Last weekend, I wrote a post entitled “An Honest Liberal Writes about Gun Control.” The article was very powerful because the person didn’t like guns, but admitted that more guns in the hands of law-abiding people might be the best way to reduce crime.
Now we have a perfect follow-up article to analyze. It’s from the Wall Street Journal and it’s authored by David Kopel of the Independence Institute. He starts by acknowledging that random shootings have increased, but notes that these killing sprees were almost non-existent when we had no anti-gun laws.
Why the increase? It cannot be because gun-control laws have become more lax. Before the 1968 Gun Control Act, there were almost no federal gun-control laws. …Nor are magazines holding more than 10 rounds something new. They were invented decades ago and have long been standard for many handguns. Police officers carry them for the same reason that civilians do: Especially if a person is attacked by multiple assailants, there is no guarantee that a 10-round magazine will end the assault. The 1980s were much worse than today in terms of overall violent crime, including gun homicide, but they were much better than today in terms of mass random shootings. The difference wasn’t that the 1980s had tougher controls on so-called “assault weapons.” No assault weapons law existed in the U.S. until California passed a ban in 1989. Connecticut followed in 1993. None of the guns that the Newtown murderer used was an assault weapon under Connecticut law.
Kopel then makes the key points that there is no meaningful definition of an “assault weapon.” Oh, in case any morons from the media are reading this, it’s also worth noting that a “semi-automatic” is not a machine gun.
This illustrates the uselessness of bans on so-called assault weapons, since those bans concentrate on guns’ cosmetics, such as whether the gun has a bayonet lug, rather than their function. What some people call “assault weapons” function like every other normal firearm—they fire only one bullet each time the trigger is pressed. Unlike automatics (machine guns), they do not fire continuously as long as the trigger is held. They are “semi-automatic” because they eject the empty shell case and load the next round into the firing chamber.
Since gun controls have become more ubiquitous over time, what could account for the increase in random shootings? In addition to de-institutionalization of the mentally ill, Kopel suspects the media plays a role.
Since gun controls today are far stricter than at the time when “active shooters” were rare, what can account for the increase in these shootings? One plausible answer is the media. Cable TV in the 1990s, and the Internet today, greatly magnify the instant celebrity that a mass killer can achieve. We know that many would-be mass killers obsessively study their predecessors.
This doesn’t mean it’s the fault of the media, and it certainly doesn’t mean that we should undermine the First Amendment right of an unfettered press, but at least it helps to understand what could be causing some of these nutjobs to go on killing sprees.
The most important part of the column is his analysis of how “gun-free zones” are downright idiotic. The Chuck Asay cartoons here and here make the same point, as does this satirical video, but Kopel’s analysis provides substance.
Finally, it must be acknowledged that many of these attacks today unfortunately take place in pretend “gun-free zones,” such as schools, movie theaters and shopping malls. According to Ron Borsch’s study for the Force Science Research Center at Minnesota State University-Mankato, active shooters are different from the gangsters and other street toughs whom a police officer might engage in a gunfight. They are predominantly weaklings and cowards who crumble easily as soon as an armed person shows up. The problem is that by the time the police arrive, lots of people are already dead. So when armed citizens are on the scene, many lives are saved. The media rarely mention the mass murders that were thwarted by armed citizens at the Shoney’s Restaurant in Anniston, Ala. (1991), the high school in Pearl, Miss. (1997), the middle-school dance in Edinboro, Penn. (1998), and the New Life Church in Colorado Springs, Colo. (2007), among others. At the Clackamas Mall in Oregon last week, an active shooter murdered two people and then saw that a shopper, who had a handgun carry permit, had drawn a gun and was aiming at him. The murderer’s next shot was to kill himself. Real gun-free zones are a wonderful idea, but they are only real if they are created by metal detectors backed up by armed guards. Pretend gun-free zones, where law-abiding adults (who pass a fingerprint-based background check and a safety training class) are still disarmed, are magnets for evildoers who know they will be able to murder at will with little threat of being fired upon.
Amen. I offered an IQ test on the issue for liberals and criminals, and this set of cartoons and posters takes an amusing look at the issue of gun-free zones.
