COMMENTARY |The Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting in Newtown has the entire nation discussing not only the heartbreaking tragedy but the pros and cons of gun control. If there was a quick and simple solution that would take away even one second of pain the school shootings victims’ families are feeling, everyone would immediately jump on board. Unfortunately, no such solution exists. Controversial author John Lott feels that more guns will make us safer and that gun-free zones are “magnets for mass shooters.”
While the More Guns, Less Crime author’s statement will immediately get bashed by the far left, there is some merit to what Lott has stated on numerous news shows over the weekend. Although John Lott has not interviewed any of the mass shooters who were not killed by their own hand or by heroic law enforcement officers, he has found some insightful similarities in the horrific mass shootings in America during the past decade.
Lott contends that it is no coincidence that public spaces designated as gun-free zones have been the sight of the senseless crimes which have taken the lives of innocents way too soon. During an interview with CNN’s Soladed O’Brien on Monday morning Lott pointed out that there were multiple movie theaters near James Holmes’ home, yet he chose the one with a no guns allowed policy as the sight for his murderous rampage.
Lott attempted to explain his reasoning for being against a gun ban during the news segment, but O’Brien’s obvious dislike of his position fueled so many disruptions it was difficult for the viewer to hear the author speak and share statistics about gun crime in America.
During an interview with NewsMax John Lott had this to say:
“The problem is, whether it is the Portland [Oregon] shooting earlier this week, or the Connecticut shooting Friday, or the Sikh temple attack in Wisconsin, time after time these attacks take place in the few areas within a state where permit-concealed handguns are banned. It’s not just this year, it’s all these years in the past. And at some point people have to recognize that despite the obvious desire to make places safe by banning guns, it unintentionally has the opposite effect.”
The author makes some valid points about how gun-free zones literally place a bulls-eye on the backs of those who shop, learn, dine, or worship in such venues. Lott did not venture into the uncomfortable area which exists outside of political correctness. The bulk, if not all, of the recent mass shootings in America have occurred in suburban or comfortably middle class areas.
Affluent private schools which likely have enhanced security and ample safety officers have not attracted such senseless violence. Poor urban schools which often grapple with gangs and do not have funds for necessary security officers have also been spared the heartache of school shootings. Such statistics appear to support Lott’s assessment that mass shooters bent on carrying out their evil desires will always take the path of least resistance.
The More Guns, Less Crime author also had this to say on the subject of gun control laws, according to interview excerpts published by The New American:
“If you had a violent criminal stalking you or your family, and was really seriously threatening you, would you feel safer putting a sign up in front of your home stating, ‘This home is a gun-free zone?’ My guess is you wouldn’t do that. And I’ve never run into any gun control proponents who would do that either. And the reason is pretty clear, putting a sign there saying this is a gun-free home isn’t going to cause the criminals to say, ‘Oh, I don’t want to break the law, so I’m not going to go in and attack these people.’ It encourages them to do it. It serves as a magnet for him, if he’s going to engage in this attack, that that’s the place where he is going to engage in, because he finds that it is going to be easier to do it there. Yet every time we have one of these mass shooting incidents, it renews the call from the media and the left for banning guns.”