Its really not that hard if you look at the facts!
As we look back at the locations mass murderers, or would be mass murderers, choose to attack, the number of times a “gun free zone” is chosen over an alternative location is staggering. This should not be a surprise to anyone with a basic understanding of human behavior. Do mass murders consciously choose to attack unarmed citizens? Of course they do! Why would anyone with any common sense and even a basic grasp of risk choose to attack armed citizens if they had an unarmed group that could meet their goals?
We like to write off mass murders as insane. Most likely they are, but that does not mean they are incapable of calculation and lack common sense. When we look at serial killers, we expect detailed and extensive planning to avoid detection, which is unfortunately too often successful for years. Mass murders are no less capable of rational thought and evaluation of risk. While the motivations of theses two different killers may be grossly different, insanity does not limit their ability to assess risk.
We see evidence of planning, collection of supplies and even evidence of surveillance and practice. To assume that the only random act in these people’s repertoire is the choice of location is asinine. The chances of this many gun free zones being chosen over other available attack sites randomly – is as close to zero as probability will allow. Mass murders are attracted to gun free zones – period.
In John Lott’s study and subsequently published book More Guns Less Crime, we see the statistical impact on criminal behavior of concealed carry. As concealed carry increases, violent crime is reduced. This study has been picked apart, reproduced and lambasted by a variety of economists on the other side of the argument, and not one has found a different result. Criminal behavior is impacted by the potential of armed citizens. The higher the probability a criminal has of encountering an armed victim, the less often they choose to commit crime.
The basic laws of supply and demand drive human behavior – even criminal behavior. While there has not been a quality study of the impact of open carry that I am aware of, you will not see the same result. If open carry were to increase, this merely gives criminals the ability to more accurately assess risk. This is highly unlikely to decrease total crime. It is the inability to accurately assess risk that reduces the incentive to commit crime.
The elimination of gun free zones, and increase in the volume of armed citizens carrying a concealed firearm will force potential criminals to accept more risk than they do now. That increased risk will reduce the incentive, which will reduce the incident rate. The time to argue against science is past. Despite Mr. Bloomberg’s penchant for funding the fabrication of numbers to support his earth is flat gun agenda, the fact is that gun free zones attract mass murderers and unarmed citizens attract criminals.
This has only looked at the deterrent effect. We’ve seen that what stops active shooters is an armed person willing and able to confront them. Time and time again, they are shot, surrender or take their own lives in the face of armed resistance. Common sense? How about simply looking at the facts. How many more of our countrymen will be sacrificed on the altar of “common sense gun control”?
~ Patrick Henry