But as much as I enjoy political humor, this is not a laughing matter. It appears Obama is trying to lay some groundwork for a new assault on the Second Amendment.
[…] what it’s worth, however, scholars who actually do real research, like David Kopel and John Lott, reach different […]
[…] matter to the anti-Second Amendment crowd, so I generally focus the conversation on the practical shortcomings of such […]
Gun-free zones are target rich environments for victims of gun violence. Your average law-abiding citizen will abide by the no guns allowed sign, however, people who are intent on committing violent crimes with guns will not. Less guns=less crime-bullshit! More guns=less crime-absolute fact.
[…] mesma análise de custo-benefício se aplica a adeptos de chacinas. Independentemente de se esses lunáticos são motivados por um […]
[…] mesma análise de custo-benefício se aplica a adeptos de chacinas. Independentemente de se esses lunáticos são motivados por um […]
[…] takeaway from this evidence (as well as other evidence I have shared) is that availability of guns doesn’t cause […]
[…] takeaway from this evidence (as well as other evidence I have shared) is that availability of guns doesn’t cause […]
[…] you to peruse some serious articles on gun control, featuring scholars such as John Lott and David Kopel, along with some very persuasive information from an actual firearms […]
[…] same cost-benefit analysis applies to mass shooters. Regardless of whether these shooters are motivated by feelings of […]
[…] But it’s not just my satirical IQ test. You get the same results from real experts such as John Lott and David Kopel. […]
[…] But it’s not just my satirical IQ test. You get the same results from real experts such as John Lott and David Kopel. […]
[…] I’ve shared serious articles on gun control, featuring scholars such as John Lott and David Kopel. […]
[…] what it’s worth, however, scholars who actually do real research, like David Kopel and John Lott, reach different […]
[…] check out some of the fact-based research on guns and crime by David […]
[…] check out some of the fact-based research on guns and crime by David […]
[…] I’ve shared serious articles on gun control, featuring scholars such as John Lott and David Kopel. […]
[…] I’ve shared serious articles on gun control, featuring scholars such as John Lott and David Kopel. […]
[…] what it’s worth, however, scholars who actually do real research, like David Kopel and John Lott, reach different […]
[…] what it’s worth, however, scholars who actually do real research, like David Kopel and John Lott, reach different […]
[…] I wasn’t even sure what the last one meant, but I secretly felt chagrined because I also thought the argument was nonsense. But it’s not like we had the Internet back in those days so I could quickly peruse the writings of John Lott or David Kopel. […]
[…] I wasn’t even sure what the last one meant, but I secretly felt chagrined because I also thought the argument was nonsense. But it’s not like we had the Internet back in those days so I could quickly peruse the writings of John Lott or David Kopel. […]
Ken, what if “every parent”, or even most parents, joined or otherwise supported one of several lobbying organizations dedicated to redistribution of loot from taxpayers to every parent? Would they demand that less loot be diverted to the children’s educations? Well, no. Even if only a few parents were involved in this way, they would scream and holler for more, more, more. Still worse, their lobbyists would look for occasions to trade horses with other people eager for a subsidy, or a new statute to cartelize commerce, or a new weapons system for the military.
So, would the parents and their lobbyists demand decriminalization of self-defense against parents who clamor for or receive education subsidies? Well, no. It’s much more likely that they would demand draconian punishment of “selfish” tax evaders. And what if tutors, private schools, and teaching companies, too, became involved in your new and improved education racket?
In fact, how long would it take for education money to be diverted to the maintenence of theocratic cults’ facilities and to the indoctrination of children in their foolish ways? It seems to me that you propose a pathway to a dark age of ignorance, superstition, and organized crime.
Now, since you claim that Cornell College is a place where “Everyone learns to think as well”, how about subjecting the students and faculty to a test of their ability to think clearly and logically about American Government?
Here’s the test: Explain correctly how to use the clause of Article VII of the Constitution for its ostensible purpose without merely assuming before “Establishment” that the clause states the law about how to establish itself or the other six articles as supreme law of the land.
As for Cornell’s theology, I refer you to David Steele’s Atheism Explained for suggestions about questions relevant to the theme of “Deus”.
