Yet more evidence that these killers are deterred by people with guns: Charleston, South Carolina Church Shooter

20 Jun , 2015  

Dylann Roof

We have previously pointed out how mass public shooting after mass public shooting keep occurring where guns are banned. Here is yet another case of these killers avoiding places where people with guns might be able to stop their killing spree. From the Associated Press:

Last week, while they were drinking in the back of Scriven’s house, Roof blurted out his plan about carrying out a mass shooting at the College of Charleston.

“I don’t think the church was his primary target because he told us he was going for the school,” Scriven said Friday. “But I think he couldn’t get into the school because of the security … so I think he just settled for the church.” . . .

Here is what the College of Charleston puts up regarding their armed officers.

Police officers responding to an active shooter are trained to proceed immediately to the area in which shots were last heard in order to stop the shooting as quickly as possible. The first responding officers may be in teams; they may be dressed in normal patrol uniforms, or they may be wearing external ballistic vests and Kevlar helmets or other tactical gear. The officers may be armed with rifles, shotguns or handguns. Do exactly as the officers instruct. The first responding officers will be focused on stopping the active shooter and creating a safe environment for medical assistance to be brought in to aid the injured. . . .

John Lott recently spoke about mass public shootings at the law school at the College of Charleston, and given that it was my topic, he checked out the security measures at the school.  There were no metal detectors present, just a reliance on armed campus security.

The media generally ignores that these attacks keep occurring where guns are banned, instead concentrating on how the killer obtained the gun or the weapon used. Yet, it is very hard to stop people who are planning these attacks over 6 months in advance from getting a weapon. Background checks and other “solutions” wouldn’t stop these attacks that are being used to motivate the laws.

“His mom had taken the gun from him and somehow he went back and took it from her.”

(We have previously noted that Greta’s show on Fox News interviewed one of the killer’s friends who had said that the killer had stolen the gun he used from his mom without her knowing it.)

UPDATE: The Christian Science Monitor mentions our point:

Following the Charleston shooting, gun advocate John Lott wrote: “Not surprising that yet another mass public shooting has taken place where guns were banned. Yet, again, the ban only ensured that the victims were vulnerable…. With the exception of just two cases, all the mass public shootings since at least 1950 have occurred where guns are banned. This tragic case is no different.” . . . .

, ,


11 Responses

  1. Eric says:

    Was the church in Charleston a gun free zone?

  2. smartalek says:

    With all due respect (really, no snark), this particular alleged perp has been quoted as saying he intended to kill himself after his “mission” was accomplished.
    This is consistent with the Columbine high school killers, who suicided; with the Sikh temple killer, who suicided; with the Sandy Hook killer, who suicided; and so forth.
    I don’t know if it’s a large, or even a simple majority — but it certainly appears as if a very significant fraction of the perpetrators of the deadliest of mass killings are not only willing, but eager to die themselves.
    Given this, how much of a deterrent do you really expect turning every public and private realm into a guns-allowed zone would really be?
    Cheers

    • johnrlott says:

      Right, these killers do want to commit suicide, as I have frequently noted, but they also want to make sure that they go out with as much publicity as they can get and they know that if they kill more people, they will get more attention.

  3. Dave McWhinnie says:

    Gun free zones are truly target areas for murderers and evil doers. Good people with equalizers should not be banned anywhere.

  4. steve says:

    In SC, by law, all churches are “gun free zones” unless you have the express permission of the governing body or pastor/preacher. The problem is, only the law abiding and legally authorized weapon carrier knows and adheres to this requirement.

  5. Rich says:

    It’s a sad irony. Grassroots Gun Rights of SC fought for years to change the law of the gun free zone at churches to one where it was OK if the church elders agreed.
    For years, the most staunch opposition was the Rev. Pinckney. The same one shot in the prayer meeting. He hated guns and wanted them nowhere near a church.

  6. Jim says:

    How on Earth is the answer to gun crime MORE guns? Isn’t it about time the USA caught up with the rest of the civilised world (instead of clinging to an outdated document), and abolished guns all together?
    Trying to call out ‘gun free zones’ as unsafe is ridiculous when the only people causing the issues are the lunatics with the guns. Take away the guns and no violence right?

  7. Jim says:

    I would love for someone to tell me how changing the law to no guns would cause you more danger? Possibly without saying “rights”…

    • Eileen says:

      People will get guns no matter what. It is not realistic to believe that they won’t.

      No-gun zones make it impossible for law abiding citizens to have guns in that area, which can be used against the person who is there to shoot innocent people. This kind of person doesn’t follow the rules, obviously. The no-gun zone is an invitation for him to come knowing he can kill more people before he is stopped by the police.

      Better yet. Have trained people, without uniforms or any other outer signs of being trained, in vulnerable areas such as churches and schools who know what to do in an emergency and who are armed. Then post signs all over the area that the trained, armed persons are there.

      The right to bear arms was put in the constitution because our founding fathers knew how governments can become corrupted and tyrannical. They had just won their freedom from one and knew the citizenry needed to be able to protect themselves from a tyrannical government.

      Also, it would be good for you to do some research on this. Statistics show that when guns are confiscated from the citizenry crime rates go up dramatically.

      Also it would be good to do research on the great number of occasions when people avoided being murdered or abused because they had a gun. These are not publicized because they give evidence against the agendas of the media and others behind this push.

  8. […] what was ultimately the deterrent of this originally-planned crime? Well, according to the CPRC, Dylann Roof was deterred by the presence of armed security personnel on the College of […]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *