Friday, December 7, 2007

John Lott's Website: Follow up coverage on the Gun Free Zone Multiple Victim Public Shootings

John Lott's Website: Follow up coverage on the Gun Free Zone Multiple Victim Public Shootings

Links to additional info on the Gun Free Zone issue. Although the mainstream media is still ignoring this very important point, the bloggers have definitely picked up on it.

6 comments:

T. HINK MORHE said...

Guns and weapons by themselves can't be used to define security and safety. To take it right to the end, we can see now how nuclear weapons, especially larger stocks of them, do not give you more protection -- and actually make you less safe!

Dustin said...

Think Morhe: you really should think more. By your logic we would have been more safe to not engage in the arms race with Russia when they were a threat. We should have just made the US a "weapon free zone" & told Russia to please be nice to us because we are a peaceful people.

Then when they bombed us to ashes we could have heard any survivors quoted saying "I can't believe it happened here. I thought we were safe because we were in a weapon free zone!"

As long as mankind has evil people who are willing to do evil things for evil reasons, there will always be a need to arm ourselves in defense of life & liberty.

Robocop said...

We definitely picked up on this one. Of course, the media will never cover a gun control mistake that got people killed.

Dustin said...

Too true Robocop :)

T. Hink Moore said...

Russia did NOT bomb us in reality. The point is not to react with easy answers but to think of the actual results.

The USA always led the arms race and the Russians were dumb enough to follow suit to bankruptcy. However, now we may be even less safe now that their nuke stockpile is large and their countries are less stable. And besides a few loose bombs, the technology has spread. The result of a nuke arms is a world that is LESS safe.

What I'm saying is that guns and weapons by themselves can’t be used to define security and safety. And just banning guns by itself won’t do much either when the sources of the problems are not addressed. We also need to think clearly about why so many innocent people are found in jail, and why white-collar crime is ignored.

Instead we have to think hard about human nature and how to prevent crime. Who was this kid who went carzy at the mall? Was he an orphan? Abused? What?

"Law enforcement" types can’t bet on ethnic profiling of these sorts of shooters either (and serial killers too) — unless they screen for white males.

The latest shootings at the churches in CO. are an example of why just a simple counter to gun banning with slogans of "victim disarmament zones." Churches should be a gun free zone, though security is unfortunately now required. What is wrong in communities that churchs themselves are target areas?

Perhaps we shouldn’t cut education and health care so much in favor of large weapons systems that really shouldn’t and often don’t get used. The USA spends — BORROWS from our supposed enemies — so much. And yet where are we? With all the money spent on Iraq, oil supplies are not more stable. We could have taken a month's of the spending and provided clean drinking water to all humans in the world and had plenty left over to sink into R&D for renewables and energy conservation.

We’re not safer, our jobs are shipped overseas -- so we can get poison toys and poision food from the 3rd world? We subsidize the ruin of economies of neighboring countries which forces them to leave their homes and families so the people we subsidize have even cheaper labor. We’ve invaded other countries based on lies and bogus intelligence, ALL subsidized. We’ve ruined our family farms, poisoned our land and water. Looted our Saving & Loans — ever see “It’s a Wonderful Life” with Jimmy Stewart — we live in Potterville’s not Bedford Falls.

The list goes on and on, and more guns by themselves will only make us less safe. And simply banning guns won't fix it either.

Dustin said...

T. Hink Moore: I think we definitely can agree on at least a couple of things. Things I agree with:

1) Russia did not bomb us (largely because they knew that we had the ability to retaliate in kind if they were to do so)

2) More guns does not make us more safe by itself, however, having guns does give us the ability to protect ourselves, and banning guns DOES make us LESS safe, in that the criminals will still have guns, but those of us who wish to defend ourselves will not.

I don't know about you, but I would not want to bring a broom to a gun fight. If someone comes into a public place such as a church or mall where my family & I are, and he or she starts shooting at innocent bystanders, I want to have the ability to defend myself with something other than a broom handle or a can of pepper spray.

I'll have much greater odds of survival if I have a good self defense tool such as my handgun, and can find a strategic location where I can shoot back from some cover. The alternative has proven not to work well for many victims - hiding behind a desk waiting to be shot is not my idea of a good way to go out, but if I've been rendered defenseless by a gun free zone than there are not many other options.

Guns alone do not make us safe, but having them along with some good training does allow us to be on equal if not superior ground to the bad guys. I'd rather bring a gun to a gun fight than to bring a broom from the utility closet. Clobbering the bad guy with a broom stick works well in the movies but not so well in real life.

If you look through history there have always been evil people in the world who do evil things with whatever tools are at their disposal - bombs, guns, swords, knives, spears, etc. We can't render the world "safe" by banning every material that can be used as a weapon by evil people, but we can prepare ourselves to be able to defend against the common weapons used by criminals of the day. Today that tool is a gun. If you bring a sword to a gunfight you're probably going to loose.

The Police are not able to keep us safe, so everybody is responsible to be able to defend themselves. If we depend on 911 alone the Police may only arrive in time to use chalk, take prints, bag the dead victim, take photo's, and start the search for the long gone bad guy that already high tailed it from the scene, unless he or she just shot him or herself when he or she was done.

Having a gun is all it takes in 98% of self defense cases. Criminals would rather hightail it away from you once you aim your gun at them & live to rob someone else another day than to risk their life to proceed with their current evil plans. In those cases you don't even need to fire a single shot. If instead the criminal forces you to shoot than so be it, better that than end up another dead victim for everyone to read about in the papers the next day.