Mayors Against Illegal Guns – How Effective Are They?

Mayors Against Illegal Guns – How Effective Are They?

The MAIG group’s mission, according to their web site is:

Mayors Against Illegal Guns is a national, bipartisan coalition of mayors working to make America’s communities safer by keeping illegal guns out of dangerous hands. Co-founded in 2006 by New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Boston Mayor Thomas Menino, the coalition has grown from a committed group of 15 members to more than 1,000 mayors from 46 states, including Republicans, Democrats, and Independents, from major cities and small towns around the country.

It appears that their research and gun violence statistics might be incorrect in a couple of areas. John Lott points out the MAIG includes the following in their gun violence numbers:

. . . they list all cases where a police officer or civilian fatally shot a criminal as victims. They also listed all suicides as victims of gun violence, completely oblivious to the fact that research shows that these individuals would have committed suicide some other way. It might also be nice to differentiate gang shootings from other deaths. . .

Read more at John Lott’s site.

Why would they include criminals who were shot by civilians or police officers in their numbers? They also include suicides, and as Lott mentions, folks committing suicide can find alternative ways to do so, whether or not they have a gun. Another area that Lott mentions with regard to the MAIG gun violence research and numbers is not differentiating gang shootings.

I can only imagine that those additional deaths will inflate their numbers and skew their results. How unfortunate for the general public who often rely on these organizations to protect them. Make sure you get a second opinion with regard to the gun violence numbers that are used, as John Lott does.

Read more here.

Media Bias Against Guns – John Lott’s Speech at Hillsdale College National Leadership Seminar

Media Bias Against Guns – John Lott’s Speech at Hillsdale College National Leadership Seminar

The media’s bias against guns never ends, and if anything, is getting worse due to recent shooting incidents. No one who cares for gun rights wants to downplay the suffering of those who are injured or killed by criminals or deranged people using guns, but neither do we appreciate the media’s efforts to portray almost all gun owners (law-abiding) as dangerous and a threat to civil society. Lott so clearly demonstrates that the media ignores the many times someone used a gun for defensive purposes. There are numerous examples of that, but the media just doesn’t publish them. Because of the media’s failure to publish both sides of the story, there exists an unfavorable public perception of guns and violence. This leads to pressure to enact gun control laws, often draconian and unreasonable. Read Lott’s speech.

Media Bias Against Guns
John R. Lott, Jr
Resident Scholar, American Enterprise Institute
John R. Lott, Jr a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, received his Ph.D. in economics from the University of California at Los Angeles.He has been a senior research scholar at the Yale University School of Law, a fellow at the University of Chicago School of Law, a visiting fellow at Cornell University Law School and a Hoover Institution fellow. He has taught at the University of Chicago, the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania, UCLA, Rice University and Texas A&M University. In 1988 and 1989, he was chief economist for the U.S. Sentencing Commission. He is the author of More Guns, Less Crime and The Bias Against Guns.

The following is adapted from a speech delivered on May 25, 2004, at a Hillsdale College National Leadership Seminar in Seattle, Washington.

The following is “Reprinted by permission from Imprimis, a publication of Hillsdale College.” Copyright © 2011 Hillsdale College. The opinions expressed in Imprimis are not necessarily the views of Hillsdale College. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is hereby granted, provided the following credit line is used: “Reprinted by permission from Imprimis, a publication of Hillsdale College.” SUBSCRIPTION FREE UPON REQUEST. ISSN 0277-8432. Imprimis trademark registered in U.S. Patent and Trade Office #1

People are very surprised to learn that survey data show that guns are used defensively by private citizens in the U.S. from 1.5 to 3.4 million times a year, at least three times more frequently than guns are used to commit crimes. A question I hear repeatedly is: “If defensive gun use occurs so often, why haven’t I ever heard of even one story?”

Anecdotal stories published in newspapers obviously can’t prove how numerous these events are, but they can at least answer the question of whether these events even occur. Here are a few examples of the 20 cases that I found reported in newspapers as occurring during the first two weeks of May 2004:

