The Life-and-Death Cost of Gun Control

[Team Sergeant]

Good gun control article....


The Life-and-Death Cost of Gun Control
By John R. Lott, Jr.
Author/Senior Research Scholar, University of Maryland

Banning guns is in the news. India practically bans guns, but that didn’t stop the horrific Muslim terrorist attacks this last week A football player concerned for his safety violates New York City’s tough gun control regulations by carrying a concealed handgun, and people call for everything from banning NFL players from carrying guns to demanding that the athlete serve many years in jail.

When police can’t promise to protect law-abiding citizens such Plaxico Burress or the victims in India, why don’t we allow people the right to protect themselves?

Where is the sympathy or debate in either case over letting people defend themselves? Given that the terrorists smuggled their machine guns in with them, would anyone argue that India’s extremely strict gun licensing and artificially high prices for guns helped prevent the terrorist attacks? In fact, the reverse is more likely the case.

Would Plaxico Burress, the New York Giant’s receiver who was arrested yesterday, really have been safer just trusting the police to protect him?

Terrorism

In India, victims watched as armed police cowered and didn’t fire back at the terrorists. A photographer at the scene described his frustration: “There were armed policemen hiding all around the station but none of them did anything. At one point, I ran up to them and told them to use their weapons. I said, ‘Shoot them, they’re sitting ducks!’ but they just didn’t shoot back.”

Meanwhile, according to the hotel company’s chairman, P.R.S. Oberoi, security at “the hotel had metal detectors, but none of its security personnel carried weapons because of the difficulties in obtaining gun permits from the Indian government.”

India has extremely strict gun control laws, but who did it succeed in disarming?

The terrorist attack showed how difficult it is to disarm serious terrorists. Strict licensing rules meant that it was the victims who obeyed the regulations, not the terrorists.

Academic research has continually found that police are the single most important factor in reducing crime, but police can’t always be depended on to be quick enough.

The attack also illustrates what Israelis learned decades ago. — Putting more soldiers or police on the street didn’t stop terrorist’s machine gun attacks. Terrorists would either wait for the armed soldiers or police to leave the area or kill them first. Likewise, in India, the Muslim terrorists’ first targets were those in uniform (whether police or security guards).

Terrorists only stopped using machine guns to attack Israelis once citizens were allowed to carry concealed handguns. In large public gatherings, a significant number of citizens will be able to shoot at terrorists during an attack — and the terrorists don’t know who has them.

With mass shootings becoming more difficult, terrorists were forced to switch to a less effective strategy: bombs. Bombings are more difficult for armed citizens to stop because they can’t respond after the bomb blows up.

Still, even though handguns can only kill would-be bombers before they set off their bombs, during waves of terror attacks, Israel’s national police chief will call on all citizens who are allowed to carry guns to make sure they carry their firearms at all times, and Israelis have many examples where citizens with concealed handguns have saved lives.

In their warped minds, both terrorists and the murderers are kamikaze-like killers, who value maximizing the carnage. Even if the killers expect to die anyway, letting victims have guns at the scene can help deter these crimes in the first place by reducing their expected return.

Do Football Players Need Self-Defense?

Physically huge NFL players admitting they feel threatened by crime? This hardly fits their tough, macho image. Our concern is supposed to be for women walking alone at night. Who can have sympathy for a professional football player such as Plaxico Burress who is 6 feet 5 inches and weighs 232 lbs.?

Burress, who has no previous criminal record, now faces between three and a half to 15 years for illegally carrying a concealed handgun with him in Manhattan, if convicted. He was arrested Monday and was released on $100,000 bail. — Burress had had a concealed handgun permit in the state of Florida for the last five years, but he forgot to renew it in May this year.

While the massive size and strength of NFL players might make them seem like unlikely potential crime victims, their wealth and high public profile nonetheless make them particularly attractive targets for violent criminals. While “only” two players were murdered last year, that means a murder rate of 118 per 100,000 people, compared to 5.9 per 100,000 for the rest of the population. In other words, the rate for NFL players was 20 times higher than the average for the rest of the country. This is even higher than the most at risk segment of the population -– young black males between 18 and 24. It is even higher than the risk faced by police officers.

Last year, the Washington Redskins’ Sean Taylor was killed during a robbery at his house. The Denver Broncos’ defensive back Darrent Williams was killed outside a nightclub.

As Tampa Bay Buccaneers cornerback Ronde Barber noted, “We are targets, we need to be aware of that everywhere we go.” Yet, the news coverage doesn’t engender much sympathy for Plaxico Burress.

