"Gun Free" Zone

[A Mafan]

Link (the article has some live links for references at this source)

 

When Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan started shooting up the Soldier Readiness Processing Center at Fort Hood, Pfc. Marquest Smith dove under a desk. A.P. reports that ¡°he lay low for several minutes, waiting for the shooter to run out of ammunition and wishing he, too, had a gun.¡±

 

Neither Smith nor the other victims of Hasan¡¯s assault had guns because soldiers on military bases within the United States generally are not supposed to carry them. Last week¡¯s shootings, which killed 13 people and wounded more than 30, demonstrated once again the folly of ¡°gun-free zones,¡± which attract and assist people bent on mass murder instead of deterring them.

 

Judging from the comments of those who support this policy of victim disarmament, Smith¡¯s desire for a gun was irrational. According to Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, ¡°This latest tragedy, at a heavily fortified army base, ought to convince more Americans to reject the argument that the solution to gun violence is to arm more people with more guns in more places.¡±

 

Note how the reference to ¡°a heavily fortified army base¡± obscures the crucial point that the people attacked by Hasan were unarmed as a matter of policy. Also note the breathtaking inanity of Helmke¡¯s assurance that ¡°more guns¡± are not ¡°the solution to gun violence.¡± In this case, they assuredly were.

 

The first people with guns to confront Hasan, two local police officers, were the ones who put a stop to his rampage. And while Sgt. Kim Munley and Sgt. Mark Todd acted heroically, they did not arrive on the scene until a crucial 10 minutes or so had elapsed and Hasan had fired more than 100 rounds.

 

If someone else at the processing center had a gun when Hasan started shooting, it seems likely that fewer people would have been killed or injured. Furthermore, the knowledge that some of his victims would be armed might have led him to choose a different, softer target in order to maximize the impact of his attack.

 

There would have been plenty of targets to choose from: any of the locations in Texas, including public schools, universities, and shopping malls, that advertise their prohibition of gun possession. The problem is that crazed killers tend not to follow such rules.

 

That problem was vividly illustrated by the second deadliest mass shooting in U.S. history, which occurred in Killeen, Texas, a stone¡¯s throw from Fort Hood. In 1991 George Jo Hennard drove his pickup truck through the window of a Luby¡¯s cafeteria in Killeen, jumped out, and began firing two pistols at the defenseless customers and employees inside, killing 23 of them.

 

One customer, Suzanna Hupp, saw Hennard gun down her parents. Hupp later testified that she had brought a handgun with her that day but, to her bitter regret, left it in her car, as required by state law. The massacre led the Texas legislature to approve a ¡°shall issue¡± law that allows any resident who meets certain objective criteria to obtain a concealed carry permit.

 

But people with such permits are still barred from bringing their weapons into areas designated as gun-free zones. And when a killer fires on people he knows will be unarmed, it matters little whether he has 20-round or 10-round magazines, a detail emphasized in press coverage of the Fort Hood massacre. The second or two it takes to switch magazines is a minor nuisance when the people you are shooting at cannot shoot back.

 

Even less relevant is the allegation that Hasan used illegal armor-piercing ammunition. The Brady Campaign bizarrely chose to highlight that claim even though there was no indication that any of Hasan¡¯s victims were wearing bullet-proof vests, let alone that his bullets penetrated them. Perhaps the group hoped that such puzzling illogic would distract people from the plain fact that having a gun is better than not having one when you are confronted by a homicidal maniac.

 

Jacob Sullum is a senior editor at Reason and a nationally syndicated columnist.

Edited November 11, 2009 by A Mafan (see edit history)

[Chad]

But but guns are bad! Guns Kill!

[dnoblett]

It is a sad day when soldiers in the military, people trained to use guns and proper safety, are not allowed to carry a tool of their profession at work.

 

Yep probably less would have died had they been armed.

Edited November 11, 2009 by dnoblett (see edit history)

[lostinblue]

It is a sad day when soldiers in the military, people trained to use guns and proper safety, are not allowed to carry a tool of their profession at work.

 

Yep probably less would have died had they been armed.

If every person was armed in that building I doubt this would of even happened.

[dnoblett]

I shudder to think another gun rights topic is on its way. Difficult subject. It's true from what I have read that a gun in the home is the one used to shoot a family member. I've also read that in areas where guns are common, crime rates are down. Sometimes I wonder if everyone packed a gun whether people would be more civil to each other?

 

In this case, I think it's sad one of the cops didn't go Chinese and make sure there would be no trial.

This is the case in Switzerland.

 

Guns are deeply rooted within Swiss culture - but the gun crime rate is so low that statistics are not even kept.

 

The country has a population of six million, but there are estimated to be at least two million publicly-owned firearms, including about 600,000 automatic rifles and 500,000 pistols.

 

Few restrictions

 

In addition to the government-provided arms, there are few restrictions on buying weapons. Some cantons restrict the carrying of firearms - others do not.

 

The government even sells off surplus weaponry to the general public when new equipment is introduced.

 

Guns and shooting are popular national pastimes. More than 200,000 Swiss attend national annual marksmanship competitions.

 

But despite the wide ownership and availability of guns, violent crime is extremely rare. There are only minimal controls at public buildings and politicians rarely have police protection.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/1566715.stm

[3timescharm]

I shudder to think another gun rights topic is on its way. Difficult subject. It's true from what I have read that a gun in the home is the one used to shoot a family member. I've also read that in areas where guns are common, crime rates are down. Sometimes I wonder if everyone packed a gun whether people would be more civil to each other?