Lawrenceville, Georgia—At 3:00 a.m., an estranged former boyfriend kicked in a woman’s front door. She had received a protective order against the ex-boyfriend because of “a history of drug addiction, violent behavior and threats.” He was shot four times as he entered the apartment. Police said that the attacker, if he survived his injuries, would likely face charges of burglary and aggravated stalking. Albuquerque, New Mexico—At just after 5:00 a.m., a homeowner called police saying that someone was trying to break into his home. Police reported that while waiting for help to arrive, the homeowner defended himself by shooting the intruder in the arm. Louisville, Kentucky—As a robber tried to hold up a Shelby Food Mart, he was shot by a store clerk. The judge who heard the case said that the clerk had acted responsibly and that he “was viciously attacked by this animal.” Raceland, Louisiana—A man and his girlfriend offered two men a ride. One of the hitchhikers drew a gun and told the girlfriend to stop the car. The man then drew his own gun, fatally shooting the hitchhiker who was threatening them. Toledo, Ohio—A store employee wounded one of two men who tried to rob a West Toledo carryout. The employee had received his concealed handgun permit just three days earlier. The employee’s father said, “My son did what he had to do …Money can be replaced; lives can’t.”

These life and death stories represent only a tiny fraction of defensive gun uses. A survey of 1,015 people I conducted during November 2002 indicates that about 2.3 million defensive gun uses occurred nationwide over the previous year. Larger surveys have found similar results. Guns do make it easier to commit bad deeds, but they also make it easier for people to defend themselves where few alternatives are available. That is why it is so important that people receive an accurate, balanced accounting of how guns are used. Unfortunately, the media are doing a very poor job of that today.

Though my survey indicates that simply brandishing a gun stops crimes 95 percent of the time, it is very rare to see a story of such an event reported in the media. A dead gunshot victim on the ground is highly newsworthy, while a criminal fleeing after a woman points a gun is often not considered news at all. That’s not impossible to understand; after all, no shots were fired, no crime was committed, and no one is even sure what crime would have been committed had a weapon not been drawn.

Even though fewer than one out of 1,000 defensive gun uses result in the death of the attacker, the newsman’s penchant for drama means that the bloodier cases are usually covered. Even in the rare cases in which guns are used to shoot someone, injuries are about six times more frequent than deaths. You wouldn’t know this from the stories the media choose to report.

A Case Study in Bias
But much more than a bias toward bad news and drama goes into the media’s selective reporting on gun usage. Why, for instance, does the torrential coverage of public shooting sprees fail to acknowledge when such attacks are aborted by citizens with guns? In January 2002, a shooting left three dead at the Appalachian Law School in Virginia. The event made international headlines and produced more calls for gun control. Yet one critical fact was missing from virtually all the news coverage: The attack was stopped by two students who had guns in their cars.

The fast responses of Mikael Gross and Tracy Bridges undoubtedly saved many lives. Mikael was outside the law school returning from lunch when Peter Odighizuwa started shooting. Tracy was in a classroom waiting for class to start. When the shots rang out, chaos erupted. Mikael and Tracy were prepared to do something more constructive: Both immediately ran to their cars and got their guns, then approached the shooter from different sides. Thus confronted, the attacker threw his gun down.

Isn’t it remarkable that out of 218 unique news stories (from a LexisNexis search) in the week after the event, just four mentioned that the students who stopped the shooter had guns? Here is a typical description of the event from the Washington Post: “Three students pounced on the gunman and held him until help arrived.” New York’s Newsday noted only that the attacker was “restrained by students.” Many stories mentioned the law-enforcement or military backgrounds of these student heroes, but virtually all of the media, in discussing how the killer was stopped, failed to mention the students’ guns.

A week and a half after the assault, I appeared on a radio program in Los Angeles along with Tracy Bridges, one of the Appalachian Law School heroes. Tracy related how he had carefully described to over 50 reporters what had happened, explaining how he had to point his gun at the attacker and yell at him to drop his gun. Yet the media had consistently reported that the incident had ended by the students “tackling” the killer. Tracy specifically mentioned that he had spent a considerable amount of time talking face-to-face with reporter Maria Glod of the Washington Post. He seemed stunned that this conversation had not resulted in a more accurate rendition of what had occurred.

After finishing the radio show, I telephoned the Post, and Ms. Glod confirmed that she had talked to both Tracy Bridges and Mikael Gross, and that both had told her the same story. She said that describing the students as pouncing, and failing to mention their guns, was not “intentional.” It had been due to space constraints.

I later spoke with Mike Getler, the ombudsman for the Post. Getler was quoted in the Kansas City Star as saying that the reporters simply did not know that bystanders had gotten their guns. After I informed him that Glod had been told by the students about using their guns, Getler said, “She should have included it.” But he said that he had no power to do anything about it. He noted that readers had sent in letters expressing concern about how the attack had been covered. But none of these letters was ever published.

