John Lott Gets It Right Again - from Fox news

[IDPA Shooter]

The horrible tragedy at the Westroads Mall in Omaha, Neb. received a lot of attention Wednesday and Thursday. It should have. Eight people were killed, and five were wounded.

A Google news search using the phrase "Omaha Mall Shooting" finds an incredible 2,794 news stories worldwide for the last day. From India and Taiwan to Britain and Austria, there are probably few people in the world who haven’t heard about this tragedy.

But despite the massive news coverage, none of the media coverage, at least by 10 a.m. Thursday, mentioned this central fact: Yet another attack occurred in a gun-free zone.

Surely, with all the reporters who appear at these crime scenes and seemingly interview virtually everyone there, why didn’t one simply mention the signs that ban guns from the premises?

Nebraska allows people to carry permitted concealed handguns, but it allows property owners, such as the Westroads Mall, to post signs banning permit holders from legally carrying guns on their property.

The same was true for the attack at the Trolley Square Mall in Utah in February (a copy of the sign at the mall can be seen here). But again the media coverage ignored this fact. Possibly the ban there was even more noteworthy because the off-duty police officer who stopped the attack fortunately violated the ban by taking his gun in with him when he went shopping.

Yet even then, the officer "was at the opposite end and on a different floor of the convoluted Trolley Square complex when the shooting began. By the time he became aware of the shooting and managed to track down and confront Talovic [the killer], three minutes had elapsed."

There are plenty of cases every year where permit holders stop what would have been multiple victim shootings every year, but they rarely receive any news coverage. Take a case this year in Memphis, where WBIR-TV reported a gunman started "firing a pistol beside a busy city street" and was stopped by two permit holders before anyone was harmed.

When will part of the media coverage on these multiple-victim public shootings be whether guns were banned where the attack occurred? While the media has begun to cover whether teachers can have guns at school or the almost 8,000 college students across the country who protested gun-free zones on their campuses, the media haven’t started checking what are the rules where these attacks occur.

Surely, the news stories carry detailed information on the weapon used (in this case, a rifle) and the number of ammunition clips (apparently, two). But if these aspects of the story are deemed important for understanding what happened, why isn’t it also important that the attack occurred where guns were banned? Isn’t it important to know why all the victims were disarmed?

Few know that Dylan Klebold, one of the two Columbine killers, closely was following Colorado legislation that would have allowed citizens to carry a concealed handgun. Klebold strongly opposed the legislation and openly talked about it.

No wonder, as the bill being debated would have allowed permitted guns to be carried on school property. It is quite a coincidence that he attacked the Columbine High School the very day the legislature was scheduled to vote on the bill.

Despite the lack of news coverage, people are beginning to notice what research has shown for years: Multiple-victim public shootings keep occurring in places where guns already are banned. Forty states have broad right-to-carry laws, but even within these states it is the "gun-free zones," not other public places, where the attacks happen.

People know the list: Virginia Tech saw 32 murdered earlier this year; the Columbine High School shooting left 13 murdered in 1999; Luby's Cafeteria in Killeen, Texas, had 23 who were fatally shot by a deranged man in 1991; and a McDonald's in Southern California had 21 people shot dead by an unemployed security guard in 1984.

All these attacks — indeed, all attacks involving more than a small number of people being killed — happened in gun-free zones.

In recent years, similar attacks have occurred across the world, including in Australia, France, Germany and Britain. Do all these countries lack enough gun-control laws? Hardly. The reverse is more accurate.

The law-abiding, not criminals, are obeying the rules. Disarming the victims simply means that the killers have less to fear. As Wednesday's attack demonstrated yet again, police are important, but they almost always arrive at the crime scene after the crime has occurred.

The longer it takes for someone to arrive on the scene with a gun, the more people who will be harmed by such an attack.

Most people understand that guns deter criminals. If a killer were stalking your family, would you feel safer putting a sign out front announcing, "This Home Is a Gun-Free Zone"? But that is what the Westroads Mall did.

John Lott is the author of Freedomnomics, upon which this piece draws, and a senior research scholar at the University of Maryland.

[brauchma]

Yup...I wish the media would wake up, or that we could have a segment of the media that talks about this. I wonder what the Freedomnomics book is like?

[hammAR]

...and the response by the law makers is to yet again to attack the symptoms, as well as the legimitate carry and use of weapons. They will pass new laws increasing security, guards at the entrances, physical searches, metal detectors, etc......with the net result to further restrict and limit the ability of the "good guys" to carry a weapon, protect themselves and possibly others, and to enrich the target rich zones for someone that WILL figure out how to get a weapon inside to do their deed, regardless of the new laws........