So, what do many NFL players do when they realize that their physical strength does not give them enough protection from violent crime? The same thing that many other would-be victims do — they get guns. Well over 50 percent of NFL players are estimated to own guns, somewhat higher than the 45 percent of American adults who own guns.

Not everyone approves. Mike Ditka, the Hall of Fame tight end and former Chicago Bears football coach, advocates banning NFL players from owning guns. Ditka said, “I don’t understand the league, why can anybody have a gun? I will have a policy, no guns, any NFL players we find out, period, you’re suspended.” AOL Sports writer Michael Smith also supports the ban and says, “If you carry a gun around, you’re more likely to hurt yourself than protect yourself.”

It would be great if the police were always there to rescue would-be victims, but as the police themselves understand, they virtually always arrive on the scene after the crime has already occurred. Fortunately, just as criminals are deterred by higher arrest rates or longer prison sentences, the fact that potential victims own guns deters some attackers. The Department of Justice’s National Crime Victimization Survey, which covers almost 30 years, also shows that having a gun is consistently by far the safest course of action for victims.

Over the last three or four years, numerous professional players can attest to the benefits of owning guns. For example, Corey Fuller, the 5-foot, 10-inch, 210-pound defensive back for the Baltimore Ravens, was confronted by two armed robbers outside his Tallahassee house. One robber chased Fuller into his house where his wife and children were sleeping, but Fuller was able to grab a gun and fire at the attackers, who then ran away.

T.J. Slaughter, a 6-foot, 233-pound linebacker, was arrested for allegedly pointing a gun at motorists who pulled up next to him on the highway. Slaughter denied that he had pointed the gun at the motorists and claimed that they had threatened him. No charges were filed, though, possibly following Dikta’s rule, the Jacksonville Jaguars still cut Slaughter the next day. Jacksonville claimed Slaughter was performing poorly.


http://foxforum.blogs.foxnews.com/20...tt_guncontrol/

[Team Sergeant]

continued:

Professional athletes’ physical strength hardly makes them immune to crime. Take a couple additional examples.

– The Oakland Raiders’ Javon Walker (height: 6-3, weight: 215 lbs.) was robbed and beaten this past June while visiting Las Vegas. He was hospitalized with a concussion and facial injuries.

– The Houston Texans’ Dunta Robinson (height: 5-10, weight: 184 lbs.) was robbed by two men in his home a year ago. The robbers bound him with duct tape and stole jewelry.

Unfortunately all of the nation’s four leading pro-sports leagues — the National Football League, the National Basketball Association, the National Hockey League and Major League Baseball — trivialize the athletes’ concerns over safety. The NFL’s official advice: “In some circumstances, such as for sport or protection, you may legally possess a firearm or other weapon. However, we strongly recommend that you not do so.” The league advocates passive behavior when confronted by a criminal.

Fred Taylor (height: 6-1, weight: 228) a running back with the Jacksonville Jaguars made the point clear: “League officials tell us we need to take measures to protect ourselves. But the NFL says we can’t have guns in the facility –even in the parking lot. Crooks know this. They can just sit back and wait for us to drive off, knowing we won’t have anything in our vehicle from point A to point B.”

Even professional athletes are not supermen. T.J. Slaughter expresses no regrets for having a gun despite running afoul of political correctness and being cut by the Jaguars. He says, “I believe legally owning a gun is the right thing to do. It offers me protection. I think one day it could save my life.” It seems a lesson that many who are not quite as strong can also learn from.

Toys R Us

The media can’t be blamed for some of the left out information and misimpressions about guns. For example, the news coverage over the weekend about a shooting at a Toys R Us in Palm Desert, California gave the wrong impression about guns. It seemed the perfect fit –- two couples squabbling over who would get a toy resulting in a deadly shoot out. Surely this demonstrated the dangers of letting people have guns for self defense.

But political correctness made it difficult for local authorities to even admit a simple and important fact — the two couples were members of rival gangs. As Palm Desert city councilman Bob Spiegel told The L.A. Times, there were apparently “two rival groups shopping at the store.” Even stories that mentioned the gangs often left the mention until the end.

Unfortunately, commentators at places such as the Huffington Post confuse letting gang members and law-abiding citizens carry guns. As one remarked: “does anybody still think concealed weapons laws are a good idea?” But in contrast to gang members, data for states like Florida or Texas indicate that concealed handgun permit holders lose their permits for any gun-related violation at hundredths or thousandths of one percent and even then usually for very trivial, non-threatening violations.