It was not until February 28, 2004, after the preliminary hearing where testimony verified again what had happened, that the Washington Post published one brief sentence containing the truth: “[The killer] was subdued without incident by armed students.”

The Kansas City Star printed a particularly telling interview with Jack Stokes, media relations manager at the Associated Press, who “dismissed accusations that news groups deliberately downplayed the role gun owners may have played in stopping” the shooting. But Stokes “did acknowledge being ‘shocked’ upon learning that students carrying guns had helped subdue the gunman. ‘I thought, my God, they’re putting into jeopardy even more people by bringing out these guns.’”

Selective reporting of crimes such as the Appalachian Law School incident isn’t just poor journalism; it could actually endanger people’s lives. By turning a case of defensive gun use into a situation where students merely “overpowered a gunman,” the media give potential victims the wrong impression about what works when confronted with violence. Research consistently shows that having a gun (usually just brandishing it is enough) is the safest way to respond to any type of criminal assault.

Evidence of Unbalanced Coverage
I conducted searches of the nation’s three largest newspapers—USA Today, the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times—for the year 2001 and found that only the Times carried even a single news story on defensive gun use. (The instance involved a retired New York City Department of Corrections worker who shot a man attempting to hold up a gas station.) Broadening my search to the top ten newspapers in the country, I learned that the Los Angeles Times, Washington Post and Chicago Tribune each managed to report three such stories in a year.

During 2001, the New York Times published 104 gun crime news articles—ranging from a short blurb about a bar fight to a front-page story on a school shooting—for a total of 50,745 words. In comparison, its single story about a gun used in self-defense amounted to all of 163 words. USA Today printed 5,660 words on crimes committed with guns, and not a single word on defensive gun use. The least lopsided coverage was provided by the Washington Post, with 46,884 words on crimes committed with guns and 953 words on defensive stories—again, not exactly a balanced treatment.

Moreover, the few defensive gun-use incidents that received coverage were almost all reported locally. Though articles about gun crimes are treated as both local and national stories, defensive uses of guns are given only local coverage in the rare instances they run at all. In the full sample of defensive gun-use stories I have collected, less than one percent ran outside the local coverage area. News about guns only seems to travel if it’s bad.

This helps explain why residents of urban areas favor gun control. Most crime occurs in big cities, and urbanites are bombarded with tales of gun-facilitated crime. It happens that most defensive gun uses also occur in these same cities, but they simply aren’t reported.

The 1999 special issue of Newsweek entitled “America Under the Gun” provided over 15,000 words and numerous graphics on the topic of gun ownership, but not one mention of self-defense with a firearm. Under the heading “America’s Weapons of Choice,” the table captions were: “Top firearms traced to crimes, 1998”; “Firearm deaths per 100,000 people”; and “Percent of homicides using firearms.” There was nothing at all on “Top firearms used in self-defense” or “Rapes, homicides, and other crimes averted with firearms.” The magazine’s graphic, gut-wrenching pictures all showed people who had been wounded by guns. No images were offered of people who had used guns to save lives or prevent injuries.

To investigate television coverage, I collected stories reported during 2001 on the evening news broadcasts and morning news shows of ABC, CBS and NBC. Several segments focused on the increase in gun sales after September 11, and a few of these shows actually went so far as to list the desire for self-defense as a reason for that increase. But despite over 190,000 words of coverage on gun crimes, a mere 580 words, on a single news broadcast, were devoted to the use of a gun to prevent crime—a story about an off-duty police officer who helped stop a school shooting.

Another sign of bias is in the choice of authorities quoted. An analysis of New York Times news articles over a two-year period shows that Times reporters overwhelmingly cite pro-gun control academics in their articles. From February 2000 to February 2002, the Times cited nine strongly pro-control academics a total of 20 times; one neutral academic once; and no academic who was skeptical that gun control reduces crime.

It’s not that anti-control academics are non-existent. In 1999, 294 academics from institutions as diverse as Harvard, Stanford, Northwestern, the University of Pennsylvania and UCLA released an open letter to Congress stating that the new gun laws being proposed at that time were “ill-advised.” None of these academics was quoted in New York Times reports on guns over a two-year period.

