"Gun-Free Zones Are Not Safe"
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 11

Thread: "Gun-Free Zones Are Not Safe"

  1. #1

    "Gun-Free Zones Are Not Safe"

    Some of you get the news letter from USCCA. I thought I would post the following article for those that do not and may have not seen it elsewhere.


    "Gun-Free Zones Are Not Safe"

    by John R. Lott Jr.


    Americans' fears over the safety of schools continues.

    Last Monday, three colleges and four K-to-12 schools were shut down by threats of violence.

    This week over 25,000 college students at 300 chapters in 44 states belong to a group, Students for Concealed Carry on College Campuses, that will carry empty handgun holsters to protest their concerns about not being able to defend themselves.

    With the first anniversary of the Virginia Tech attack last week and the discussions that it created, we clearly have not been able to put that and other attacks behind us. There are good reasons why the safety measures adopted over the last year to speed up response times or hiring more police haven't eliminated the fear people feel.

    The attack earlier this year at Northern Illinois University proved that even six minutes was too long. It took six minutes before the police were able to enter the classroom, and in that short time five people were murdered. Compared to the Virginia Tech and other attacks, six minutes is actually record breaking speed, but it was simply not fast enough.

    The Thursday before the NIU murders five people were killed in a city council chambers in Kirkwood, Mo. There was even a police officer already there when the attack occurred. But as happens time after time in these attacks, when uniformed police are there, the killers either wait for the police to leave the area or they are the first people killed. In Kirkwood, the police officer was killed immediately when the attack started. People cowered or were reduced to futilely throwing chairs at the killer.

    There is a problem that people just are unwilling to recognize.

    Just like attacks last year at the Westroads Mall in Omaha, Neb., or Trolley Square Mall in Salt Lake City or the recent attack at the Tinley Park Mall in Illinois or all the public schools attacks, all these cases had one thing in common: They took place in "gun free zones," where private citizens were not allowed to carry their guns with them.

    The malls in Omaha and Salt Lake City were in states that let people carry concealed handguns, but private property owners are allowed to post signs banning guns and those malls were among the few places in their states that chose to post such signs. In the Trolley Square attack an off-duty police officer fortunately violated the ban and stopped the attack. The attacks at Virginia Tech or the other public schools occurred in some of the few areas within their states that people are not allowed to carry concealed handguns.

    It is not just recent killings that are occurring in these gun-free zones. Multiple-victim public shootings keep on occurring in places where guns are banned. Nor are these horrible incidents limited to just gun-free zones in the US.

    In 1996 Martin Bryant killed 35 people at Port Arthur in Tasmania, Australia. In the last half-dozen years, European countries including France, Germany and Switzerland have experienced multiple-victim shootings. The worst school attack in Germany claimed 17 deaths, another 14 deaths; one attack in Switzerland claimed the lives of 14 regional legislators.

    At some point you would think that something is going on here, that these murderers aren't just picking their targets at random. Yet, when one thinks about it, this pattern isn't really too surprising.

    Most people understand that guns deter criminals. The problem is that instead of gun-free zones making it safe for potential victims, they make it safe for criminals.

    Criminals are less likely to run into those who might be able to stop them. Everyone wants to keep guns away from criminals, but the problem is who is more likely to obey the law.

    A student expelled for violating a gun-free zone at a college is extremely unlikely ever to get into another college. A faculty member fired for a firearms violation will find it virtually impossible to get another academic position. But even if the killer at Virginia Tech had lived, the notion that the threat of expulsion would have deterred the attacker when he would have already faced 32 death penalties or at least 32 life sentences seems silly.

    Letting civilians have permitted concealed handguns limits the damage from attacks. A major factor in determining how many people are harmed by these killers is the amount of time that elapses between when the attack starts and when someone with a gun is able to arrive on the scene.

    In cases from the church shooting in Colorado Springs, Colo., last December, where a parishioner who was given permission by the minister to carry her concealed gun into the church quickly stopped the murderer, to an attack last year in downtown Memphis, to the Appalachian Law School, to high schools in such places as Pearl, Miss., concealed handgun permit holders have stopped attacks well before uniformed police could possibly have arrived.