Conclusion

When police can’t promise to protect law-abiding citizens such Plaxico Burress or the victims in India, why don’t we allow people the right to protect themselves? Unfortunately, bans do more to encourage crime than prevent it.

John Lott is the author of Freedomnomics and a senior research scholar at the University of Maryland.


http://foxforum.blogs.foxnews.com/20...tt_guncontrol/

[Red Flag 1]

Great post TS!!

NYC Mayor is blowing this into the stratosphere.

Physical size and muscle power alone, is trumped by flying lead 100% of the time. The police are not everywhere. Police response is after the fact, and hampered my the number of officers needed, and a non-supportive legeal system. Good reason to be "responsibly armed".

That Plexico shot himself is nearly a private event; probably stupid. If this happened at home while "cleaning his weapon" less would have been made of the event.

This does add a bit of a brick to the wall built by the left for firearms control. Always a bad move for a democratic society.

My most humble $.02.


RF 1

[dividebyzero]

Good article, but a couple of things stood out to me:

1. From what I've read, the attackers were armed with military grade weaponry (AK's, grenades) and were shooting and maneuvering like a light infantry unit would. It seems like the most logical choice of firearms for a civilian would be a handgun, so it would likely be ill-matched against the kind of weapons and tactics the attackers were using.

2. It seems like the police response in Mumbai demonstrates bad training and lack of familiarity with firearms- examples: the fact that they weren't firing, the picture of the commando firing an MP-5 with one hand. Given that, how would the Indian security forces distinguish between an armed civilian defending themselves, and an attacker dressed in civilian clothes?

I don't have any other points of contention with the article, as I feel US gun laws are ridiculous. I'm also not in the military or a LEO, these were just things that came to me in reading the article and taking the events of Mumbai into context.

[Team Sergeant]

Originally Posted by dividebyzero

Good article, but a couple of things stood out to me:

1. From what I've read, the attackers were armed with military grade weaponry (AK's, grenades) and were shooting and maneuvering like a light infantry unit would. It seems like the most logical choice of firearms for a civilian would be a handgun, so it would likely be ill-matched against the kind of weapons and tactics the attackers were using.

2. It seems like the police response in Mumbai demonstrates bad training and lack of familiarity with firearms- examples: the fact that they weren't firing, the picture of the commando firing an MP-5 with one hand. Given that, how would the Indian security forces distinguish between an armed civilian defending themselves, and an attacker dressed in civilian clothes?

I don't have any other points of contention with the article, as I feel US gun laws are ridiculous. I'm also not in the military or a LEO, these were just things that came to me in reading the article and taking the events of Mumbai into context.

Your argument doesn't hold water. Military grade? And you read that from where? On TV? What does "military grade" mean? Do you think just because we use it it kills more people?

Training & equipment means nothing if you do not possess the mindset.

TS

[charlietwo]

Originally Posted by dividebyzero

1. From what I've read, the attackers were armed with military grade weaponry (AK's, grenades) and were shooting and maneuvering like a light infantry unit would. It seems like the most logical choice of firearms for a civilian would be a handgun, so it would likely be ill-matched against the kind of weapons and tactics the attackers were using.

They were in two man teams, as I understand it, which means that it was less "light infantry" and more CQB tactics. In regards to weapons, while bringing a pistol to a rifle fight isn't a good idea, having a handgun puts a degree of fear into the assailants, and ultimately forces a change in their tactics. As Red Flag 1 said, the major factor is lead flying through the air, not the size of lead.

Originally Posted by dividebyzero

2. It seems like the police response in Mumbai demonstrates bad training and lack of familiarity with firearms- examples: the fact that they weren't firing, the picture of the commando firing an MP-5 with one hand. Given that, how would the Indian security forces distinguish between an armed civilian defending themselves, and an attacker dressed in civilian clothes?

A civilian wouldn't be pointing a weapon at armed police personnel, but the gunmen would always focus fire on a police element. Armed civilians would create chaos, but it would be equally chaotic for the gunmen. The main problem with these situations is the militants are operating with impunity.

Prior to the introduction of firearms, imagine if governments decreed that their citizens were not allowed to own swords. The same results would ensue -- the lives of law abiding citizens becomes a tightrope walk between the violence of the wolves and the watchfulness of the sheepdogs.

