The Cure for Multiple Shootings

This is a discussion on The Cure for Multiple Shootings within the Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; Here is an article I stumbled on by John Lott, need I say more? The rash of public shootings America has been suffering recalls killings ...

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 24

Thread: The Cure for Multiple Shootings

  1. #1
    Distinguished Member Array 4my sons's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Out side of Richmond, VA
    Posts
    1,637

    The Cure for Multiple Shootings

    Here is an article I stumbled on by John Lott, need I say more?

    The rash of public shootings America has been suffering recalls killings that took place in earlier decades in Israel. Over and over, groups of innocent victims were killed in terrorist machine-gun attacks. Police were rarely in the right place to stop them. Then Israel found a way to make such shootings extremely rare: permit law-abiding citizens to carry handguns.

    The tragic deaths of seven Israeli girls last year on a Jordanian island proves the point. As the Los Angeles Times noted, the Israeli chaperones travelling with the girls had "complied with Jordanian requests to leave their weapons behind when they entered the border enclave. Otherwise, they might have been able to stop the shooting, several parents said."

    By contrast, when three terrorists in Jerusalem tried to machine-gun a crowd in 1984, they managed to kill only one victim before being shot down by handgun-wielding citizens around them.
    Israeli criminologist Abraham Tennenbaum reports that when the surviving terrorist was interviewed by the press, he "complained that his group had not realized that Israeli citizens were armed," and so the group’s plan to "machine-gun a succession of crowd spots…before the police or army could arrive" failed.

    In America, mass public shootings rightly leave us shocked and appalled. On the surface, they seem to present a strong argument for restricting private gun ownership. But the truth is, guns wielded by private citizens have saved lives in such incidents, including some of the most recent ones. Recall the Pearl, Mississippi school shooting last October. When the firing began, the assistant principal ran to his car, got his gun, and subdued the shooter, ordering him to the ground four-and-a-half minutes before the police arrived. God only knows how many other deaths might have occurred if he hadn’t been armed.

    Similarly, in this April’s Edinboro, Pennsylvania shooting at a school dance, which left one teacher dead, 14-year-old Andrew Wurst was stopped only after banquet hall-owner James Strand pointed a shotgun at him when he started to reload his gun. Strand "coaxed" him into dropping his gun and surrendering peacefully. The police did not arrive for another ten minutes.

    Of course, more than a few case histories will be needed to resolve the debate over how best to prevent mass killings. That’s why my colleague William Landes and I made a careful statistical study of all the multiple-victim public shootings in the U.S. from 1977 to 1995. We included every incident where at least two people were killed or injured in a public place. To focus on the sorts of rampages like the Oregon school shootings or the Long Island Railroad massacre recently dramatized for TV by Barbra Streisand, we excluded gang wars, organized crime "hits," or shootings that were a by-product of other crimes like robberies or drug dealing.

    The results of this study were the starkest and most surprising I’ve ever encountered in a lifetime of research: When states enacted death penalty laws, we observed no effect on mass shootings. When states succeeded in raising their arrest rates for murder, there was no effect. When states required a waiting period before a gun may be purchased, or lengthened their existing waiting periods, there was absolutely no effect.

    Only enactment of one type of law correlated with a significant drop in multiple killings: a so-called "shall-issue" gun law. This type of law dictates that if a citizen meets certain objective criteria—for instance, an age requirement, no history of crime or mental illness, sometimes a training requirement—then he shall be issued a permit to carry a concealed handgun if he applies for one.

    The empirical history in states that adopted such a law is astonishing. In states where data are available before and after the passage of shall-issue laws, the death rate from mass shootings absolutely plummets, as the nearby graph shows. Some potential shooters are deterred from attempting massacres, and those who do try are often stopped before they can do as much harm as they would have without armed citizens acting in self-defense.

    Since mass public shootings are still relatively uncommon compared to other offenses, my colleague and I have also performed a much more comprehensive study of violent crime. We analyzed the fbi’s crime data for all 3,054 counties in the United States from 1977 to 1994, examining a large variety of gun laws, such as waiting periods and background checks, as well as other methods of deterrence like the death penalty.

    Our exhaustive analysis of the data found the same pattern for other violent crimes as we found for mass public shootings. Waiting-period gun laws like the Brady bill did no discernible good in reducing violent acts, nor did background check requirements and other old-fashioned gun-control laws. Even increasing penalties for using a gun to commit a crime had only a small benefit.

    Permitting non-criminals to carry guns, however, put big dents in violent crime rates across the country. Five years after jurisdictions had legalized handgun carrying, murders declined by an average of 15 percent, rapes by 9 percent, and robberies by 11 percent (after factoring out other influences like improved arrest rates). I estimate that if those states without right-to-carry laws had adopted such legislation in 1992, about 1,500 Americans now dead would have lived, and 4,000 women would have avoided rapes.

