-Caveat Lector-
Good one Nessie! I completely agree. When well-meaning, law-abiding citizens
relinquish gun rights they are not ridding society of the 'evils' of guns, but
aiding and abetting the evil guns are capable of, as well as their own increased
vulnerability. Statistics available from the Australian government
demonstrate the rise in rates of violent crime, burglary and robbery since the
populace has been disarmed. Below is a timely article about this very subject.
~ M
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/363/oped/What_we_can_do_after_Wakefield+.shtml
What we can do after Wakefield
By John R. Lott Jr., 12/28/2000
WITH A GUNMAN'S attack that killed seven people at a Wakefield Internet company
on Tuesday, the question is simple: What can be done to stop similar shootings
in the future?
For many the answer is more government regulation. The creation of gun-free
zones, waiting periods, background checks, and safe storage regulations are just a
few of the laws typically proposed. Yet, Massachusetts already has these
restrictions and many more.
Surely the intentions of these laws are noble. The goal of preventing concealed
handguns or creating gun-free zones is to protect people. But what might appear
to be the most obvious policy may actually cost lives.
When gun control laws are passed, it is law-abiding citizens, not would-be
criminals, who obey them. Unfortunately, the police cannot be everywhere, so
these laws risk creating situations in which the good guys cannot defend
themselves from the bad ones.
This point was driven home to me when I received an e-mail from a friend
recently, telling me that he had just dropped off his kids at a public school and
outside the school was a sign that said ''This is a gun-free zone.'' I couldn't help
think, if I put up a sign on my home that said, ''This home is a gun-free zone,''
would it make it more attractive or less attractive to criminals entering my home
and attacking myself or my family?
While horrible crimes like the one in Wakefield get the attention they deserve,
rarely mentioned are the many attacks that are stopped by citizens who are able
to defend themselves. About two million times a year people use guns
defensively. Few realize that some of the public school shootings were stopped
by citizens with guns.
For example, in the first public shooting spree at a high school, in Pearl, Miss.,
in October 1997 that left two dead, an assistant principal retrieved a gun from
his car and physically immobilized the shooter for more than five minutes before
police arrived.
A school-related shooting in Edinboro, Pa., in spring 1998 that left one dead,
was stopped after a bystander pointed a shotgun at the shooter when he started to
reload his gun. The police did not arrive for another 11 minutes.
But anecdotal stories cannot resolve this debate. A study at the University of
Chicago by a colleague and myself compiled data on all of the multiple-victim
public shootings that occurred in the United States from 1977 to 1999. Included
were incidents in which at least two people were killed or injured in a public
place; to focus on the type of shooting seen in Wakefield, we excluded gang
wars or shootings that were the byproduct of another crime, such as robbery.
The United States averaged more than 20 such shootings annually, with an
average of 1.5 people killed and 2.5 wounded in each one.
So what can stop these attacks? We have examined a range of different gun laws,
such as waiting periods, as well the frequency and level of punishment.
However, while arrest and conviction rates, prison sentences, and the death
penalty reduce murders generally, they do not consistently deter public
shootings.
The reason is simple: Those who commit these crimes usually die. They are
either killed in the attack or commit suicide. The normal penalties rarely apply.
To be effective, policies must deal with what motivates these criminals, which is
to kill and injure as many people as possible. Some appear to do it for the
publicity, which is itself related to the amount of harm they inflict.
The best way to stop these attacks is to enact policies that can limit the carnage.
We found only one policy that effectively accomplishes this: the passage of
right-to-carry laws.
With Michigan's adoption this month, 32 states now give adults the right to carry
concealed handguns as long as they do not have a criminal record or a history of
significant mental illness. When states passed such laws during the 23 years we
studied, the number of multiple-victim public shootings declined by a dramatic
67 percent. Deaths and injuries from these shootings fell on average by 78
percent.
To the extent that attacks still occur in states after these laws are enacted, they
disproportionately occur in areas in which concealed handguns are forbidden.
The people who get these permits are extremely law-abiding and rarely lose their
permits for any reason. Without letting law-abiding citizens defend themselves,
we risk leaving victims as sitting ducks.
John R. Lott Jr. is a senior research scholar at Yale University Law School and
the author of ''More Guns, Less Crime.''
This story ran on page A15 of the Boston Globe on 12/28/2000.
© Copyright 2000 Globe Newspaper Company.
Nessie wrote:
>
> -Caveat Lector-
>
> My latest column on SFBG.com sparked some lively debate over on
> Indymedia. According to some people, I’m “acting like a typical
> white/male/suburban paranoid nut” and have “something seriously messed
> up, upstairs.” My opposition to victim disarmament is compared to
> telling “you about how great it is to eat babies every now and then.”
>
> Needless to say, I put them in their place. Check it out. You may get a
> kick out of it:
>
> http://www.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=15983
>
<A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/">www.ctrl.org</A>
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please! These are
sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis-
directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with
major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought.
That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and
always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no
credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html
<A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html">Archives of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]</A>
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
<A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/">ctrl</A>
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
