"Gun-Free Zones ... Are Invitations To Mass Murder"
Reason's Jacob Sullum notes that neither psychiatry nor background checks can stop mass shooters. Sheldon Richman, whose words in his piece below became the title of this blog post, writes at Reason that "The only defender guaranteed to be present at any attack against you is you":
In contrast to the incantations offered by practitioners of public-policy magic, gun-rights advocates propose measures that reasonably can be expected to prevent or reduce the extent of mass murder: for example, eliminating government-mandated gun-free zones. (Property owners of course should be free to exclude guns, however foolish that is.) Those with ill-intent are unlikely to respect gun-free zones, but most peaceful individuals will. Thus they will be defenseless against aggressors. Gun-free zones, then, are invitations to mass murder. Refusal to acknowledge that fact is also a sign of a magical disposition.When this objection to gun-free zones is raised, gun-controllers typically respond that the answer to gun violence cannot be "more guns." But when aggressors are the only ones with guns, what would be wrong with more guns if they were in the right hands? Eliminating gun-free zones would in effect put guns in the hands of the innocent at the scene of the attack. As it now stands, the only people with guns are the killers and police, who may be miles away. (Too often the killers are the police.) The connection between means and end is clear. If would-be mass killers suspected they would meet resistance early on, they might be deterred from launching their attack. But even if not, the chances of minimizing an attack would obviously be greater if some of the gunman's intended victims were armed.
Another reasonable measure would be to remove all restrictions, such as permit requirements, on concealed or open carry of handguns. Again, the link between means and ends is clear. Concealed carry has the bonus of a free-rider benefit: when people are free to carry concealed handguns, assailants, who clearly prefer their victims unarmed, won't know who's carrying and who's not. That extra measure of deterrence--that positive externality--could be expected to save innocent lives.
Believers in gun-control magic refuse to acknowledge that one cannot effectively delegate one's right to or responsibility for self-defense. With enough money, one might arrange for assistance in self-defense, but few will be able to afford protection 24/7. It's a myth that government assumes responsibility for our security, since it does not promise round-the-clock personal protection and its officers are not legally obligated to protect you even if an assault occurs before their eyes. The only defender guaranteed to be present at any attack against you is: you.
An excerpt from that link above about our fantasies about how the police will protect us -- a piece by Richard Stevens at the Foundation for Economic Freedom:
Practically speaking, it makes little sense to disarm the innocent victims while the criminals are armed. It is especially silly to disarm the victims when too often the police are simply unable to protect them. As Richard Mack, former sheriff of Graham County, Arizona, has observed: "Police do very little to prevent violent crime. We investigate crime after the fact."Americans increasingly believe, however, that all they need for protection is a telephone. Dial 911 and the police, fire, and ambulance will come straight to the rescue. It's faster than the pizza man. Faith in a telephone number and the local cops is so strong that Americans dial 911 over 250,000 times per day.
Yet does dialing 911 actually protect crime victims? Researchers found that less than 5 percent of all calls dispatched to police are made quickly enough for officers to stop a crime or arrest a suspect.3 The 911 bottom line: "cases in which 911 technology makes a substantial difference in the outcome of criminal events are extraordinarily rare."
"(Too often the killers are the police.)"
WTF bullshit statement is this? The mind that can state is this is the same kind of mind that thinks gun control "protects" people. Guess they like to hear themselves talk.
Evil is out there and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure this out.
Google helps.
Beltway sniper attacks
The 2006 Harvey Family killing (and other 6 fatalities) by 2 on a killing spree starting in Pa. and ending in Va.
The "Golden Years" murders in Richmond, Va.
The "Southside Strangler" in Richmond, Va.
Bob in Texas at October 5, 2015 6:15 AM
Remember the mall shooting in Kenya? WeaponsMan breaks it down for us:
Quoting from the source Foreign Policy piece, we see that:
This brings to mind some sage advice: do what you can, with what you have, where you're at. 911 is essentially a clean up service, especially if your dispatch center isn't operating at peak efficiency as it is in my city.
I R A Darth Aggie at October 5, 2015 6:44 AM
"Believers in gun-control magic . . . "
That line made me laugh! Yep, "magic" is what so many gun-banning advocates seem to believe in. Every conversation I've had with someone who was "against guns" seems to believe in this "magic" of just banning guns will solve the problem of killers killing people.
So many, who otherwise seem intelligent, throw all rational thought out the window when it comes to guns. "Guns are bad!" "Guns are evil!" seems to be their mentality. Also, most have never handled a gun themselves; maybe that's why they are so irrational about it?
