Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: Gun Free Zones,, Fox news

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Rutherfordton, North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    21

    Post imported post

    JOHN LOTT: Gun-Free Zones Are a Magnet for Attacks Like the Tragedy InBinghamton



    By John R. Lott, Jr.
    Senior Research Scientist, University of Maryland, Author, “Freedomnomics”


    Time after time multiple- victim public shootings occur in “gun free zones” — public places where citizens are not legally able to carry guns. The horrible attack today in Binghamton, New York is no different. Every multiple-victim public shooting that I have studied, where more than three people have been killed, has taken place where guns are banned.


    If a killer were stalking your family, would you feel safer putting a sign out front announcing, “This home is a gun-free zone”? But that is what all these places did.
    You would think that it would be an important part of the news stories for a simple reason: Gun-free zones are a magnet for these attacks. Extensive discussions of these attacks can be found here and here. We want to keep people safe, but the problem is that it is the law-abiding good citizens, not the criminals, who obey these laws. We end up disarming the potential victims and not the criminals. Rather than making places safe for victims, we unintentionally make them safe for the criminal.

    At some point, you would think the media would notice that something is going on here, that these murderers aren’t just picking their targets at random. And this pattern isn’t really too surprising. Most people understand that guns deter criminals.

    If a killer were stalking your family, would you feel safer putting a sign out front announcing, “This home is a gun-free zone”? But that is what all these places did.

    Even when attacks occur, having civilians with permitted concealed handguns limits the damage. 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 someone is able to arrive on the scene with a gun.

    For years I would tell news people about the fact that every single multiple victim public shooting in the US involving more than three people killed took place in one of these gun-free zones. The response was they might include this information as part of the story if I could get it to them fast enough so that it could be included as part of the news story. But when I started to do that I was told that it would be editorializing to include that information. My response has been that if news stories can contain long (often inaccurate) discussions of the type of gun used in the crime, why isn’t it also newsworthy to note one common characteristic that occurs in attack after attack?

    When will this simple fact about gun-free zones become part of the news coverage itself? How different would the political debate about guns be if even once in a while a news story mentioned that there has been another multiple victim public shooting in a gun free zone?

    John Lott is a senior research scientist at the University of Maryland and the author of Freedomnomics.

  2. #2
    Regular Member KansasMustang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Herington, Kansas, USA
    Posts
    1,005

    Post imported post

    Does this fact surprise anyone?
    Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man. Thomas Jefferson

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    , , Tajikistan
    Posts
    201

    Post imported post

    It's not that I disagree with his facts, but it's widely known that Lott is supported by the NRA. That's like a pharmacy company researcher telling you that a drug is good. The mainstream media knows this hence his writings don't carry beyond a few media outlets. We really need to find new professors etc. , like the one on ABC, who support this thesis. I know Lott's statements are essentially "boob bait for bubbas" and get the gun community cheering, but to the rest of the country, it's like a TASS press release in the USSR.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Grand Rapids, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,416

    Post imported post

    redlegagent wrote:
    It's not that I disagree with his facts, but it's widely known that Lott is supported by the NRA. That's like a pharmacy company researcher telling you that a drug is good. The mainstream media knows this hence his writings don't carry beyond a few media outlets. We really need to find new professors etc. , like the one on ABC, who support this thesis. I know Lott's statements are essentially "boob bait for bubbas" and get the gun community cheering, but to the rest of the country, it's like a TASS press release in the USSR.
    The same would be said about just about any other "new professor" who takes a stance like Lott's. Lott was an anti before he did his study on guns and crime. He did the study to prove that gun control worked to reduce crime, and was converted by the facts. He wasn't supported by the NRA to do it. Anyone who stands up to speak in support of gun rights on a level as his is going to be vilified as part of the "evil" gun lobby.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    , Nevada, USA
    Posts
    716

    Post imported post

    redlegagent wrote:
    It's not that I disagree with his facts, but it's widely known that Lott is supported by the NRA. That's like a pharmacy company researcher telling you that a drug is good. The mainstream media knows this hence his writings don't carry beyond a few media outlets. We really need to find new professors etc. , like the one on ABC, who support this thesis. I know Lott's statements are essentially "boob bait for bubbas" and get the gun community cheering, but to the rest of the country, it's like a TASS press release in the USSR.
    Would it be better if the NRA didn't support him just so the anti's wouldn't be able to say he's a puppet of the NRA? The truth is the truth, no matter the source. If someone new came out on the scene, then the NRA would support them as well, then we would have to find another new person, and so on, and so on, and.......

    Let's just fight the anti's with the truth and not worry about if it comes from one of their approved sources. Instead, force them to show the evidence supporting their position, let it be examined for authenticity, then let it be judged.
    It's not that I disagree with his facts

    I know Lott's statements are essentially "boob bait for bubbas" and get the gun community cheering, but to the rest of the country, it's like a TASS press release in the USSR.

    Maybe that is partly because ofcontradictory statements like these. You admit that you don't disagree with his findings, yet you turn around anddegrade (boob bait for bubbas) his work for no reason except that other people say so.

    Make up your mind, if his work is true, then support it as such, if it is not, then show evidence to the contrary.

  6. #6
    Regular Member AtackDuck's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    King George, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    214

    Post imported post

    redlegagent wrote:
    It's not that I disagree with his facts, but it's widely known that Lott is supported by the NRA.
    Supported how? Monetarily? Source please. I don't think he is, but I'll ask him.

  7. #7
    Campaign Veteran deepdiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Southeast, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    5,974

    Post imported post

    While the recent shooting in Alabama is obviously the exception to the rule I think that Lott leaving out such a recent event weakens his argument.
    Bob Owens @ Bearing Arms (paraphrased): "These people aren't against violence; they're very much in favor of violence. They're against armed resistance."

Posting Permissions

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