 

In this case, I think it's sad one of the cops didn't go Chinese and make sure there would be no trial.

The is a town here in the Atlanta area where it is the LAW. Every home is by law supposed to have a gun. Kenesaw has one of the lowest crime rate in GA. Not sure if everyone follows the law but......the low crime rate speaks for itself

[samsong]

I shudder to think another gun rights topic is on its way. Difficult subject. It's true from what I have read that a gun in the home is the one used to shoot a family member. I've also read that in areas where guns are common, crime rates are down. Sometimes I wonder if everyone packed a gun whether people would be more civil to each other?

 

In this case, I think it's sad one of the cops didn't go Chinese and make sure there would be no trial.

... and make his aunt and uncle pay for the bullet.

[se_lang]

I shudder to think another gun rights topic is on its way. Difficult subject. It's true from what I have read that a gun in the home is the one used to shoot a family member. I've also read that in areas where guns are common, crime rates are down. Sometimes I wonder if everyone packed a gun whether people would be more civil to each other?

 

In this case, I think it's sad one of the cops didn't go Chinese and make sure there would be no trial.

I belong to another forum that is about concealed carry, I enjoy the debate here, you have different view points over there they all agree.

[A Mafan]

I shudder to think another gun rights topic is on its way. Difficult subject. It's true from what I have read that a gun in the home is the one used to shoot a family member. I've also read that in areas where guns are common, crime rates are down. Sometimes I wonder if everyone packed a gun whether people would be more civil to each other?

 

In this case, I think it's sad one of the cops didn't go Chinese and make sure there would be no trial.

A death is a tragedy. It doesn't make it more of a tragedy if it is caused by a gun.

 

In the US, more children die of drowning in a pool than getting shot by guns.

 

And more than half of all murders in the US are with things like hammers, baseball bats, knives, bricks, etc.

 

The most difficult thing to consider is: would this death/murder have occurred without a gun available?

Sometimes the answer is no. Most of the time, however, I think the answer is yes: murderous rage or narcissism doesn't need a gun to act out.

 

Then again, one of the things I struggle with is:

Guns are, sort of, the great equalizer.

It doesn't matter if you are a 4'11" 80 pound female or a 6'5" Navy Seal cage fighter...you have the deterrence that comes from a few pounds of pressure from a trigger finger.

 

The problem is when only one side has a gun.

 

Most of the time, the presence of a gun is a deterrence to violence. The presence of a gun on each side is even more of a deterrence. But when it fails to deter violence, the violence is worse.

 

And when someone wants to kill, a gun allows them to kill people outside of arm's length.

 

Yet it is a gun that is the best way to stop someone intending to kill...there are increasing examples of people using knives to murder 5-6 people in places like Taiwan and China.

 

On the other hand, Baghdad on 18 August and 25 October showed that there are ways to kill far more destructive than a pistol.

 

Myself, I want the right to own and carry a weapon for my own defense, whether or not I actually decide it is a good idea to do so.

[warpedbored]

If you break down the causes of firearm deaths in America there is little evidence that a gun in your home will protect you. The vast majority of gun deaths are suicide followed by homicide. I would imagine that a large percentage of homicides were committed by family members in the home. Crime prevention is less than 2 %.

http://www.publicagenda.org/files/charts/ff_crime_causes_firearm_deaths.png

[se_lang]

If you break down the causes of firearm deaths in America there is little evidence that a gun in your home will protect you. The vast majority of gun deaths are suicide followed by homicide. I would imagine that a large percentage of homicides were committed by family members in the home. Crime prevention is less than 2 %.

http://www.publicagenda.org/files/charts/ff_crime_causes_firearm_deaths.png

 

 

and yet

http://www.publicagenda.org/files/charts/pcc_crime_dangerous.png

[knloregon]

"...Yet it is a gun that is the best way to stop someone intending to kill...there are increasing examples of people using knives to murder 5-6 people in places like Taiwan and China..."

 

And that weapon of choice for mass killing (in the absence of guns) in PRC ---- Dynamite.... I guess its been 5 + years since the last major case, a spurned lover as I recall, blew up a whole city block to make sure he killed the girl of his dreams----gone sour..

 

And as an addition to the how Chinese deal with crime thread---- it was in a coal mining area, where local merchants routinely sell dynamite to small operators of illegal mining operations.

 

...the killer came in asking for dynamite for that purpose, the shop owner sold it to him... After the explosion, the sale was traced back to the shop owner, who was then arrested, convicted, and sentenced to death----which was carried out......

 

Yeah, thats justice, alright.....

[warpedbored]

A Gallop poll is people's opinions not statistical fact. All the leading studies say a gun in your home does not make you safer.

 

For the record I am not against owning firearms. I myself have owned several. The second amendment should be kept intact. I also believe that guns should be kept under lock and key in your home.

[b.c]

If you break down the causes of firearm deaths in America there is little evidence that a gun in your home will protect you. The vast majority of gun deaths are suicide followed by homicide. I would imagine that a large percentage of homicides were committed by family members in the home. Crime prevention is less than 2 %.

http://www.publicagenda.org/files/charts/ff_crime_causes_firearm_deaths.png

 

Now that is interesting.

 

Edit: Never mind, I get it now. followed by...meaning the 2nd leading cause. Ok, I had a mental relapse.

Edited November 12, 2009 by bcco (see edit history)

[michaln]

its too bad this nut case did not go with the 55.4% majority