Further, most people caught up in breaking the "gun-free" laws are innocent people who are simply carrying a gun because they have, themselves, been victims of real crime and are now being punished for trying to defend themselves.
Even registering guns does nothing; every cop I know (a lot use the same gym I do) I have asked:
"When there is a murder, do you check the gun owner database for a list of possible suspects?"
The response is the same from everyone one of them; first they laugh at such a ridiculous question, then they answer no.
charles at October 5, 2015 7:29 AM
Let me clarify part of the gun-control debate for you:
A gun is a tool, nothing more, for the application of force. That force is directed by the person holding it.
The person who has decided to hold a gun has principles that are valuable enough to apply deadly force: personal freedom, the safety of self and loved ones, and in exceptionally dire straits, the value of representative government, without which individual freedoms cannot exist.
Now, if you have no principles, or you do not value these things, it is natural that you would be terrified of the idea of deadly force.
American society today is packed with examples of people trying to shirk responsibilities, to get "other people" to take care of them. In the process, they give up their own rights, because those rights are always paid for by the exercise of responsibility.
Again, if you do not like the idea of responsibility, you would be terrified at the idea of deadly force. You would try to avoid it.
Yet the Founders set this country up so that YOU, the responsible citizen, actually run the country, through your elected officials... it's not the Founders' fault if you shirk those duties and let those officials run loose.
Meanwhile, the operative syllable in the term, "self-defense" is "self". Graves - even mass graves - are full of people who counted on others to save them, or even act in their best interest.
See "Cooper vs. Terrorism"
and
"A Nation of Cowards". See if you live there.
Radwaste at October 5, 2015 10:33 AM
This is a super long blog post, but it pretty much says it all about why gun control won't work: An Opinion on Gun Control.
Daghain at October 5, 2015 5:09 PM
We filed a report with the sheriff's office some time ago after discovering that someone had tried to steal one of our vehicles overnight. (They tried to drill out the lock.) The deputy who came by to take the report reminded us that, "We're in Texas, and you have a right to defend yourselves. There isn't much law enforcement out here, and if something really bad happens, there's a good chance we can't get here in time."
I think a lot of people in rural areas understand this. I think it's people who are used to having their needs met with a phone call who are naive about it. Why would you expect someone who can't plunge a toilet or find their own breaker box or operate a motor vehicle to understand that they might have to defend themselves?
ahw at October 6, 2015 12:25 PM
I think a lot of people in rural areas understand this. I think it's people who are used to having their needs met with a phone call who are naive about it. Why would you expect someone who can't plunge a toilet or find their own breaker box or operate a motor vehicle to understand that they might have to defend themselves?
Posted by: ahw at October 6, 2015 12:25 PM
People are really good at arranging reality to suit their preconceived emotional notions of what the world and other people should be doing for them.
I recall several years ago, one of the really big debates on this board was about changing a car tire.
It is quite ok to rely on AAA for the vast majority of these occasions, But the person who leaves themselves deliberately ignorant and helpless by refusing to even learn how to do it, is putting themselves at risk.
It may never come back to bite them in the ass, but there are a whole host of these little survival skills that can increase your chances of living through a SHTF moment, if you are ever unlucky enough to wind up in one.
And yes, being able to use a gun effectively, is at the top of my list.
Isab at October 7, 2015 11:38 AM
The idea behind the gun-free zone seems to be that most people cannot handle a gun and will pull it out and use it when angered; that shootings are unplanned and spontaneous. And the only way to prevent those spontaneous shootings is the keep guns out of the hands of hotheads.
Sadly, we've had enough mass shootings to know that they're planned long in advance and often target gun-free zones as target-rich environments; and that the common denominator is more often mental problems than the wide availability of guns.
That's not to say we can't do something to reduce the risk, but all-out Australia-style confiscation would be a hard sell, not to mention unconstitutional.
Conan the Grammarian at October 7, 2015 11:45 AM
People like this idiot:
http://www.fox2detroit.com/news/local-news/30790613-story
Conan the Grammarian at October 7, 2015 3:41 PM
The idea behind the gun-free zone
...
When we're talking about students on campus, and more money is needed, they're the most bright, introspective, questioning sorts just in need of a few dollars (stop asking about that new admin wing and all the Vice Presidents and their staffs)
When we're talking about "rape", the campus is filled with a rapist in every bush.
When we're talking about concealed carry on campus, the men are all alcoholic frat boys, just itching to duke it out with the other drunken frats, and then rape some nearby women (who wouldn't apparently resist with guns or something... Shaddup.)
And you can get most administrators and press sorts to have all three ideas in their mind at the same time without problem.
Unix-Jedi at October 8, 2015 8:43 PM
Leave a comment