Guns stop mass shooters

A good case could be made that the more people that have guns the less likely mass shootings are to occur. It a little tough to do the experiment because how do you know of a mass shooting was stopped because more people have guns?

But there is evidence even if we can’t do a fully controlled experiment like we would like. There are a number of cases listed here (H/T to John Lott) where the bad guy left a note or had made a modest start toward challenging previous mass shooting body counts when they were stopped by someone with a CCW and a gun.

There is also evidence presented in John Lott’s book, More Guns, Less Crime as well. In the first edition (not sure about later revisions) the number of mass shootings prior to allowing people to exercise their right to keep and bear arms in public (no CCW) there were a modest number of mass shootings, then after passage of right to carry laws the mass shootings in that political jurisdiction went to zero. This was prior to the Gabby Giffords shooting which, of course, was in the gun friendly state of Arizona. But given that one exception when mass shooting occurs you can make a very safe bet that it happened in a “Gun Free Zone”.

It’s time to stop the mass shootings. We must stop government from infringing on our rights.

10 thoughts on “Guns stop mass shooters

  1. The Gifford case was only half an exception — it was a democratic party gathering, after all, which is the closest thing you can find to a “gun free zone” in a right to carry state.
    Another part of the problem is that some places are posted “no guns allowed”. I would argue those signs should have the same legal status as “no blacks allowed” signs. In other words, they should be held unenforceable. Yes, that might arguably infringe on the private property rights of the owner. If you want to be a stickler for that, an alternative would be to allow such signs along with liability for the consequences. (For example, the owner of that Aurora cinema would be liable to his victims.)

    http://www.scottbieser.com/sept11.html is one of the best illustrations of all this.

  2. There is another exception, the IHOP shooting in Carson City. Not as clear cut though because while it not a “gun free zone” , most of the victims were prohibited from having weapons due to their being “on duty” w/ the Nevada National Guard at the time.

  3. What about the shooting of the four cops in the coffee shop in Washington state? That wasn’t a gun free zone. If I had some time, I could put together a bigger list for you of mass shootings that did not take place in gun free zones. The list is much longer than you think.

    • Um, Mr. Ha, what’s your point? That the guns at Ft. Hood did not stop the terrorist?

      Perhaps you forgot that military installations are “gun free zones”. Or rather, disarmed victim zones. That’s federal policy, established by Bill Clinton.

      Just as at the Navy yard, everyone at Ft. Hood was disarmed. The shooter wasn’t taken down by military personnel — it took (civilian) police to do that.

      • The Navy Yard wasn’t a gun free zone. The shooter shot a guard and took his gun which would have been impossible in a “gun free” zone. (Just because everyone present doesn’t have a gun doesn’t make an area a “gun free zone.”)

        • Garbage. You’re abusing the term. “Gun free zone” is a liberal codeword for what is actually a “Disarmed Victim Zone”. It means a place where the human right to self defense has been abolished.
          The fact that one or two rent-a-cops might have a weapon is utterly irrelevant. What is relevant is that the victims were disarmed by the government, which for that reason has their blood on its hands.

    • You are absolutely right.

      Apartments aren’t gun free zones, as the term is -actually- used, as opposed to your deliberate and puerile misuse, because the residents of an apartment have the -choice- to arm themselves for protection or not.

      In a “gun free zone,” people, who in other places have the right to choose for themselves whether to be armed for their own protection, are denied that choice by the property owner or others in authority.

      You seem to enjoy puerile wanna-be “gotcha” comments, but I’m not sure why: given that they make you look anything but clever.

Comments are closed.