CPRC interviewed by Sinclair Broadcasting: “Chattanooga shooting reopens debate over military personnel regulations”

Jul 18, 2015 | Featured

IMG_0343

Here is part of an article from the Sinclair Broadcast Group and WJLA in Washington, DC that quoted John Lott (both from his article at Fox News and the reporter interviewing him):

. . . “Army regulations are very clear stating that personnel cannot have firearms during their official duties,” Dr. John R. Lott, the President of the Crime Prevention Research Center wrote in an opinion published on Foxnews.com.

Lott wrote it was “was hard to ignore the gun-free zone sign on the front door of the recruiting station. It was surrounded by bullet holes.”

“These shootings keep happening in places where people can’t have guns,” Lott said, “I hope at some point people begin to realize the dangers of gun free zones.”

Lott said that the men accused of committing mass shooting in Charleston, Santa Barbara and Aurora considered if their victims would be armed.

“One thing that people need to be cognizant of is how explicit all of these killers are in trying to find places where victims aren’t going to be able to defend themselves,” Lott said. . . .

The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review also referenced our work:

For you see, these offices are designated as “gun-free zones” by the government. And that left some of America’s finest as sitting ducks. We do the same to millions of school children, too.

As regular Trib columnist, economist and gun scholar John Lott reminded in a FoxNews.com column, “With the exception of military police, military personnel are banned from having weapons on base, in federally leased buildings, or while they are carrying out official duties.”

Given the increasing number of attacks against military personnel, and given the threats against them by the likes of ISIS, that’s insane. And advertising the fact with door signs is nuts.

“Why should we make it easy for these killers to attack our military?” Mr. Lott asks. . . .

johnrlott

3 Comments

  1. ThinkLonger

    The latest Fox News video on This is very interesting. I only wish John Lott or anyone with the facts could have countered Nomiki Konst’s claims which seem to go against almost all facts and data.

    http://video.foxnews.com/v/4361150178001/sitting-ducks-growing-outrage-over-gun-free-zones/?playlist_id=2114913880001#sp=show-clips

    It is very interesting. I only wish John Lott or anyone with the facts could have countered Nomiki Konst’s claims:

    1. She Claims: By removing gun free zones there will be a shooting spree. Claiming ‘most military experts’ agree with this. (By this logic, our military shouldn’t use guns against the enemy in war as they may kill each other. Why doesn’t Nomiki consider the NET EFFECT.)

    2. An armed guard is often the first person shot. (This one is true, which is why we need armed non-guards)

    3. “Because every single expert in this area, trained military professionals has said there is a guaranteed shooting spree, for that to happen…. but it’s true, It’s just facts, then why is it that every military professional that’s an expert in this issue (is) disagrees with you?”

    She then smiles as though she won the argument, but it leaves me wondering who are these experts and where is the data?

    • johnrlott

      Thanks for your comment, Martin.

      — Nomiki Konst asserted that “most” or “all” military experts or ‘every single expert in this area” believes that allowing guns in these gun-free zones would lead to mass shootings. I have seen no evidence supporting her claims about “ xperts.” Obviously, we have troops who are required to have guns with them at all times when they are on bases in Afghanistan or Iraq, but there was no rash of the types of shootings by armed soldiers that she asserts would happen. In addition, when this rule was changed in 1992/1993, it was only changed for the stated purpose of making the military operate like businesses (the argument was that a professional business atmosphere should model itself after the way businesses operate). There was no argument that there had been a safety risk, and there is no evidence of the types of violence Konst claims and certainly no one remotely believes that the attacks were occurred at the rate she claims.

      Instead the opposite is true. Since at least 1950, with just two exceptions, all the mass public shootings have occurred in places where guns are banned. Concealed handgun permit holders, who typically have far less training in using guns than the military, are extremely law-abiding and don’t commit mass shootings. Instead, these civilians regularly stop mass public shootings (http://crimeresearch.org/2015/04/uber-driver-in-chicago-stops-mass-public-shooting/).

      — Konst was very confusing in her discussion of who is allowed to currently carry, but the correct bottom line is that it is basically MPs. Having military police carry guns is no more of a guarantee of protection against mass public shootings than police are for stopping those attacks against civilians.

      — Konst appears to make the comment that an armed guard is often the first person shot when there is a terrorist attack. I have made this point often in explaining the benefits of concealed carry. But the conclusion then isn’t to only let an MP guard the facility or to continue the general ban, but to possibly let multiple people carry or to allow them to carry concealed.

      — Finally, when Konst blamed Bush for the change in rules, it was a decision made by both the Bush and Clinton administrations. Bush initially proposed changes, but the Clinton administration rewrote them some and actually enacted them.

  2. ThinkLonger

    Sorry about the duplicate sentence in my first post. I can’t find a way to edit it. Moderator feel free to fix it for me.

Archives