Misleading Polls
While polls can provide us with important insights about people’s views, they can also mislead in subtle ways. In the case of weapons, poll questions are almost always phrased with the assumption that gun control is either a good thing or, at worst, merely ineffective. The possibility that it could increase crime is never acknowledged. Consider these questions from some well-known national polls:

Do you think that stricter gun control laws would reduce the amount of violent crime in this country a lot, a little, or not at all? (Pew Research Center/Newsweek) Do you think stricter gun control laws would reduce the amount of violent crime in this country, or not? (ABC News/Washington Post) Do you think stricter gun control laws would, or would not, reduce violent crime? (CBS News)

I reviewed 17 national and seven state surveys and found that not one offered respondents a chance to consider whether gun control might increase crime. This omission of a “would increase crime” option creates a bias in two different ways. First, there is an “anchoring” effect. We know that the range of options people are offered in a poll affects how they answer, because many respondents instinctively choose the “middle ground.” By only providing the choices that gun control reduces crime somewhere between “a lot” to “not at all,” the middle ground becomes “a little.” Second, when the possibility that gun control could increase crime is removed from polls, this affects the terms of the national debate. When people who hold this view never even hear their opinions mentioned in polls and news stories, they begin to think no one else shares their view.

There are other subtle biases in the construction of these surveys. When a survey questions whether gun control will be “very important” for the respondent at the voting booth, the media often hear a “yes” answer as evidence that the person wants more gun control. Rarely do they consider that someone might regard a politician’s position on gun control as important because he or she opposes it. This blurring of opposite positions in one question causes gun control to be ranked more highly as an election issue than it should be.

Debunking the Myth of Accidental Shootings
A final area strongly affected by the media’s anti-gun bias is that of accidental shootings. When it comes to this topic, reporters are eager to write about guns. Many of us have seen the public service ads showing the voices or pictures of children between the ages of four and eight, which imply that there is an epidemic of accidental deaths of these young children.

Data I have collected show that accidental shooters overwhelmingly are adults with long histories of arrests for violent crimes, alcoholism, suspended or revoked driver’s licenses and involvement in car crashes. Meanwhile, the annual number of accidental gun deaths involving children under ten—most of these being cases where someone older shoots the child—is consistently a single digit number. It is a kind of media archetype story to report on “naturally curious” children shooting themselves or other children—though in the five years from 1997 to 2001 the entire United States averaged only ten cases a year where a child under ten accidentally shot himself or another child.

In contrast, in 2001 bicycles were much more likely to result in accidental deaths than guns. Fully 93 children under the age of ten drowned accidentally in bathtubs. Thirty-six children under five drowned in buckets in 1998. Yet few reporters crusade against buckets or bathtubs.

When crimes are committed with guns, there is a somewhat natural inclination toward eliminating all guns. While understandable, this reaction actually endangers people’s lives because it ignores how important guns are in protecting people from harm. Unbalanced media coverage exaggerates this, leaving most Americans with a glaringly incomplete picture of the dangers and benefits of firearms. This is how the media bias against guns hurts society and costs lives.

Copyright © 2011 Hillsdale College. The opinions expressed in Imprimis are not necessarily the views of Hillsdale College. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is hereby granted, provided the following credit line is used: “Reprinted by permission from Imprimis, a publication of Hillsdale College.” SUBSCRIPTION FREE UPON REQUEST. ISSN 0277-8432. Imprimis trademark registered in U.S. Patent and Trade Office #1563325.

John Lott’s speech is available in the archives of Hillsdale’s Imprimis publication found here.

“Gun Free Zones – A Prevalent Delusion” by Don B. Kates Jr.

“Gun Free Zones – A Prevalent Delusion” by Don B. Kates Jr.

A thoughtful article on Gun Free Zones. Don doesn’t hold back as he criticizes the delusional thinking that somehow creating ‘gun free zones’ keeps us safer. Don offers some good evidence to argue that ‘gun free zones’ are foolish thinking. He mentions Israel and their policy of armed citizens, and how on numerous occasions an armed Israeli citizen has been able, using their firearm, to stop a terrorist attack. He cites John Lott’s book, now in its 3rd edition More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws, Third Edition (Studies in Law and Economics)to support his claims. I don’t hear much about Israel’s pro-gun policies when reading the gun control and anti-gun rights literature.

Don writes:

Or consider the absence of school massacres in Israel. Years ago Israeli children were the first targets of the Palestinian intifada. Israel’s response was arming teachers and school bus drivers, as well as parent-volunteers, to guard the children. When a few terrorists were killed, attacks on schools and busses ended—and have never resumed.

This is not because terrorists are afraid to die. But what they want is helpless victims, not confrontations with armed defenders. Now, while terrorists sometimes throw grenades at schools, they are trained not to enter schools lest they be killed before they can kill any children. Thereafter Israel adopted a policy to license numerous gun owners so there will generally be at least a few armed civilians everywhere.