It occurred to me that concentrations of kid is the big attraction here for these nut cases. We’ve systematically consolidated and increased the size of all our school to the point that they’re nearly a city within themselves – my old school had 21 kids in my graduating class.
What if – – – – –
– We gave every parent the money provided to the local school board for education?
– That parent decided to have their kid attend a school run by a tutor?
– That tutor taught only one subject, but every day, all day long for a month?
– Then the parent enrolled that kid with another tutor who taught a different subject for a month?
– When the kid had learned all the 3 R’s, Economics, American History, American Government, etc., and could pass a test to graduate, we said good enough.
– Colleges operated in the same manner (Cornell College* in Mt. Vernon, Iowa, does this now, as does Colorado College – I think the only 2)?
– you fill in the rest of the blanks … use your imagination – as they say, think out of the box.
This way there would be no concentration of kids anywhere and as a result, there’d be no free fire zones at least as schools. There would be small classes and parents would have the say about how their kids were educated – parents don’t now, because the school system gets their money from the local government who, as you know, extort it from the parents and other taxpayers. Their main allegiance is to the source of their funding.
The system we have now does not educate kids – it processes them through several routines and spends tons of money for huge facilities. But, it supports several bureaucracy – none of which truly answer to citizens.
Putting armed guards in schools will just create more government controlled employees who will shortly form another union (TSA comes to mind???? Supposed to be only 40,000 and NEVER unionized – ya right). When we go duck hunting, we go where there is a concentration of ducks … that’s exactly what these shooters do and shopping centers and schools are the best choices.
* My wife attended Cornell at Mt. Vernon and has a degree from there as does her youngest son. There’s virtually no way a kid can flunk out with this system if they attend class, but – – – the teacher REALLY has to be prepared. Everyone learns to think as well. Teachers would have to compete with one another to get students and would have to perform in order to get more. And spreading out the potential targets would have an effect on the outcome of shootings …
[…] (via Dan Mitchell) […]
Many gun monopolists want to establish a “Real gun-free” zone from sea to shining sea, except they want a double standard according to which government shall be able to keep and bear arms. The monopolists also want to monopolize control of the government, the better to advance their commercial and political agenda, which is suspiciously similar to fascism. Probably many of your sympathetic readers understand this.
The developing caricature of the gun monopolists can be enhanced by observing that government is a leading sponsor and subsidizer of firearms development. Yet the monopolists care very little to remember this relevant feature of the issue. And why would they? American leftists are unregenerate militarists not so very different from Engels or Mussolini in his fascistic phase. A well-armed government is an important part of their political strategy of appearing to be peaceful when they march unarmed in the streets shouting the cliches of leftwing collectivism.
Now, it seems that you still cherish a popular rightwing delusion about the second alleged amendment. The plain meaning of its words points to the conclusion that “the right to keep and bear arms” is a feature of a well-regulated militia. In other words, to have a well-regulated militia, claims the 2nd am, is to enjoy the right to keep and bear arms. And what’s a well-regulated militia? The definition is given implicity in places such as Article I and Article II. For example, President Fast & Furious is commander in chief of the militia.
Nevertheless and as is usual, the SCOTUS misrepresents the great Constitution such that hundreds of millions of Americans remain confused. There are clever gun monopolists, however, who can figure out how to use that, too, to their advantage. When they do, the monopolists will ram gun control down gunhuggers’ throats with the second am as if it were mounted upon a bayonet.
If America’s gunhuggers had good sense, they’d be hollering for the militia clauses of Articles I & II to be deleted immediately and not replaced. Of course, most gunhuggers are unimaginative, pig headed warmongers eager to be cared for and led to safety by a stern, paternal government. So we should not soon encounter a nationwide political movement to advance this cause. In a way this is a pity, for such a campaign would throw an enormous number of durable wrenches into gun monopolists’ long-term plans for commerce, welfare programs, and even the UN.
I find it odd that there are calls for more gun controls after a shooting; yet drunk driving kills more than 10,000 people in the US a year and yet no calls of prohibition from anti-gun advocates.
http://www.centurycouncil.org/drunk-driving/drunk-driving-fatalities-national-statistics