    Even better, when shall-issue laws are passed, the benefits of self-defense accrue disproportionately to those groups most in need of relief. One additional woman carrying a concealed handgun, for example, reduces the female murder rate three to four times more than an additional man arming himself reduces the murder rate for men. And urban areas—currently suffering from the most restrictive gun controls—are the very places that have benefited most after shall-issue laws pass. Better still, reductions have been greatest in those urban areas with the highest crime rates, the largest and most dense populations, and the greatest concentration of minorities. And of course, shall-issue laws achieve their dramatic crime-fighting effect at very little cost to the taxpayer.

    Given all these crime-reduction benefits, most Americans would probably be willing to accept small rises in gun accidents and suicides if those were side effects of more legal concealed gun-carrying. But fortunately, those negative trade-offs don’t happen. Our research found no evidence that the increased availability of guns brought any of the states involved an increase in suicides or accidents with guns. Indeed, permit-holders have proven extremely law-abiding—I have found no case where someone with a concealed-carry permit was convicted of murder using his gun, and the number of permit-holders who have had their permits revoked for any reason whatsoever is in the hundredths of 1 percent.

    In state legislative hearings, the most commonly raised fears have been that armed citizens will accidentally shoot a police officer, or that they will attack each other in the heat of the moment following car accidents. These fears have proven unfounded. Although 31 states have shall-issue laws, some decades old, there is only one recorded incident of a permitted concealed handgun being used in a shooting following a traffic accident, and a court found the permit-holder had acted in self-defense. Also, no permit-holder has ever shot a police officer, while many officers have had their lives saved by an armed permit-holder.

    The media understandably play up graphic gun attacks by outlaws. They can’t easily show us the vastly more common cases—numbering in the hundreds of thousands to millions each year—where law-abiding citizens brandish a gun and cause criminals to flee (as they do 98 percent of the time).

    But why do the press usually ignore cases where private men and women use their guns defensively to stop a potential massacre? Just last fall, for example, in Jacksonville, Florida, someone pulled out a gun in a restaurant, demanded money, and the cashier collapsed to the floor, frozen. The criminal said, "I’m going to count to ten. If the cash register isn’t open, I’m going to start shooting people." When the criminal got to "eight," two people in the restaurant with concealed-handgun permits stood up and shot him. Their brave self-defense barely made the local news. Yet if the criminal had shot people in the restaurant, it would have been national news.

    The media preach helplessness in the face of crime. But in fact innocent citizens need not be passively victimized. There is overwhelming evidence that permitting law-abiding citizens to carry concealed handguns will bring stark reductions in mass murders and other violent crimes.

    Obviously, bad things can happen with guns, but guns can also prevent bad things from happening. Police are an important deterrent to crime, but they cannot be everywhere. Without permitting citizens to own guns, we risk leaving many victims as sitting ducks.

    John R. Lott, Jr., former chief economist at the U.S. Sentencing Commission, teaches at the University of Chicago Law School and is the author of More Guns, Less Crime.

    THE AMERICAN ENTERPRISE, JULY/AUGUST 1998





    Published in Is This the Face of the Twenty-First Century? (Unavailable for purchase) July/August 1998
    "fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen." [Warren v. District of Columbia,(D.C. Ct. of Ap., 1981)]
    If I have to explain it, you wouldn't understand

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #2
    Member Array jeffkirchner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Pickerington, Ohio
    Posts
    58
    This is what Iraqi citizens are allowed to use for personal protection:
    Attached Images
    The early-bird gets the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese.

  4. #3
    Distinguished Member Array Bob The Great's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Slidell, LA
    Posts
    1,688
    another excellant article that will doubtless be widely ignored by anyone but the proverbial choir. even so, thanks for posting it.

  5. #4
    VIP Member Array obxned's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    OBX, NC
    Posts
    2,655
    So many sheep, so little common sense - with so few Americans willing to stand up for themselves, maybe we need 6 million deaths to wake us up.
    "If we loose Freedom here, there's no place to escape to. This is the Last Place on Earth!" Ronald Reagan

  6. #5
    Member Array Sgt.Sausage's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    27
    You're preachin' to the quior, dude. We already know that. How do we get the message out to the morons out there? That's the real question.

  7. #6
    Senior Member Array Plop's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    1,013
    Excellent article, good find! Now compare that article with this one:

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/s...st/4788881.stm

    There will always be violent crime, no matter how hard governments try to stop it. The best chance we have in stopping violent crime is to let the public be able to defend themselves, as mentioned in 4myson's post above. Let us rally behind the politicians who protect our second amendment rights, so that we can ultimately avoid ridiculous laws such as the ones Scotland passed.

  8. #7
    VIP Member Array Tom G's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Central Florida
    Posts
    2,375

    Thumbs down sheep

    Quote Originally Posted by obxned View Post
    So many sheep, so little common sense - with so few Americans willing to stand up for themselves, maybe we need 6 million deaths to wake us up.
    There are already about half that many killed when the towers collapsed and the sheep are already forgetting. One gun in the pilots possission could have made a drastic change in the outcome.

