it. That school in Texas serves as an example that it can indeed work (and is quite smart given how far they are from law enforcement arrival). It could, as it has in the past, save lives, and it could deter the murderer from choosing the target in the first place.
Many millions of people possess concealed carry permits in the States that allow it more liberally, and they are not in utter chaos as anti-gun advocates would have you believe.
Some will tell you that guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens at schools would never help save lives in such instances. The problem is that there are examples that prove otherwise. For example, in Pearl, Mississippi in 1997, 16-year-old Luke Woodham stabbed and bludgeoned to death his mother at home, then killed two students and injured seven at his high school when he came to school with a gun. As he was leaving the school, he was stopped by Assistant Principal Joel Myrick, who had gone out to get a handgun from his own car. In Edinboro, Pennsylvania in 1996, 14-year-old Andrew Wurst shot and killed a teacher at a school dance, and shot and injured several other students. He had just left the dance hall, carrying his gun, when he was confronted and stopped by the dance hall owner James Strand, who lived next door and kept a shotgun at home. Another example is the Appalachian School of Law shooting that occurred in 2002. Three people were killed, and three others injured. When the shooter left the building, he was approached by two students with personal firearms. The students had them in their cars, and had run to retrieve them. The shooter dropped his weapons and was subdued.
These are just examples of school shootings where those with concealed carry helped. If one included all public shootings, the examples would surely increase (not to mention the general use of guns for self defense of the home or property). And those examples show countless lives saved. Trying to take out an active shooter is certainly a hell of a lot better option than being target practice for the maniac.
In fact, the media refused to report it, aside from one local news channel, but a responsible concealed carry permit holder actually confronted the gunman in the recent Oregon mall shooting. The mall was a "gun free zone," but another person besides the killer was not following that rule. He confronted the shooter with his weapon, did not fire because he did not have a clean shot (but how can that be? responding responsibly in a mass shooting is just impossible, the anti-gun person will ignorantly declare), but says that "I know after he saw me, I think the last shot he fired was the one he used on himself."
Adults, in concealed carry states, even just keeping licensed firearms in their cars, would help. Just one or two folks willing to carry a weapon at any school could help. And school personnel who wanted to could be trained and licensed even in non-carry states. You certainly do not need to compel teachers or others at schools to carry weapons as confronting a gunman is not part of their job. But principles, senior staff, or other school personnel could get special licenses if they so wished. It can be done in a common sense way.
These cowards are not expecting armed resistance, and examples have shown the positive outcome a gun present provides. Those are the facts. A Texas school is already doing it. Allowing concealed carry, and gun free zones being lessened, makes sense.
You tell me, would you rather be armed like the citizen at the Oregon mall when a gunman is running through the halls, or would you prefer to be defenseless until the police arrive? The question answers itself.
Bringing Back The Assault Weapons BanConnecticut already has strict gun control. It already has a ban on "assault weapons." The psychopathic Lanza's weapons were legal both under Connecticut law and the federal assault weapons ban that sunset in 2004. The Columbine shooting occurred when the federal ban was in effect. Letting the ban expire had no discernible impact on crime.
Most estimates (such as from FBI data) place the contribution of assault weapons to gun crime at around 1 or 2 percent. According to FBI data from 2010, you are more likely to be killed with "hands/fists/feet" than with a rifle. That's because the vast majority of crime committed with guns have handguns rather than assault weapons as the firearms of choice (because handguns are easier to conceal and crimes are committed at close range). In fact, as just mentioned, Connecticut already has an "assault weapons ban," as well as bans on those under 21 possessing firearms with Lanza being 20, and laws requiring a permit, and laws banning breaking into schools, and laws banning firearms in schools, and laws banning murder. The gun used by Lanza was of course not an automatic weapon, but a semi-automatic rifle, and in its mechanics is very similar to many other semi-automatic rifles. It has exterior features that could be banned, but it would not actually result in these massacres being less possible at all, other rifles (and handguns) could easily be used. And in fact, Lanza had two semi-automatic handguns in addition to the rifle. Connecticut's gun laws are some of the toughest in the country, according to anti-gun groups, but they do not specifically ban the Bushmaster .223, the rifle used by Lanza, which goes to show this was not considered an "assault weapon" even under Connecticut's own strict statute. Also, the .223 ammo used in the massacre is not unusually powerful either (similar to that used to hunt small game such as squirrel). Limiting this or that type of semi-automatic weapon is beside the point, there are plenty of weapon alternatives to a Bushmaster, which looks scary and on its exterior has different features, but that are essentially semi-automatic rifles.
Within the realm of gun control, perhaps a limit on magazine capacity is the far more plausible response given the 30 rounds in the magazine used in this massacre (but, it should be noted, even those using magazines with a smaller capacity have committed mass killings). California limits the magazine capacity to 10 rounds. But even if this was adopted, let no one fool themselves that it would somehow end school shootings.
The bottom line, however, is that you don't want to have to wait for law enforcement to defend yourself. Carry a gun, a cop is too heavy.
The bottom line, however, is that you don't want to have to wait for law enforcement to defend yourself. Carry a gun, a cop is too heavy.
It's Not All About GunsOne more very important point to add. Not everything is about guns. Having the media not publish the identity of the killers would be something the media needs to seriously consider so as not to fulfill the perverse drive of the suicidal to kill themselves while killing others and then have their face on every TV screen and newspaper (which many of these maniacs have expressly written about in their discovered personal writings before they commit these mass murders). Why won't the same media that gave this Adam Lanza the attention he wanted recognize their role in contributing as a motivating factor of the crazies, and they instead put a single focus on guns? Perhaps there are other cultural phenomenon we allow that breeds more violent psychopaths (e.g., extreme violence in video games/movies/television and its access to minors). Perhaps there needs to be a rethinking of how the law deals with mentally unstable people with violent tendencies. As for mental health, it's not all just spending, as John Fund wrote in the National Review:
"A lengthy study by Mother Jones magazine found that at least 38 of the 61 mass shooters in the past three decades 'displayed signs of mental health problems prior to the killings.' New York Times columnist David Brooks and Cornell Law School professor William Jacobson have both suggested that the ACLU-inspired laws that make it so difficult to intervene and identify potentially dangerous people should be loosened. 'Will we address mental-health and educational-privacy laws, which instill fear of legal liability for reporting potentially violent mentally ill people to law enforcement?' asks Professor Jacobson. 'I doubt it.'"Not only that, but involuntary committal is far more difficult than it once was. Perhaps societal changes have also resulted in more violence, changes in the culture overall, as a wider culture that instills moral values in young people and places a primer on them might be a good idea as well.
If a "national conversation" is going to be had, it should include more than just gun control. It should include all that was just mentioned, and the efficacy of "gun free zones."
Tweet
RSS Feed (xml)
No comments:
Post a Comment