Gun Control

[FinsnFur]

[FinsnFur]

[FinsnFur]

[yotefever]

http://www.humanevents.com/2012/12/19/ann-coulter-we-know-how-to-stop-school-shootings/

Ann Coulter Letter
Coulter: We know how to stop school shootings
   

By: Ann Coulter   
12/19/2012 07:05 PM


In the wake of a monstrous crime like a madman’s mass murder of defenseless women and children at the Newtown, Conn., elementary school, the nation’s attention is riveted on what could have been done to prevent such a massacre.

Luckily, some years ago, two famed economists, William Landes at the University of Chicago and John Lott at Yale, conducted a massive study of multiple victim public shootings in the United States between 1977 and 1995 to see how various legal changes affected their frequency and death toll.

Landes and Lott examined many of the very policies being proposed right now in response to the Connecticut massacre: waiting periods and background checks for guns, the death penalty and increased penalties for committing a crime with a gun.

None of these policies had any effect on the frequency of, or carnage from, multiple-victim shootings. (I note that they did not look at reforming our lax mental health laws, presumably because the ACLU is working to keep dangerous nuts on the street in all 50 states.)

Only one public policy has ever been shown to reduce the death rate from such crimes: concealed-carry laws.

The effect of concealed-carry laws in deterring mass public shootings was even greater than the impact of such laws on the murder rate generally.

Someone planning to commit a single murder in a concealed-carry state only has to weigh the odds of one person being armed. But a criminal planning to commit murder in a public place has to worry that anyone in the entire area might have a gun.

You will notice that most multiple-victim shootings occur in “gun-free zones” â€" even within states that have concealed-carry laws: public schools, churches, Sikh temples, post offices, the movie theater where James Holmes committed mass murder, and the Portland, Ore., mall where a nut starting gunning down shoppers a few weeks ago.

Guns were banned in all these places. Mass killers may be crazy, but they’re not stupid.

If the deterrent effect of concealed-carry laws seems surprising to you, that’s because the media hide stories of armed citizens stopping mass shooters. At the Portland shooting, for example, no explanation was given for the amazing fact that the assailant managed to kill only two people in the mall during the busy Christmas season.

It turns out, concealed-carry-holder Nick Meli hadn’t noticed that the mall was a gun-free zone. He pointed his (otherwise legal) gun at the shooter as he paused to reload, and the next shot was the attempted mass murderer killing himself. (Meli aimed, but didn’t shoot, because there were bystanders behind the shooter.)

In a nonsense “study” going around the Internet right now, Mother Jones magazine claims to have produced its own study of all public shootings in the last 30 years and concludes: “In not a single case was the killing stopped by a civilian using a gun.”

This will come as a shock to people who know something about the subject.

The magazine reaches its conclusion by simply excluding all cases where an armed civilian stopped the shooter: They looked only at public shootings where four or more people were killed, i.e., the ones where the shooter wasn’t stopped.

If we care about reducing the number of people killed in mass shootings, shouldn’t we pay particular attention to the cases where the aspiring mass murderer was prevented from getting off more than a couple rounds?

It would be like testing the effectiveness of weed killers, but refusing to consider any cases where the weeds died.

In addition to the Portland mall case, here are a few more examples excluded by the Mother Jones methodology:

â€" Mayan Palace Theater, San Antonio, Texas, this week: Jesus Manuel Garcia shoots at a movie theater, a police car and bystanders from the nearby China Garden restaurant; as he enters the movie theater, guns blazing, an armed off-duty cop shoots Garcia four times, stopping the attack. Total dead: Zero.

â€" Winnemucca, Nev., 2008: Ernesto Villagomez opens fire in a crowded restaurant; concealed carry permit-holder shoots him dead. Total dead: Two. (I’m excluding the shooters’ deaths in these examples.)

â€" Appalachian School of Law, 2002: Crazed immigrant shoots the dean and a professor, then begins shooting students; as he goes for more ammunition, two armed students point their guns at him, allowing a third to tackle him. Total dead: Three.

â€" Santee, Calif., 2001: Student begins shooting his classmates â€" as well as the “trained campus supervisor”; an off-duty cop who happened to be bringing his daughter to school that day points his gun at the shooter, holding him until more police arrive. Total dead: Two.