    Twice this year armed Israeli citizens have stopped terrorist attacks at schools (once by an armed teacher and another by an armed student). Indeed, despite the fears being discussed about the risks of concealed handgun permit holders, I haven't found one multiple-victim public shooting where a permit holder has accidentally shot a bystander.

    With about 5 million Americans currently with concealed handgun permits in the U.S. and states starting having right-to-carry laws for as long as 80 years, we have a lot of experience with these laws, and one thing is very clear: Concealed handgun permit holders are extremely law-abiding and lose their permits for any gun-related violation at hundredths or thousandths of one percentage point. We also have a lot of experience with permitted concealed handguns in schools.

    Prior to the 1995 Safe School Zone Act, states with right-to-carry laws let teachers or others carry concealed handguns at school, and several states still allow this today. And there is not a single instance that I or others have found where this produced a single problem. There are today even some universities, including large public universities such as Colorado State University and the University of Utah, that let students carry concealed handguns on school property.

    With all the news media coverage of the types of guns used and how the criminal obtained the gun, at some point the news media might begin to mention the one common feature of these attacks: they keep occurring in gun-free zones.

    Gun-free zones are a magnet for these attacks. But, even without the media, considering that 15 more states this year debated legislation to let concealed handguns on school campuses, possibly the issue is becoming clear anyway.

    John Lott is the author of Freedomnomics and a senior research scientist at the University of Maryland.
    Last edited by lukem; 11-28-2010 at 09:33 PM.
    By faith Noah,being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear,prepared an ark to the saving of his house;by the which he condemned the world,and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith Heb.11:7

  2.   
  3. #2
    Well writen HK now if the rest of society would hear it we might get some relief.
    Last edited by kwo51; 05-05-2008 at 05:50 PM.

  4. #3
    very true. thanks for posting.
    You can have my freedom as soon as I'm done with it!!!

  5. #4
    Thanks for posting it here I seen it also.
    "Victory at all cost Victory in spite of all terror. Victory no matter how long and how hard the road may be; for without Victory there is no survival."
    (Winston Churchill)

  6. #5
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    1,437
    I want to go to a school that is an idiot-free zone. I don't think it would help much though.
    Silent Running, by Mike and the Mechanics

  7. #6
    Thanks for posting. What an interesting idea that someone that is a mass murderer will not obey the laws.
    David

    The only person available to protect you 24 hours a day is you.

  8. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by DrDavidM View Post
    Thanks for posting. What an interesting idea that someone that is a mass murderer will not obey the laws.
    it's amazing to me that people still can think otherwise.
    You can have my freedom as soon as I'm done with it!!!

  9. #8

    Post I concur and so does Mr. Levy

    A good read on the Gun Free zone lie.


    "In 2004, the National Academy of Sciences reviewed 253 journal articles, 99 books, and 43 government publications evaluating 80 gun-control measures. The researchers could not identify a single gun-control regulation that reduced violent crime, suicide, or accidents. A year earlier, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported on an independent evaluation of firearms and ammunition bans, restrictions on acquisition, waiting periods, registration, licensing, child access prevention laws, and zero tolerance laws. Conclusion: none of the laws had a meaningful impact on gun violence."
    Robert A. Levy

    Special Report
    They Never Learn
    By Robert A. Levy
    Published 4/25/2007 12:07:44 AM
    "What is needed, urgently, is stronger controls over the lethal weapons that cause such wasteful carnage." So said the New York Times in its predictable but wrongheaded editorial the day after the horrific events at Virginia Tech. Anti-gun advocates, however noble their motives, help create the environment in which horrors like Virginia Tech occur.

    Possession and use of guns on the Tech campus violated state-imposed restrictions. But crazed fanatics, undeterred by laws against murder, will not be dissuaded by laws against guns. More such laws will accomplish nothing. Indeed, liberalized laws might have enabled responsible, armed citizens on campus to defend the hapless victims. It took two hours for the killer methodically to massacre 32 people and injure another 15. Why did nobody intervene sooner to stop the killer?

    For one possible explanation, consider this report from a Roanoke Times article: A bill, introduced on behalf of the Virginia Citizens Defense League, would have given properly licensed public college students and employees the right to carry handguns on campus. The bill died on January 30, 2006 in the Virginia General Assembly. Virginia Tech spokesman Larry Hincker was pleased with the outcome. "I'm sure the university community is appreciative of the General Assembly's actions because this will help parents, students, faculty and visitors feel safe on our campus." Tell that to the ill-fated victims of April 16 and their families.

