John Lott’s newest piece in the Orange County Register starts this way:
Would you post a sign announcing that your home is a gun-free zone? Would you feel safer? Criminals don’t obey these signs. In fact, to criminals, gun-free zones look like easy targets.
So why do we put up these signs in other places? The California Senate recently voted to ban holders of concealed handgun permits from carrying guns on school or university property. Gun control advocates can’t point to any problems with permit holders carrying guns in those places, but it didn’t stop hasn’t stopped them from pushing a new law.
Since at least 1950, all but two public mass shootings in America have taken place where general citizens are banned from carrying guns. In Europe, there have been no exceptions. Every mass public shooting has occurred in a gun-free zone. And Europe is no stranger to mass shootings. It has been host to three of the six worst K-12 school shootings and by far the worst mass public shooting perpetrated by a single individual.
With dozens of cases where permit holders have clearly stopped what would have been mass public shootings, it is understandable that killers avoid places where they can’t kill a large number of people.
What might be surprising is how killers often openly talk about their desire to attack where guns are banned. The Charleston killer’s first choice was to target the College of Charleston, but he chose the church instead because there were armed guards at the college.
Just a few months ago, the diary of the Aurora, Colo., “Batman” movie theater killer James Holmes was finally released. He was considering both attacking an airport and a movie theater, but he turned down the airport option because he was concerned about their “substantial security.” Out of seven theaters showing the “Batman” movie premiere within 20 minutes of the suspect’s apartment, only one banned permitted concealed handguns – and that is the one he attacked. . . .
The rest of the piece is available here.