[cobb]

They will pass new laws increasing security, guards at the entrances, physical searches, metal detectors, etc......

And while they are doing this, all the sheeple are standing in a formed line, a concentrated area, what more could a suicide shooter wish for as he waits in line with his tools of death. They have just put the fish in the barrel for the shooter.

[IDPA Shooter]

Yup...I wish the media would wake up, or that we could have a segment of the media that talks about this. I wonder what the Freedomnomics book is like?

His book is awesome, very clearly written and well researched. I've always been interested in Economics and my son did doctoral work in econ. He agrees that Lott is a scholar, but then my son is also conservative, something the academic community frowns on at best.

[chunkstyle]

It's simple. We need national enabling legislation for the Second Amendment. All state and local laws should be preempted, and the right to carry a weapon should be guaranteed, as the law of the land. We can't head off every sick teenager in America, but when a deranged nut shows up at a public place and starts shooting, we can give the innocent, law-abiding people there a fighting chance. No more should "gun-free" zones become killing fields.

No more San Ysidro McDonalds. (21 dead)
No more Luby's Restaurants. (23 dead)
No more Columbines. (13 dead)
No more Virginia Techs. (32 dead)
No more Westroads Malls. (9 dead)
No more.

[GregM]

Metal detectors and X-ray machines are used in courthouses and airports because their customers are obliged to put up with the inconvenience. But mall owners couldn't get away with it because shoppers would just go to stores where they didn't have to undress to get inside.

We need laws that require a mall to employ security officers --- lots of them --- who are armed and carefully trained to monitor large crowds. Like the men and women who patrol Israeli airports. Even if a mall had to raise rents to pay for such a security force, and the stores jacked up their prices to offset their costs, shoppers wouldn't hesitate to pay a little more for their toys and entertainment.

And the malls could keep their stupid "Gun Free Zone" signs for the comfort of the feeble-minded.

[JoeH]

We need laws that require a mall to employ security officers --- lots of them --- who are armed and carefully trained to monitor large crowds... And the malls could keep their stupid "Gun Free Zone" signs for the comfort of the feeble-minded.

IMHO, we DO NOT need more laws (equals more government). Places like malls need to stop posting. We need to get >5% of the population "carrying".

Let's stand up and fix this as a people and not give the government more power and control over our lives.

[westberg]

It's simple. We need national enabling legislation for the Second Amendment. All state and local laws should be preempted, and the right to carry a weapon should be guaranteed, as the law of the land.

I'm in agreement in principle, but as the saying goes be careful what you wish for. I would have to bet that by the time some kind of law like this was passed it would be so restrictive we wouldn't be able to carry anywhere. If it was similar to MN that would be great, but I don't think it would be as good.

Ron

[hammAR]

I agree wholeheartedly Joe, and partially with Greg, except for this part:

We need laws that require a mall to employ security officers --- lots of them --- who are armed and carefully trained to monitor large crowds. Like the men and women who patrol Israeli airports. Even if a mall had to raise rents to pay for such a security force, and the stores jacked up their prices to offset their costs, shoppers wouldn't hesitate to pay a little more for their toys and entertainment.

Out of 300 Million people in this country, why do we need to laws to lock down, pay for, and secure malls and schools, just because we have had what less than 100 people killed nationwide in the past two years, with less than 10 bad guys.........give me a break, that is pure and unadulterated selling and marketing FEAR.

This isn't F'n Israel, and IF they would indeed get rid of the "Gun Free Zone" we could keep the numbers stable or reduce them. Arming the malls like Israel is not going to stop the mad muslem fanatic anyhow. SO what do we want to give up further freedom, rights, and privileges for less than 10 BGs, as well as pass laws to engorge the ranks of security guards amongst the general population for anyhow...................

[JoeH]

It's simple. We need national enabling legislation for the Second Amendment. All state and local laws should be preempted, and the right to carry a weapon should be guaranteed, as the law of the land.

I'm in agreement in principle, but as the saying goes be careful what you wish for. I would have to bet that by the time some kind of law like this was passed it would be so restrictive we wouldn't be able to carry anywhere. If it was similar to MN that would be great, but I don't think it would be as good.

Ron

Agreed, having a National law that is exactly the way we want it would be great. But as Ron said, that ain't gonna happen.