    The article goes on to relate that most universities in Virginia require students and employees, other than police, to check their guns with police or campus security on entering campus. The proposed legislation would have eliminated that requirement for anyone who possessed a valid concealed handgun permit. Ironically, Tech's governing board had approved in June 2005 a violence prevention policy reiterating the school's ban on students, employees, or visitors -- even those properly licensed -- from bringing handguns onto campus.

    At the Virginia Tech press conference after the slaughter of 32 defenseless people, the university's president cautioned that it wouldn't be possible to have police guard every classroom and dorm. What he omitted was this cold, hard fact: By making the university a "gun free zone," his administration and the state legislature had fostered a climate in which ubiquitous police would be necessary. Without a means to protect themselves, Virginia Tech students, faculty, and other employees were more likely to be victimized by the only people on campus who had readily available guns: killers and lunatics.

    Meanwhile, the New York Times, the Brady Center, and the rest of the usual suspects continue their clamor for more gun regulations -- apparently oblivious to the destructive effects of their own proposals. The evidence is clear: more guns in the hands of responsible owners yield lower rates of violent crime. Gun control does not work. It just prevents weaker people from defending themselves against stronger predators.

    Here are the numbers, as summarized by legal scholar Don B. Kates: Over the 30-year period from 1974 to 2003, guns in circulation doubled, but murder rates declined by a third. On a state-by-state basis, a 1 percent increase in gun ownership correlates with a 4.1 percent lower rate of violent crime. Each year, approximately 460,000 gun crimes are committed in the United States. But guns are also used to ward off gun criminals. Estimates of defensive gun use range from 1.3 million to 2.5 million times per year -- and usually the weapons are merely brandished, not fired. That means defensive uses occur about 3-to-5 times as often as violent gun crimes. Just as important, armed victims who resist gun criminals get injured less frequently than unarmed victims who submit. In more than 8 out of 10 cases where the victim pulls a gun, the criminal turns and flees, even if he's armed. "So much for the quasi-religious faith that more guns mean more murder."

    Finally, two federal government agencies recently examined gun control laws and found no statistically significant evidence to support their effectiveness. In 2004, the National Academy of Sciences reviewed 253 journal articles, 99 books, and 43 government publications evaluating 80 gun-control measures. The researchers could not identify a single gun-control regulation that reduced violent crime, suicide, or accidents. A year earlier, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported on an independent evaluation of firearms and ammunition bans, restrictions on acquisition, waiting periods, registration, licensing, child access prevention laws, and zero tolerance laws. Conclusion: none of the laws had a meaningful impact on gun violence.

    When will the gun controllers learn?


    Robert A. Levy is senior fellow in constitutional studies at the Cato Institute.
    Jim
    "Americans have the will to resist because you have weapons. If you don't have a gun, freedom of speech has no power."
    Yoshimi Ishikawa

  10. #9

    When will they learn?

    Quote Originally Posted by SubHntr View Post
    A good read on the Gun Free zone lie.


    "In 2004, the National Academy of Sciences reviewed 253 journal articles, 99 books, and 43 government publications evaluating 80 gun-control measures. The researchers could not identify a single gun-control regulation that reduced violent crime, suicide, or accidents. A year earlier, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported on an independent evaluation of firearms and ammunition bans, restrictions on acquisition, waiting periods, registration, licensing, child access prevention laws, and zero tolerance laws. Conclusion: none of the laws had a meaningful impact on gun violence."
    Robert A. Levy

    Special Report
    They Never Learn
    By Robert A. Levy
    Published 4/25/2007 12:07:44 AM
    "What is needed, urgently, is stronger controls over the lethal weapons that cause such wasteful carnage." So said the New York Times in its predictable but wrongheaded editorial the day after the horrific events at Virginia Tech. Anti-gun advocates, however noble their motives, help create the environment in which horrors like Virginia Tech occur.

    Possession and use of guns on the Tech campus violated state-imposed restrictions. But crazed fanatics, undeterred by laws against murder, will not be dissuaded by laws against guns. More such laws will accomplish nothing. Indeed, liberalized laws might have enabled responsible, armed citizens on campus to defend the hapless victims. It took two hours for the killer methodically to massacre 32 people and injure another 15. Why did nobody intervene sooner to stop the killer?

