The piece by John Lott at Investor’s Business Daily starts this way:
Gun-control advocates are so extremely fearful of guns, the NFL has banned off-duty police from carrying their guns inside stadiums. They really believe that the presence of guns, even those carried by off-duty police, pose an unacceptable danger.
Not surprisingly, police unions from Minnesota to New York are bringing lawsuits. The sergeants union in New York City is typical, fearing the ban puts both police and the public at risk — calling the policy “ludicrous and insane.” It also prevents a fast response when seconds might matter.
And of course the police are right. We trust officers while they are on the job, yet off-duty they are not viewed similarly.
The NFL claims off-duty officers might be confused for terrorists and could be shot by regular on-duty uniformed police.
However, those very officers whose lives are supposedly at risk want to carry guns and believe that it makes both them and the public safer.
Indeed, if terrorists attack fans at a football game, whom would the terrorists target to kill first? Obviously, the uniformed police. The off-duty officers dressed like other fans would be extremely valuable.
Also metal detectors can’t be depended on to secure stadiums. Terrorists have the time and resources to make sure that they can find some way into the stadiums. Banning guns guarantees only that law-abiding off-duty officers will be disarmed.
Police aren’t just making these arguments out of selfishness or because of their egos. They understand the general principle. Last year, PoliceOne, the largest organization of police officers in the U.S. with 450,000 members, asked its members:
“What would help most in preventing large-scale shootings in public?”
The most frequent answer to that question, with 30% support, was “more permissive concealed carry policies for civilians.”
Creating gun-free zones wasn’t one of the organization’s suggestions, and few officers believe in gun control. Support for gun control — restrictions on “assault weapons,” ammo magazines and “tighter limits on weapons sales and transfers” — added up to only 2.4%. . . .
The rest of the article is available here.
There is a related piece in the Daily Illini (the University of Illinois school newspaper) that discusses allowing permitted concealed handguns at universities and the work of the CPRC:
. . . Some may argue that guns have no place on a campus where irresponsibility and drinking are common. I can see how a gun in the arms of someone inebriated could end badly. At the same rate, though, a car in the hands of someone inebriated could also end badly, but vehicles aren’t banned on campus. Trying to argue that students might act irresponsibly with a firearm because of some of the behavior that is typical on a college campus is an emotional speculation refuted by data about concealed carry permit holders. According to the Crime Prevention Research Center, statistics from states that already allow concealed carry on college campuses show that there is no evidence to suggest that people with a concealed carry license behave any differently on school property.
In fact, according to the president of the Crime Prevention Research Center, “the about 11.5 million current concealed handgun permit holders are extremely law-abiding.” This is accredited to the effective filtering process of applying for and obtaining a concealed carry license, which includes rigorous background checks, the submission and approval of lengthy applications, as well as the required completion of 16 hours of firearms training meant to keep guns from falling into careless hands. The system is so effective that people, according to Lott, “lose their permits for firearm violations at hundredths or thousandths of one percentage point.” . . .
UPDATE: The trend of banning police from carrying guns is continuing. From Miami, Florida:
The new rule was prompted by an unruly protest by dozens of Miami police union members last month who were upset by a cut in their benefits, according to CBS4 news partner The Miami Herald.
In an email to his department, Police Chief Manuel Orosa called the protestors “a mob” who put city employees and those who attended the meeting “in fear for their safety,” according to the Miami Herald.
The only exceptions to the new rule will be officers assigned to City Hall or those inside the building handling a call.
Javier Ortiz, the president of the Fraternal Order of Police, who organized last month’s protest said he’s disappointed by the ruling.
“We are very disappointed that the police administration would trust us with a firearm in a citizen’s home, but they won’t trust us with one in City Hall,” Ortiz told the paper. . . .