  9. #8
    VIP Member Array Blackeagle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Columbia, SC
    Posts
    2,147
    Quote Originally Posted by Tom G View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by obxned View Post
    So many sheep, so little common sense - with so few Americans willing to stand up for themselves, maybe we need 6 million deaths to wake us up.
    There are already about half that many killed when the towers collapsed and the sheep are already forgetting.
    Off by a few orders of magnitude there:

    9-11: 2,973 killed
    Holocaust: 5,000,000-6,000,000 Jews killed, plus several million more from other groups.

  10. #9
    Senior Member Array jeephipwr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Triangle, NC
    Posts
    609

    Illegal drugs

    Compare the fact that some drugs are illegal and they get across our borders or are manufactured in house in vast quantities. The government cannot stop it no matter how much money or resources they throw at it. They only catch a random few or the stupid ones.

    If guns are outlawed what makes them think they can control those items any better than they can the drugs?

  11. #10
    Senior Member Array briansmech's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    688
    great article, btw

  12. #11
    Distinguished Member Array 4my sons's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Out side of Richmond, VA
    Posts
    1,637
    Quote Originally Posted by Sgt.Sausage View Post
    You're preachin' to the quior, dude. We already know that. How do we get the message out to the morons out there? That's the real question.

    Well that's pretty much all anyone on here can do, but it is a great sorce of information to better prepaire youself, and to keep up on the latest developments in personal preotection. But if you want to perticipate in something, go to.

    www.savethe2nd.org

    we're trying to organize a national ralley to show those in power, that we are organized, ready, and active.
    "fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen." [Warren v. District of Columbia,(D.C. Ct. of Ap., 1981)]
    If I have to explain it, you wouldn't understand

  13. #12
    VIP Member Array ccw9mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    26,605
    Link to the article.
    Your best weapon is your brain. Don't leave home without it.
    Thoughts: Justifiable self defense (A.O.J.).
    Explain: How does disarming victims reduce the number of victims?
    Reason over Force: The Gun is Civilization (Marko Kloos).
    NRA, SAF, GOA, OFF, ACLDN.

  14. #13
    Senior Moderator
    Array limatunes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    4,246
    Quote Originally Posted by Sgt.Sausage View Post
    You're preachin' to the quior, dude. We already know that. How do we get the message out to the morons out there? That's the real question.
    Isn't that the truth. I get frustrated with that questions all the time. What can I/we do to get the message out?

    Write articles like this one? Write letters to the congressmen? Put bumper stickers on our cars? Vote?

    But in the end I think it comes down to the foot work of one on one discussion and "conversion" of individuals and educating kids.

    As people get older they become more and more confident in their beliefs and harder to persuade.

    Sadly, young people are being fed by the media and anti-gun friends and neighbors that guns are bad and dangerous.

    My father always taught me that guns are not dangerous. They only become dangerous when misused. They are a tool.

    My parents never yelled at me or told me never to touch a gun. They never instilled fear of guns in me. On the contrary, they encouraged me to shoot and to be responsible. They encouraged my curiosity as long as I was respectful of the weapon. In my entire life I have never seen a gun and felt fear (I'm sure that would change if someone who wanted to harm me was holding it, but that hasn't happened yet (thank God)).

    Our kids are bombarded with images of school shooting and suddenly they fear guns and guns in schools. They see mall shootings (another popular place for kids) and the fear does nothing but grow and grow with no one to point out to them that it's not the guns, it's the people.

    I wish there was a program like hunter's ed or something similar that target young people and their parents. A class that teaches them about this kind of stuff and allows them to learn the facts and counter all that bad press.

    Too often, I think, we target the adults and just work on changing the mind of the adults and trying to convince politicians and law makers.. Remember, our kids ARE our future law makers and politicians.

    Rant switch off.

  15. #14
    Member Array tj1231's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Idaho
    Posts
    190
    Quote Originally Posted by limatunes View Post
    I wish there was a program like hunter's ed or something similar that target young people and their parents. A class that teaches them about this kind of stuff and allows them to learn the facts and counter all that bad press.
    I like that idea. Maybe the NRA could implement something like that?

  16. #15
    Senior Member Array Steve48's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    St. John, Kansas
    Posts
    777
    Your preaching to those who agree with you the most!!! Steve48

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

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

Similar Threads

  1. There Really Is Just No Cure For Stupid
    By JonInNY in forum In the News: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: July 7th, 2010, 08:58 PM
  2. Bad: Multiple Shootings Reported at Texas Southern University
    By msgt/ret in forum In the News: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: July 23rd, 2009, 03:56 PM
  3. Can I get multiple CFLs from multiple states?
    By cyberdogg in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: April 11th, 2009, 09:41 PM
  4. I have a Fever and the only cure is....
    By jdivence in forum General Firearm Discussion
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: November 14th, 2008, 08:51 PM
  5. Two more multiple shootings
    By PeterCartwright in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: February 13th, 2007, 10:48 AM

Search tags for this page

multiple shootings in america

Click on a term to search for related topics.