    For one possible explanation, consider this report from a Roanoke Times article: A bill, introduced on behalf of the Virginia Citizens Defense League, would have given properly licensed public college students and employees the right to carry handguns on campus. The bill died on January 30, 2006 in the Virginia General Assembly. Virginia Tech spokesman Larry Hincker was pleased with the outcome. "I'm sure the university community is appreciative of the General Assembly's actions because this will help parents, students, faculty and visitors feel safe on our campus." Tell that to the ill-fated victims of April 16 and their families.

    The article goes on to relate that most universities in Virginia require students and employees, other than police, to check their guns with police or campus security on entering campus. The proposed legislation would have eliminated that requirement for anyone who possessed a valid concealed handgun permit. Ironically, Tech's governing board had approved in June 2005 a violence prevention policy reiterating the school's ban on students, employees, or visitors -- even those properly licensed -- from bringing handguns onto campus.

    At the Virginia Tech press conference after the slaughter of 32 defenseless people, the university's president cautioned that it wouldn't be possible to have police guard every classroom and dorm. What he omitted was this cold, hard fact: By making the university a "gun free zone," his administration and the state legislature had fostered a climate in which ubiquitous police would be necessary. Without a means to protect themselves, Virginia Tech students, faculty, and other employees were more likely to be victimized by the only people on campus who had readily available guns: killers and lunatics.

    Meanwhile, the New York Times, the Brady Center, and the rest of the usual suspects continue their clamor for more gun regulations -- apparently oblivious to the destructive effects of their own proposals. The evidence is clear: more guns in the hands of responsible owners yield lower rates of violent crime. Gun control does not work. It just prevents weaker people from defending themselves against stronger predators.

    Here are the numbers, as summarized by legal scholar Don B. Kates: Over the 30-year period from 1974 to 2003, guns in circulation doubled, but murder rates declined by a third. On a state-by-state basis, a 1 percent increase in gun ownership correlates with a 4.1 percent lower rate of violent crime. Each year, approximately 460,000 gun crimes are committed in the United States. But guns are also used to ward off gun criminals. Estimates of defensive gun use range from 1.3 million to 2.5 million times per year -- and usually the weapons are merely brandished, not fired. That means defensive uses occur about 3-to-5 times as often as violent gun crimes. Just as important, armed victims who resist gun criminals get injured less frequently than unarmed victims who submit. In more than 8 out of 10 cases where the victim pulls a gun, the criminal turns and flees, even if he's armed. "So much for the quasi-religious faith that more guns mean more murder."

    Finally, two federal government agencies recently examined gun control laws and found no statistically significant evidence to support their effectiveness. In 2004, the National Academy of Sciences reviewed 253 journal articles, 99 books, and 43 government publications evaluating 80 gun-control measures. The researchers could not identify a single gun-control regulation that reduced violent crime, suicide, or accidents. A year earlier, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported on an independent evaluation of firearms and ammunition bans, restrictions on acquisition, waiting periods, registration, licensing, child access prevention laws, and zero tolerance laws. Conclusion: none of the laws had a meaningful impact on gun violence.

    When will the gun controllers learn?


    Robert A. Levy is senior fellow in constitutional studies at the Cato Institute.

    When will the gun controllers learn?
    As I have said before I think that for a majority it is not a matter of not knowing but rather not caring. Citizens having guns does not bode well with their agenda to subvert the consttution and move us into their global society.
    By faith Noah,being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear,prepared an ark to the saving of his house;by the which he condemned the world,and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith Heb.11:7

  11. #10
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Иєш Лєяжşєşŧăŋ
    Posts
    1,084
    Quote Originally Posted by toreskha View Post
    I want to go to a school that is an idiot-free zone.
    I'd like to do that, too. Problem is I'd have to leave as soon as I set foot on campus...it would no longer qualify!

    "I wouldn't belong to an organization that would have me as a member!" . . . <tm> Groucho Marx
    NRA Life; GOA Life; CCRKBA Life; Trustee, NJCSD; F&AM: 32 & KT
    The Only Answer to a Bad Guy with a Gun - Is a Good Guy with a Gun!
    When Seconds Count...The Police are only MINUTES Away!

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast