In the wake of a monstrous crime like a madman’s mass murder of defenseless women and children at the Newtown, Conn., elementary school, the nation’s attention is riveted on what could have been done to prevent such a massacre.
Luckily, some years ago, two famed economists, William Landes at the University of Chicago and John Lott at Yale, conducted a massive study of multiple victim public shootings in the United States between 1977 and 1995 to see how various legal changes affected their frequency and death toll.
Landes and Lott examined many of the very policies being proposed right now in response to the Connecticut massacre: waiting periods and background checks for guns, the death penalty and increased penalties for committing a crime with a gun.
None of these policies had any effect on the frequency of, or carnage from, multiple-victim shootings. (I note that they did not look at reforming our lax mental health laws, presumably because the ACLU is working to keep dangerous nuts on the street in all 50 states.)
Only one public policy has ever been shown to reduce the death rate from such crimes: concealed-carry laws.
The effect of concealed-carry laws in deterring mass public shootings was even greater than the impact of such laws on the murder rate generally.
Someone planning to commit a single murder in a concealed-carry state only has to weigh the odds of one person being armed. But a criminal planning to commit murder in a public place has to worry that anyone in the entire area might have a gun.
More
DelMarVa's Premier Source for News, Opinion, Analysis, and Human Interest Contact Publisher Joe Albero at alberobutzo@wmconnect.com or 410-430-5349
CCW never know who has a gun.
ReplyDeleteYou know as well as I do what is going to happen.
ReplyDeleteWe will form a committee and debate this for the next two years. While they are debating this administration will slip new laws under the rug that will outlaw certain weapons and eventually all guns.
Read between the lines people. As Hitler did ,as Obama does.
Seems to me that a determined shooter will still be successful whether citizens are carrying guns or not. It is usually not their intention to "survive" the shooting anyway, just take out as many as possible before they are killed or take their own life. Lets not forget the Fort Hood shooting where 13 were killed and 29 wounded. This was on an Army base where I imagine, plenty of folks were armed. Just this week, a guy managed to shoot 3 New Jersey Police officers in their own Police station. Not saying that an armed population won't reduce some deaths but it is naive to think that this is the only solution to the problem.
ReplyDelete10:04-I agree.The most dangerous people on earth are those who not only have no fear of dying,but fully intend to either kill themselves or be killed following their act.We have the technology to weed out the crazies if the powers that be choose to utilize it.That might be a good start.
ReplyDeleteDid anyone see the piece in today's Daily Times about shots being fired at the homes of three law enforcement officers? The home of a Wicomico deputy was fired at on Dec. 11. On the 27th, the homes of a Worcester deputy and a Sussex County officer were fired at. In all instances, the police cruisers were parked in the driveways. This seems to undermine Mr. LaPierre's position that good guys with guns are the best deterrent to bad guys with guns.
ReplyDelete11:18, it must be hard to see where you're going with your head up your hiney all the time, but i guess if you're from new york you were born that way.
ReplyDeleteQueensgirl I see your not a big fan of the second amendment. I also see you are a big fan of the first amendment. Now if you get rid of the second amendment how long will it be befor you lose the first????? Now to let you know I carry a firearm and if I saw that you or your family were in danger I would do all I could to help. Then I think you would understand Just how important the second amendment is to all.
ReplyDeleteHey, 12:23: Arguments between young children, who have minimal life experience and limited vocabularies, usually take the form of name-calling since they're not equipped to argue substance. What's your excuse?
ReplyDelete12:43: I have nothing against the Second Amendment as written. My problem is with its current interpretation, which we owe to that grand old whore for the gun industry, the NRA. All the gun industry and NRA want is to sell more guns and ammo, and they will allow no remotely reasonable restrictions. Did you know that in a 2009 poll, 69% of NRA MEMBERS supported a requirement that all sellers at gun shows conduct background checks of prospective buyers? The NRA wouldn't and still will not hear of it. They're like drug pushers! I have no quarrel with your owning a gun, and I have no quarrel with hunters. What I don't understand is why supposedly normal people are stockpiling mass murder devices and tons of ammunition for them. Can you explain that?
ReplyDelete12:43. Seems she hopes you will be a little slow in helping her maybe or not helping her at all. She has it taking care of because the police are right around the corner so no one will hurt her or her family
ReplyDeleteBecause most people realize the goverment cannot protect them. Look at Hurricane Sandy Gangs of thugs taking what they want. They don't care about you your family your rights they just do what they want. Cops can't protect you or your family it's a fact. There are two types of mindset the first is I realize the goverment cant take care of me when things go wrong. The second is I can't take care of myself so it's up to the goverment.
ReplyDeleteQueensgirl-Are you and Piers dating? If not you should be.
ReplyDeleteHey queensgirl, I'll put money on the fact if you were in a situation where deadly force was the only option you would be wishing for the devices you want banned. Be careful what you wish for.
ReplyDeletefirst of all a person who is going to commit mass murder with a gun isnt expecting to liveat the end of it and isnt thinking about concealed weapons laws or who may carry one. They dont weigh odds they simply dont care. I lived in utah for a few years back in the eightys and when i first walked into a fast food place standing in line with several well armed people standing in front of me was surprising but i think someone might think twice....maybe dont conceal them....
ReplyDeleteyou really think the NRA is a "whore" 2:25? well i guess you would know.
ReplyDeleteAs I said earlier, 5:10, people with limited experience, limited vocabularies and a general inability to argue substance (other commenters made the effort to do that)resort to name-calling. Try reading some publications and watching some news shows that DON'T agree with your point of view and you'll see that the NRA is nothing but a shill for the gun industry.
ReplyDeleteAnd the ACLU is nothing but a shill for free speach. And I would ask where do you get your info CNN ABC MSNBC. Now if you look a couple stories down look at how bad things got other places in the world when they take away guns.If you base the argument on facts not emotions you have nothing to stand on.
ReplyDeleteThis was on an Army base where I imagine, plenty of folks were armed. Just this week, a guy managed to shoot 3 New Jersey Police officers in their own Police station. Not saying that an armed population won't reduce some deaths but it is naive to think that this is the only solution to the problem.
ReplyDeleteDecember 29, 2012 10:04 AM
People on an army base don't usually walk around armed. Unless they are training, MP's or on special detail most likely they are just in uniform doing their jobs.
And as for the cops, if you have gotten the drop on someone it doesn't matter if they are carrying two guns. A bullet moves a whole lot faster than a hand to a holster.
And I doubt in either case he gave any warning.
Queensgirl and 10:04 are delusional, brainwashed, ignorant of our history, and ignorant of the REAL world. Bet you thought that when the National Guard is deployed to disaster areas to stop looting and crime that they actually are given BULLETS. LOL. They are not. They have the M-16's but their commanders aren't giving them bullets because they don't want to explain why an E-2 shot three teenagers who were stealing a TV. Weapons on a military base are STRICTLY controlled. No one is allowed to walk around "strapped". Further, there is a HUGE difference between shooting at a cop (the good guys?) and shooting at his house while he is watching TV or in bed. The cops have a hard time (just like you or I would) "deterring" someone who shoots at our house while we sleep. And queensgirl has NO IDEA (quite obviously) why Jefferson and his friends put the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights. CLUE, queensgirl --- it WASN'T for "hunters" or "self-defense". It was put there to make sure the government could be resisted by the people. Read some history and learn some "substance" instead of spouting off what the latest uninformed MSNBC sissy blathers on about...
ReplyDelete