Some examples taken from Prof. Lott’s 2003 book, The Bias Against Guns:

November 4, 2001, Jerusalem: a terrorist machine gunning a bus was killed by an Israeli civilian.

February 22, 2002, Efrat, Israel: A terrorist who was shooting customers in an Efrat market paused to activate a bomb but before he could do so a woman killed him with a pistol she drew from her purse.

Tel Aviv, February 5, 2002: An Israeli civilian, William Hazen, and his family were dining when a terrorist began shooting into the restaurant. Though wounded initially, Hazen killed the terrorist with a pistol he had carried for years.

When a terrorist attacked a bus with a sub-machine gun, a pistol-carrying civilian and an army reservist shot him dead.

The many instances related in the Lott book show that, unlike gun free zones, Israeli policy works. Thousands of Israeli civilians armed to guard against terrorist attack have halted such attacks by killing the terrorists, though often the civilians themselves have been injured or killed in these gun battles. . . .

You can read more of Don Kates article here.

Israel’s policy works because they don’t provide GUN FREE ZONES for criminals and terrorists.

Gun Rights Policy Conference – Key Gun Rights Advocates to Speak – John Lott

Dave Workman reports on the upcoming Gun Rights Policy Conference to be held in Orlando. The slate of speakers and topics to be discussed are impressive.

The 27th annual Gun Rights Policy Conference convenes one week from today at the Hyatt Regency Orlando International Airport hotel, and this year’s event will underscore the rising interest in gun ownership, and how that may affect the November election.

Sponsored by the Bellevue-based Second Amendment Foundation and Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, the GRPC theme this year is “Elect Liberty.” As noted by this column here and here, the conference will feature appearances by researcher John Lott and gun rights hero Otis McDonald. . . .

Read more about the Gun Rights Policy Conference here

Gunfight: The Battle over the Right to Bear Arms in America Adam Winkler’s Recent Book

Gunfight: The Battle over the Right to Bear Arms in America Adam Winkler’s Recent Book

I was interested in Winkler’s book, as some are touting it as a history of gun control that has racist roots. It might be good in some areas, but after going to Amazon and reading John Lott’s review (gentle, but straightforward), I decided not to purchase the book. I highly respect John Lott’s opinion (author of More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws, Third Edition (Studies in Law and Economics), and when he states that there are inaccuracies and that certain positions are distorted, I take notice.

I might still read Gunfight in the future, but it is not on my current reading list.

Negative Reviews of Adam Winkler’s GunFight

Fast and Furious – Justice Department Responds to Congressional Investigation – New York Times Reports

Fast and Furious – Justice Department Responds to Congressional Investigation – New York Times Reports

These couple of paragraphs from the NYT article indicate, in my opinion, the DOJ’s continuing effort to deflect criticism from the current Fast and Furious investigation to the earlier Operation Wide Receiver operation. I’ve quoted the first paragraphs of the NYT article. Read that and then see below it to what John Lott has already said about the two gun operations.

By CHARLIE SAVAGE [New York Times]

WASHINGTON — The Justice Department on Friday turned over to Congress nearly 1,400 pages of “highly deliberative internal communications” about the drafting of a February letter in an effort to show that agency officials did not knowingly mislead lawmakers in connection with a disputed gun trafficking investigation called Operation Fast and Furious.

Officials now acknowledge that the claim was misleading. It has come to light that A.T.F. agents in Arizona have on several occasions, dating to a 2006 investigation called Operation Wide Receiver, tried to identify the leaders of gun-trafficking networks by allowing lower-level suspects to transfer guns — and have lost track of weapons in the process. . . .

Read the rest of the NYT article here.

But, the problem here is what John Lott has already shown in an earlier article I posted, the two operations, Fast and Furious and Operation Wide Receiver are very different in how they were carried out. Wide Receiver had in place ‘guntracing’, and they notified the Mexican government about the weapons so that they could be traced or tracked. Fast and Furious didn’t do any ‘guntracing’ nor did it notify the Mexican government, according to John Lott.

See John Lott’s earlier analysis and comparison of Operation Wide Receiver and Fast and Furious here.

