This morning I heard a very interesting interview with Professor John Lott from the University of Maryland on KMOX Radio's Charlie Brennan Show.
Professor Lott makes a very convincing argument that shooting incidents like the one last week in Kirkwood and yesterday at Northern Illinois University are more likely in a gun control society like ours, where licensed citizens are prohibited from carrying concealed weapons in many public places. His argument is made in detail in his book, More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws.
Lott contends that by gathering together in gun free zones, Americans are making them sitting ducks for madmen with guns. The madmen, of course, don't seem to be swayed the sign on the door that says guns are prohibited. The victims, however, don't have guns and aren't able to defend themselves.
The entire interview can be heard at this link, though you may have to scroll down to look for it. (I couldn't figure out how to link directly to the audio.)
It is definitely food for thought. As is the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution.
2 comments:
Except that Cookie got past (by killing) two cops with guns to do what he did. Their guns didn't do them any good, did they? In fact, he took one of them off the dead officer so he could unload twice as many bullets.
Guns are readily available on the streets only because they are stolen from law abiding citizens with licenses who feel the need to excercise their second amendment rights.
To be clear, do they cause more crime or prevent more? I resolved myself to the opinion years ago that it doesn't matter one way or the other. All the studies are either slanted to whoever sponsored them, or are inconclusive.
But when some guy cuts me off on the Interstate, I'd prefer that neither of us had a gun in the glove box.
Agreed. It would be nice to know that none of the bad guys had guns. Unfortunately, most of them do.
Post a Comment