Newest Fox News piece: Memo to gun-control advocates: Even Elliot Rodger believed guns would have deterred him
The newest Fox News piece starts this way:
How can we prevent mass murderers? Elliot Rodger, the 22-year-old who killed six innocent people this past Friday in California, is causing everyone to ask that question, yet again.
Rodger spent over a year and a half meticulously planning his attack.
His 141-page “manifesto” makes it clear that he feared someone with a gun could stop him before he was able to kill a lot of people.
Consider his discussion about where he thought the best place to attack people was:
“Another option was Deltopia, a day in which many young people pour in from all over the state to have a spring break party on Del Playa Street. I figured this would be the perfect day to attack Isla Vista, but after watching Youtube videos of previous Deltopia parties, I saw that there were way too many cops walking around on such an event. It would be impossible to kill enough of my enemies before being dispatched by those damnable cops.”
Many gun-control advocates have long dismissed the notion that guns can deter these killers. . . . .
Labels: multiplevictimpublicshooters, op-ed
posted by John Lott at 5:49 PM
9 Comments:
If guns had deterred Eliot Rodger...how many other shootings would all these guns around have lead to?
Gun advocates pretend these deterents are always perfect and that they exist in a vacuum. But what are the unintended consequences?
Clearly, they are not more mass spree killings, as those are nearly always in "gun free zones".
As was explored in Don Kates 1976 book, Handgun Control, the Liberal Skeptics Speak Out, the people least likely to be affected by gun control are those who are most likely to abuse the use of guns.
As far less than 1% of guns are used in crime in a year, you would have to remove the vast majority of guns from society to make a significant dent in their use in crime. It has not happened anywhere it has been tried. Certainly not in England, where they have a much higher rate of homicide and gun homicide than they did before they started their push for citizen disarmament, around 1920.
"An analysis from Mayors Against Illegal Guns found that fewer than one quarter of mass shootings in public spaces from January 2009 through January 2013 occurred in gun-free zones."
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/09/17/the-growing-myth-of-mass-shootings-and-gun-free/195927
Certainly not in England, where they have a much higher rate of homicide and gun homicide than they did before they started their push for citizen disarmament, around 1920.
Failing to correct for the changes in gun technology since then make this statement scientifically meaningless.
"Scientifically meaningless" is interesting. Why do you say that?
Dear David Appell:
1) "what are the unintended consequences?" To answer that you would have to look at the behavior of concealed handgun permit holders and what you find is that they are extremely law-abiding.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/06/23/john-lott-gun-control-brady-campaign-violence-policy-center-defense-shooting/
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/376745/bogus-gun-control-numbers-john-r-lott-jr
2) Gun-free zones (Seriously, you really should try a little time looking at the websites that you post things before you post them).
http://johnrlott.blogspot.com/2012/09/mother-jones-and-media-matters-bungle.html
3) "Failing to correct for the changes in gun technology since then make this statement scientifically meaningless."
David, it isn't just the change before and after 1920 or the change before and after 1956, but also the change in murder rates before and after 1997. Was there a significant change in gun technology before and after 1997?
http://crimepreventionresearchcenter.org/2013/12/murder-and-homicide-rates-before-and-after-gun-bans/
David, when I have read your writing you seemed like a smart guy and I expected much more from you in terms of the quality of your comments. Instead, you actually just cite places such as Media Matters and don't appear to have any knowledge that there are huge errors in what they put up.
I gave a reason that led to "scientfically meaningless."
Dear Mr. Lott,
Thank you for posting.
I am pursuing a second bachelors degree as part of my career development, and I am pursuing social science minors as part of that program.
While my major is in a business area, the minors in applied psychology and medical sociology demand a foundation in evidence-based approaches with as minimum an ideological bias as humanly possible. That being said, I have found your approach and research to be valuable examples to use as a guide in constructing arguments, building models, and evaluating evidence.
Also, I am glad to see your research center appears to be gaining traction as society needs as many counter-balances to institutionalized "junk science" seeking to "market" predetermined outcomes as possible...
Thanks, again.
Best,
Eric Webb
Sorry, David, but unless you can explain what big change in tun technology occurred before and after 1997 your comment about "Scientifically meaningless" is "meaningless." For example, please name the sudden change in technology in the eight years after 1997. Nor were there sudden changes in 1920 or 1956.
Post a Comment
<< Home