CPRC in the Columbia (Missouri) Daily Tribune: (Gun-free Zones are) Magnets for murderers

27 Dec , 2015  

Columbia Daily Tribune Banner

CPRC’s John Lott and Michael R. Gordinier, a senior lecture at the Washington University Business School, had a piece in Sunday’s Columbia Daily Tribune (Missouri) in response to

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.

In the Tuesday Tribune, Edward Lawlor argued such signs make us safer. He claimed the research of one of the authors here, John Lott’s “More Guns, Less Crime,” has been “refuted.” But he ignores that more than two-thirds of the peer-reviewed research by criminologists and economists that look at national data support those findings and that not a single study finds a bad effect on murders, rapes or robberies.

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. . . .

The rest of the piece is available here.


4 Responses

  1. Magnus says:

    could you post sources/quotes of the exact words that Roof, Rodger, Holmes and Bourque actually use which show that they “openly talk about their desire to attack where guns are banned” ? (I’m quoting your article)

    I’ve looked myself but can’t find anything I would consider to meet the above criteria.


  2. Magnus says:

    Mr Lott, I’m actually not as dim as I sound, I know how to use Google, I’ve already seen this.

    1. James Holmes. The theatre he chose banned guns. I agree this is an interesting coincidence. But nowhere in his diary did he say this was why he chose it. And turning down an airport for the substantial security is not the same as seeking out a gun free zone-there are plenty of places whe guns are allowed which would not be considered to have substantial security. Incidentally, he also turned down the airport because of its association with terrorism.

    2. Elliot Rodger. He wanted to avoid a place with a heavy police presence. But as above, this is not the same as looking for a gun free zone.

    3. Justin Bourque. He shared posts about gun control. But he didn’t say anything about how he chose his targets. His victims were all armed police officers, so I’m not sure how this shows he selected a gun free zone.

    4. Dylann Roof. Th evidence you share is that a friend of his speculates that he targeted the church because of security. Roof himself never said anything about this. As a professional statistical analyst I’m surprised you use this as evidence to claim Roof himself explicitly stated that he targeted the church as a gun free zone.

    I don’t doubt the possibility that people might choose gun free zones, and you are right to highlight the possibility. My issue was with your statement that they “openly talk about their desire to attack where guns are banned”. The examples you give clearly do not support this claim. More accurate would be to say that circumstantial evidence suggests they may have selected their targets as they were gun free zones.

  3. Magnus says:

    I just wanted to apologise for my tone at the beginning of the past post, it was unnecessary.


Leave a Reply

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