I haven’t found a single case where gun control advocates’ fears were borne out by the facts.  In not one of these cases did a permit holder accidentally shoot a bystander, or a police officer accidentally harm a permit holder.

There are many more of these cases. Imagine how different the gun control debate would be if  some of these heroic permit holders got national coverage. But even the liquor store shooting in Conyers, Georgia couldn’t get national coverage, despite being caught on video.

The more you learn about these cases, the more you appreciate that mass public shooters have good reason to keep attacking gun-free zones.  These killers might be crazy, but they aren’t stupid.  They realize that the longer it takes for a good guy to arrive with a gun, the more people they can kill.

John R. Lott
November 12, 2017
Good guys with guns saving lives
[We need to eliminate “gun-free” zones and prosecute the perpetrators who created these killing fields.—Joe]

Do you believe that you are forbidden to protect yourself because the police are better qualified to protect you, because they know what they are doing but you’re a rank amateur? Put aside that this is equivalent to believing that only concert pianists may play the piano and only professional athletes may play sports. What exactly are these special qualities possessed only by the police and beyond the rest of us mere mortals?

Jeff Snyder
2001
Nation of Cowards page 19
[This essay was originally published in 1993 by The Public Interest.

The first question is semi-serious. The second is, obviously, a rhetorical question but to answer it anyway, “None.”—Joe]

The government passing more firearms laws is not going to “do something” other than infringe on a constitutional right. This is because no gun control law in the U.S. has been proven to reduce gun crime. I often debate gun control advocates and repeatedly ask them to tell me what law, at any level of government, has resulted in a reduction of gun crimes. They can never answer that question.

Emily Miller
November 7, 2017
How to Respond to Those Who Want to ‘Do Something’ After Texas Shooting
[It’s a variation of Just one question.—Joe]

For decades researchers have found that many Americans do not understand how strict gun control laws already are. Some elected officials and journalists are similarly misinformed. Widespread ignorance about existing law makes things easier for anti-gun lobbyists who always insist that every notorious crime proves that we need more gun control laws.

David Kopel and Joseph Geenlee
November 8, 2017
What if there were serious gun controls?
[“Many”? How about “the vast majority”?

Other than that it’s a pretty decent opinion piece, but that is as you would expect from Kopel.

Anti-gun people prey on the ignorance of the public.—Joe]

Is your life worth protecting? If so, whose responsibility is it to protect it? If you believe that it is the police’s, not only are you wrong — since the courts universally rule that they have no legal obligation to do so — but you face some difficult moral quandaries. How can you rightfully ask another human being to risk his life to protect yours, when you will assume no responsibility yourself? Because that is his job and we pay him to do it? Because your life is of incalculable value, but his is only worth the $30,000 salary we pay him? If you believe it reprehensible to possess the means and will to use lethal force to repel a criminal assault, how can you call upon another to do so for you?

Jeff Snyder
2001
Nation of Cowards pages 18 and 19
[This essay was originally published in 1993 by The Public Interest.

If I could get an anti-gun person to read just one book it would be Nation of Cowards: Essays on the Ethics of Gun Control. I’m thinking I should buy a few copies and have them handy to give out.—Joe]