"Ideas are far more powerful than guns. We don't allow our enemies to have guns, why should we allow them to have ideas? " -Joseph Stalin

[Razor]

Originally Posted by dividebyzero

1. From what I've read, the attackers were armed with military grade weaponry (AK's, grenades) and were shooting and maneuvering like a light infantry unit would. It seems like the most logical choice of firearms for a civilian would be a handgun, so it would likely be ill-matched against the kind of weapons and tactics the attackers were using.

I'll take an "ill-matched" handgun over no handgun any day of the week and twice on Sunday. It gives me stand-off, which I might be able to leverage into surviving the attack.

[longrange1947]

Thank you Razor!!

I have never understood the ill conceived argument of "ill matched", "over matched", or any of those "I lay me down to die" terms.

Unarmed will never save your ass but even a pistol gives you a chance in a massacre.

[Defender968]

Originally Posted by dividebyzero

Good article, but a couple of things stood out to me:

2. It seems like the police response in Mumbai demonstrates bad training and lack of familiarity with firearms- examples: the fact that they weren't firing, the picture of the commando firing an MP-5 with one hand. Given that, how would the Indian security forces distinguish between an armed civilian defending themselves, and an attacker dressed in civilian clothes?

You are correct in thinking armed civilians in this type of attack run the risk of getting shot by the good guys, and any civilian who is carrying a weapon should know how to respond when challanged by responding LEOs as has been discussed many times on this forum. With that being said I take that risk every day I carry, my thought is the risk of being unarmed gives me 0 change of effecting this type of situation or really having much of an effect on my own survival, me carrying my gun gives me some chance to stop an active shooter situation but also makes me a potential target to the good guys, personally I accept the risk.

Originally Posted by dividebyzero

I don't have any other points of contention with the article, as I feel US gun laws are ridiculous. I'm also not in the military or a LEO, these were just things that came to me in reading the article and taking the events of Mumbai into context.

I'm curious, which gun laws do you find ridiculous?


My only issues with the article were in regard to the NFL players being targeted, personally if they want to carry for their own protection I have absolutely no problem with that (so long as they're doing it responsibly and legally) after all they are public personalities with money and thus are targets for crazies and criminals. I do however take issue with what Ditka said, I find it to be ridiculous and un-American frankly, what right does he have to try to take away a right guaranteed by the US constitution none IMHO. My other issues with the article are twofold, first is the latest knucklehead who shot himself while carrying, that's just piss poor firearms discipline if you ask me, while I don't think he should do 10 years for it he should get some kind of punishment for carrying illegally and more importantly for discharging his firearm negligently in a crowded place. The second issue I have with regard to the NFL players portion of the article is the fact that many professional athletes are trying to live the thug life while being pro athletes, and as such I think get into more trouble than your average citizen which would explain why they get shot at a higher rate than an average citizen, so that portion of the article doesn't hold as much weight for me.

Otherwise I thought it was a great article.

[Box]

...I'll bet a handful of people with nothing more than revolvers would have made a big difference in the outcome of these peace loving gentlemen as they went about maneuvering through the hotel. These cocksuckers are only bold when they have the upper hand. Otherwise they are cowardly little pricks that hide among their women.

At conversational distances a pistol round will kill you as dead as a "military grade" rifle round.


Kill your enemy before he kills his.

[C0B2A]

Originally Posted by dividebyzero

Good article, but a couple of things stood out to me:

1. From what I've read, the attackers were armed with military grade weaponry (AK's, grenades) and were shooting and maneuvering like a light infantry unit would. It seems like the most logical choice of firearms for a civilian would be a handgun, so it would likely be ill-matched against the kind of weapons and tactics the attackers were using. .

Early April of 2007 in Tarmiya, Iraq. When a VBIED rolled up on Demon company's Joint Security Station and detonated, 2 US Soldiers were killed instantly. After the initial explosion, terrorists tryed to over run Demon company inside the rubble of the collapsed JSS. Many of demon company's men, who were on their down cycle when the blast collapsed the building, could not locate there M4's, having been lost in rubble or destroyed. They turned to what they had left at there disposal. Their 9mm Hand Guns on there side.

D. co held off the terrorists who were carrying ak-47s and other as you say "military grade weapons" with those pistols and fire from those who still had their rifles, killing many of them, and saving themselves and their brothers. They fought like this till the Reaction force rolled in and fully repelled the attack.

I was on the reaction force, I saw and heard first hand that as Team Sergeant said, mindset trumps equipment, and man power.

[Team Sergeant]

Originally Posted by dividebyzero

Good article, but a couple of things stood out to me:

1. From what I've read, the attackers were armed with military grade weaponry (AK's, grenades) and were shooting and maneuvering like a light infantry unit would. It seems like the most logical choice of firearms for a civilian would be a handgun, so it would likely be ill-matched against the kind of weapons and tactics the attackers were using.