John Lott – Serious [and Unanswered] Questions Remain About Guntracing and the “Fast and Furious” Operation

John Lott – Serious [and Unanswered] Questions Remain About Guntracing and the “Fast and Furious” Operation

One has to appreciate John Lott’s analysis and comparison of Bush’s Wide Receiver operation and Obama’s “Fast and Furious.” They are very different in how they were handled. Lott also points out that some major media stories from the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal have missed this absolutely critical distinction. Lott’s questions are in the third paragraph of the quote below, and he asks “Why?”. One possible answer is that Fast and Furious might have been designed to help bring in more gun control laws in the USA. That is rather disturbing to think about it.

. . . A widely run Associated Press story last week by Pete Yost pointed out that both the Bush and Obama programs involved “gun-walking.” Yet somehow Yost managed to leave out the very central point about tracing. Other articles, such as those in the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal, have likewise left out this important point.

What is really missed by all this is the utter failure of gun tracing programs. The problem isn’t really that the Obama administration simply screwed up the tracing plan. Few guns move from the U.S. to Mexico and just as drug cartels bring in drugs from other countries, they can bring in the weapons that they need to protect those drugs. Mexican drug cartels aren’t getting their machine guns, grenades, and rocket launchers from the United States.

Why would the Obama administration not trace the guns? Why would they not inform Mexican officials about the program? One hopes that it was sheer incompetence combined with a desire to stonewall any investigation, but the fact that people knew that the guns weren’t being traced raises questions even about this plan.

The only other possibility — deliberately increasing the number of guns sold to increase the share of crime guns in Mexico from the United States and thus generate support for more gun control — is conceivable if only because “Fast and Furious” started at the same time that Obama began his campaign falsely claiming that most Mexican crime guns came from the United States.

We can only hope that even for the Obama administration that scenario is too cynical to be possible.

Read John Lott’s analysis here.

John Lott – “Armageddon Never Happened When Hand Gun Bans Were Lifted In DC and Chicago”

John Lott – “Armageddon Never Happened When Hand Gun Bans Were Lifted In DC and Chicago”

What did you expect?

Well, if you were Chicago’s Mayor Daley you expected a return to the Old West, or if you were DC Mayor Fenty you expected an increase in violence. And, you would have been wrong on both counts.

John Lott brings us up-to-date with an excellent article on the drop in crime rates in Washington DC and Chicago. And no, it didn’t happen with draconian gun control laws. . . it happened when the hand gun bans were lifted.

Dr. Lott’s research has shown over the years, More Guns, Less Crime.

Read John Lott’s article on crime rate drops in DC and Chicago.

Want the truth about Gun Control? Read his book, because you won’t find these things in the national mainstream media who are totally biased against guns.

Vanderbilt University – One Student’s Opinion on Campus Concealed Carry

Vanderbilt University – One Student’s Opinion on Campus Concealed Carry

John Lott was invited by the Young Americans For Liberty to speak on Campus Concealed Carry. One student, Jesse, wrote an opinion piece entitled,
Please, no guns on campus

The article really comes out in favor of gun control, not allowing campus concealed carry. I responded with a few thoughts, as I believe his article paints a distorted picture of gun owners and guns. And, if you read the other responses, you will see how far off the mark the factual content of his opinion is. Here is the beginning of my response:

Gun Rights vs. Gun Control
I fully respect your opinion, but your portrayal of those who might want to carry concealed on campus sounds more like an irrational fear of guns. You portray most gun owners as unintelligent, who will probably shoot at a mere verbal threat, or is probably the member of a dangerous right wing militia, or who probably has suicidal thoughts and just can’t wait to shoot himself. But instead, we are going to need a bunch of gangsters or the Secret Service to protect us if a ‘psycopath’ is after us, so we shouldn’t consider the possibility of concealed carry, ie, it will not work anyway. The government will protect us. Seriously, you should do a little more reading up on the countless, and I mean countless, examples of folks, normal, everyday folks, not militia types, not suicidal types, who have defended themselves and others with a gun. Go to Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership and ask them about getting the government to protect them. They have a book, and I have it also, Dial 911 and Die. Here is another example from Wikipedia, Suzanna Hupp. She left her gun in her car that day, . . .

. . . read the rest of my comments here

Germantown Votes to Allow Concealed Carry in Public Buildings

Germantown Votes to Allow Concealed Carry in Public Buildings

Interesting how different communities see things. Milwaukee votes to ban concealed carry, while Germantown votes to allow it.

It appears that in support of concealed carry a study by John Lott and the Stanford Law Review were used.

Wing cited a study by John Lott and then the Stanford Law Review that found that areas with concealed carry may actually be less dangerous than those banning it.

Compare this to the previous post where Milwaukee banned concealed carry.

Read the Germantown news on Concealed Carry here.