â€" Pearl High School, Mississippi, 1997: After shooting several people at his high school, student heads for the junior high school; assistant principal Joel Myrick retrieves a .45 pistol from his car and points it at the gunman’s head, ending the murder spree. Total dead: Two.

â€" Edinboro, Pa., 1998: A student shoots up a junior high school dance being held at a restaurant; restaurant owner pulls out his shotgun and stops the gunman. Total dead: One.

By contrast, the shootings in gun-free zones invariably result in far higher casualty figures â€" Sikh temple, Oak Creek, Wis. (six dead); Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, Va. (32 dead); Columbine High School, Columbine, Colo. (12 dead); Amish school, Lancaster County, Pa. (five little girls killed); public school, Craighead County, Ark. (five killed, including four little girls).

All these took place in gun-free zones, resulting in lots of people getting killed â€" and thereby warranting inclusion in the Mother Jones study.

If what we care about is saving the lives of innocent human beings by reducing the number of mass public shootings and the deaths they cause, only one policy has ever been shown to work: concealed-carry laws. On the other hand, if what we care about is self-indulgent grandstanding, and to hell with dozens of innocent children being murdered in cold blood, try the other policies.

[Roundman]

During the presidential debates Obama made the claim that most shootings in Chicago were from small, cheap handguns. The very next night Diane Sawyer reported on gang/gun violence in Chicago. What were the gangbangers showing off? AK's, 12ga shotguns and bolt action rifles. Hard to believe the media would make a mistake like that! In one show they proved that gun control doesn't work.

[FinsnFur]

Those arent the killers though. They use the Highpoints for killing. 

[FinsnFur]

[FinsnFur]

It's to my understanding that this video was posted back during the making of the Brady bill. 
But for reasons unknown, the original poster took it down. And it was later reposted by a 3rd party.

[FinsnFur]

I would bet every fire arm I own that if they could come up with a way to get these damn video games out of these kids hands, it'd bring these mass school and mall shootings to a screeching halt.

The majority of the people doing this arent our age. Their punks that spend their lives wondering where their parents are and playing video games while they do it. Video games that are riddled with slaughtering people, shooting, death, drugs and chaos. Video games like Black Ops, WARz, Call of Duty, HALO, Resident Evil.  What the *&^%!
Stick that shit in a kids and they get addicted to the games and for the next six years of their lives it becomes the norm. It becomes impregnated in their heads, they are totally unfazed at the site of someone getting their head chopped off, or someones brains being getting splattered on the wall behind them.
They learn that in order to succeed in the games they have to eliminate things that get in their way, things that make simple tasks a burden, things that show authority etc.
If it's that easy in a video game why wouldn't it work at school where all those kids tease him...or at the mall? How many times have you seen or heard a kid actually say they could do this or do that better then you because they aced a video game that revolved around it? They learned everything they need to know.
Who CANT think that these games are spilling over into their daily lives? Were teaching these kids that it's fun, exciting and PRODUCTIVE...yeah productive!... for gods sake...to shoot people in the face while they beg for their very lives... And by using the same gun the government wants to ban today.

Lets have the government go door to door and collect all these games from peoples homes, and replace them with a football, or a soccerball, a skateboard, a dirtbike, a paper route, an RC truck, a fishing rod, a 22 and a small game license. Ya know what I'm saying?
That last paragraph rang some bells didnt it?  Thats the kind of stuff WE grew up doing. We didnt set around practicing shooting people in the head. Holy Balz!

Ok, I'm done

[CCP]

Lets have the government go door to door and collect all these games from peoples homes, and replace them with a football, or a soccerball, a skateboard, a dirtbike, a paper route, an RC truck, a fishing rod, a 22 and a small game license. Ya know what I'm saying?

I know what your saying but cant agree..

Well if I back banning violent video games and give Government control to go have a look then it opens up to much. Next thing is the kids gets caught with one and social services are at your door.

Or better yet Social services is at your door because there was a report of your kids outside with a stick pointing it like a gun playing cowboy and Indians. Not only is your kid playing as a violet Indian but the one plying the cowboy role is a racist..

Just playing devils advocate Jim be nice..

[FinsnFur]

   Rich work with me here.
If we get em going door to door, we got em right where we want em.

....as long as junior's home