Attention

The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not represent our advertisers

Thursday, November 22, 2018

John Lott On Why Mass Shooters Go To Gun Free Zones

Almost every gun debate hinges on the subject of mass shootings. It’s almost as if crime is no longer an issue anymore, what with all the focus on these mass killings. In fairness, they’re horrific, and they seem to be happening all too often for anyone’s comfort.

However, as most gun folks have pointed out in debates, there’s a fact that is constantly ignored, and that’s how most of these things happen in gun free zones.

John Lott, writing at the Chicago Tribune, has some thoughts on why that is.

While Americans are rightly concerned by the increased frequency and severity of mass public shootings, the rest of the world is experiencing much larger increases in per capita rates of attack. The frequency of foreign mass public shootings since 1998 has grown 291 percent faster than in the U.S.

The media bias on this is overwhelming. Even after President Donald Trump again raised the danger of gun-free zones, the news media still refuse to mention this fact in its reporting of mass shootings. The attack earlier this month at Borderline Bar & Grill occurred in a gun-free zone. Unlike in 39 states, concealed handgun permit holders in California are banned from carrying permitted concealed handguns into bars. The mass shooting Monday at Chicago’s Mercy Hospital & Medical Center in Bronzeville was at a place where law-abiding citizens were banned from having guns.

Most gunmen are smart enough to know that they can kill more people if they attack places where victims can’t defend themselves. That’s one reason why 98 percent of mass public shootings since 1950 have occurred in places where citizens are banned from having guns.

More

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

I read an article the other day where mass shootings were prevented, 89% of the time it was because someone other than the shooter was armed. It didn't specify if the person other than the shooter fired his/her weapon, if the person was law enforcement or civilian. Bottom line, it was prevented because someone other than the shooter was there and armed. Think about that for a moment will ya?