These things should be left up to the States. Plus, changing 50 laws is a lot more difficult than changing 1 law. My concern is that a National law could go bye-bye real fast.

[justaguy]

I agree we don’t need more laws we need less dumb laws (no guns signs). Their answer would be to spend a lot of money on sht that doesn’t matter. I would be willing to bet that the day that mall opened back up there were a bunch of un armed rentacops standing around. In the end we financially foot the bill for dumb laws.

[IDPA Shooter]

I agree we don’t need more laws we need less dumb laws (no guns signs). Their answer would be to spend a lot of money on sht that doesn’t matter. I would be willing to bet that the day that mall opened back up there were a bunch of un armed rentacops standing around. In the end we financially foot the bill for dumb laws.

I'm sure there were rent a cops, but I wonder if they were armed or there guns would be loaded. I remember Jessie calling out the MN NG after 911 and feeling "safer" seeing the armed National Guard troops at the airport. Found out later their guns were not loaded, only the officers side arms.

Ask any pilot how easy it is today to qualify as a Federal Flight Deck Officer so they can be armed in the cockpit. It is extremely difficult to get approved and yet most commercial pilots tend to be stable, responsible types, right?

[GregM]

I agree wholeheartedly Joe, and partially with Greg, except for this part:

We need laws that require a mall to employ security officers --- lots of them --- who are armed and carefully trained to monitor large crowds. Like the men and women who patrol Israeli airports. Even if a mall had to raise rents to pay for such a security force, and the stores jacked up their prices to offset their costs, shoppers wouldn't hesitate to pay a little more for their toys and entertainment.

Out of 300 Million people in this country, why do we need to laws to lock down, pay for, and secure malls and schools, just because we have had what less than 100 people killed nationwide in the past two years, with less than 10 bad guys.........give me a break, that is pure and unadulterated selling and marketing FEAR.

This isn't F'n Israel, and IF they would indeed get rid of the "Gun Free Zone" we could keep the numbers stable or reduce them. Arming the malls like Israel is not going to stop the mad muslem fanatic anyhow. SO what do we want to give up further freedom, rights, and privileges for less than 10 BGs, as well as pass laws to engorge the ranks of security guards amongst the general population for anyhow...................

OK, OK ... this reminds me of the heated debate on the TCC forum about what each of would do if a gunman started shooting people at a mall. Some said they would draw their weapons and go after the bad guy, but others said they would run for the nearest exit, dragging their families behind them.

We armed civilians are a tiny minority in Minnesota, and I don't expect that picture to change in my lifetime. Even if one of us is at a mall when the lead starts flying, will that person fight or run? It's his choice and there are good arguments on both sides. We really can't rely on him to go charging into battle. I would sooner entrust that job to a professional security officer who is trained and equipped to hunt down and kill armed criminals.

As for marketing fear ... yes, I am afraid. So we've lost fewer than 100 people to deranged gunmen. Does that mean we don't have to worry? How many is too many?

We are not Israel, but we'd better start thinking like Israel. The barbarians are here, and we are fish in a barrel.

[hammAR]

Greg, my intent and response was not intended to ID you as an alarmist. I am just concerned with the rapidity of law makers to implement new laws utilizing significantly insignificant statistics to justify them. Richard Reed, one idiot-one time, now we have millions being imposed upon with "shoe security" at the airports because of ONE incident.

I'm also not going to rehash the "other board" battles. Everyone is different, trained differently, and have a different mindset, that is fine, just like we all have different opinions and views of things in general. I am not intending to argue, just present something to think about. I personally will not get so afraid that it in effect paralyzes, I would rather be aware and incrementally heighten and intensify my situational awareness.

We need to un-bundle things here and not incorporate them into a single one size fits all solution. The random public shooter is usually but not always a single shooter and is a different animal that the terrorists. And yes we have had less than 10 in 6 or 7 separate events over two years that killed less that 100 people. The 20 terrorists took out 3,000 in a single well organized, uniform multi-point event. The terrorist will plan far better, have multiple shooters, bombs, etc. in multiple locations to cause wide spread panic and cause funneling for maximum effect. They will know and care that there are "security" personnel and will probably take the time to single them out and eliminate them.

However, in either case, could a bunch of carrying civilians have an effect, I would like to think so, and probably a much better chance than every-day security personnel, as we will not put Sky Marshall's or Delta troops at every mall and school in the US of A...............

NOTE: This time I used the winky...........