2. It seems like the police response in Mumbai demonstrates bad training and lack of familiarity with firearms- examples: the fact that they weren't firing, the picture of the commando firing an MP-5 with one hand. Given that, how would the Indian security forces distinguish between an armed civilian defending themselves, and an attacker dressed in civilian clothes?

I don't have any other points of contention with the article, as I feel US gun laws are ridiculous. I'm also not in the military or a LEO, these were just things that came to me in reading the article and taking the events of Mumbai into context.

It's obvious (to me) that you might have been reading too much of the NY times, cnn, msnbc extreme left wing media etc and watching too many hollywood movies where weapons are concerned.

Weapons are nothing more than tools; in the proper hands and with the proper training a force to be reckoned with. And in the wrong hands with little to no training the best weapons can be worthless.

In the case of the Mumbai PD and as with our own police they are not trained for these types of situations.

This latest terror attack and the police running away without firing a shot will only perpetuate the folly that a semi-automatic rifle will always trump a pistol in a fight to the death. It happened in Los Angeles and it will happen again and again. That is until the cowards with the AK's run into a determined adversary.

You don't see the AK armed islamic cowards taking on our soldiers, they have learned their lessons and now use bombs instead. They know a face to face battle with American soldiers is a quick way to meet allah.

TS

Edit to add:

I have written this before and now just for you, my golf club analogy:

I’m sure you’ve heard of Tiger Woods? Now let’s assume Tiger uses the best “Tour Grade” golf clubs.
Now I give those clubs to you, does it make you play any better?

Now do you think if I were to give Tiger a set of “Kmart” golf clubs he’d play a lot worse or bad enough you could possibly beat him? I doubt it.

Learn how to think and stop being told what to think.

Team Sergeant

[dividebyzero]

Gentlemen,

Thank you for addressing my points. I recognize my lack of firearms experience colored my view, so I appreciate the expertise you bring to the debate.

TS, I now recognize "military grade" was a poor choice of words. I used the term to differentiate between what the attackers were using and what civilians would be likely to carry.

I also see the merits of the firearm as tool argument, and agree that it's mindset and training that trump equipment. A poor carpenter blames his tools, right?

TR, I must respectfully disagree with your assertion that I'm being told what to think by the media and its pundits. These were thoughts that came to me based on seeing pictures and reading the accounts (the WSJ had a particularly good one)- I turned off CNN because I thought their coverage was abysmal and disrespectful, particularly the blood stains on the motion graphics. I do try to seek out multiple sources when I read the news.

Again, though, thank you and the other QPs/soldiers for clarifying the issue for me.

I'm curious, which gun laws do you find ridiculous?

I'm a California native, so most of my complaints about gun laws are specific to that state. Namely, lack of access to CCW permits in areas of Southern California and the Bay Area, ten-round magazine rules, confusing regulations as to what features are allowed on a rifle and whatnot. I also don't like the entire "GUN OWNERS ARE EVIL" arguments that seem to get trotted out by legislators and pundits alike, as it really poisons the well and brings an important debate down to the level of a schoolyard name-calling match.

[greenberetTFS]

Originally Posted by Billy L-bach

...I'll bet a handful of people with nothing more than revolvers would have made a big difference in the outcome of these peace loving gentlemen as they went about maneuvering through the hotel. These cocksuckers are only bold when they have the upper hand. Otherwise they are cowardly little pricks that hide among their women.

At conversational distances a pistol round will kill you as dead as a "military grade" rifle round.


Kill your enemy before he kills his.

Right on Billy L-bach,

GB TFS

[grog18b]

Originally Posted by dividebyzero

It seems like the most logical choice of firearms for a civilian would be a handgun, so it would likely be ill-matched against the kind of weapons and tactics the attackers were using.

The right person, with the proper training, could have taken all of them with a 22 matchmaster... Caliber of firearms, like TS said, has little to do with being able to defend ones self or stop a group of attackers such as this. It matters not what weapon, or caliber of weapon you have. What matters is your skill and training. Someone with a good knife can defeat someone with a firearm, if he or she knows how.

Stories like those are easily ignored by Bloomburg, Schumer, Feinstein, and the like. To them, (they have their own armed security) it doesn't matter what poor Joe Citizen has to deal with in their everyday life. They don't have the "life experience" to know their position on gun control is just plain stupid. They think criminals care about laws. This is the flaw in their logic.