More Support and Evidence Against Gun-Free Schoolzones

Sorry, but I don't consider Ann Coulter to be a voice of logic on any subject. At least in this editorial she's not calling for any judges or politicians to be killed, as she has in the past.

It's bizarre to think that mass killers choose their targets by looking at a map and saying, "Gee, where's the nearest gun-free zone I can attack?"

These attacks are usually fueled by hate. Gunmen attack the objects of their hate. The Va. Tech killer attacked on campus not because it was a gun=free zone, but because that's where the objects of his hatred--Va. Tech students and teachers-- were. The NASA gunman shot up that location because that's where the object of *his* hatred was--he was furious at his boss for whatever reason.

Yes, gunman attack schools, but where is there any evidence showing that they do it because it's a 'gun-free' zone? Maybe they hate children, or hate schools, or whatever. Why do deranged adults molest children or kill them with knives, etc.? Certainly that has nothing to do with gun-free zones, since there are no guns involved.

These mass killings are usually acts of passion and hatred. If a gunman wants to shoot up his workplace, he'll do it whether it's a gun-free zone or not. He'll just bring more powerful weapons and wear body armor. It's happened in the past. These guys eventually end up killing themselves anyway, so it's not like they don't want to be harmed; they just want to inflict carnage before they are killed (by themselves or others).

Somehow I don't see how allowing guns into college and even elementary schools is going to result in *less* violence.

Mass killings are actually pretty rare; the majority of gun deaths happen in arguments or domestic disputes--disputes that would have otherwise ended in a fistfight now end in shootings. Putting more guns into people's hands doesn't sound like a good idea to me.

"In a comprehensive study of all public, multiple-shooting incidents in America between 1977 and 1999, the inestimable economists John Lott and Bill Landes found that concealed-carry laws were the only laws that had any beneficial effect.

And the effect was not insignificant. States that allowed citizens to carry concealed handguns reduced multiple-shooting attacks by 60 percent and reduced the death and injury from these attacks by nearly 80 percent."

That sounds like statistical evidence to me. If that's not enough, consider this:

Florida passed a right-to-carry law in 1987. In the next nine years, homicide rates dropped 36%. Firearm homicide rates dropped 37%. Handgun homicide rates dropped 41%.

During that same time period, only 18 licensed carriers committed crimes out of 221,443 license holders. It does not specify whether or not guns were involved. My guess would be they were most likely not involving their guns.
http://www.justfacts.com/issues.guncontrol.asp

In the Florida statutes for concealed-carry permits, there is a list of specified places where a law-abiding citizen with a permit cannot bring his gun. This includes banks, schools, almost all government buildings...but how does that prevent a criminal from bringing a gun in these places? You don't think criminals are aware of where they are less likely to be confronted by an armed citizen? I recently read an article that showed many of them do that exact research before they commit the crime.

I'll see if I can find a link of that story for you.