From Politistick: The left and the right can and should be agreed on something: America should be dedicated to trying to thwart gun violence. The cowards who would commit random acts of violence should be stopped and where the fundamental division between right and left resides is in the “how,” not the “why.”
The left has an obsessively misguided belief in the value of statism and a misconception that government laws are enough to keep people safe. While penalties and statutes go a long way in instilling law and order, when it comes to the deranged who would open-fire on a crowd of people, laws, statutes and silly signs do next-to-nothing to stop such violence.
In fact, it seems that the advertising of such “gun-free” zones do more to endanger good citizens than anything else.
While the stiff rise in gun sales have demonstrated time and time again to help play a positive role in the decrease of gun violence nationwide, the “more guns= less crime” model of study is not the only academic news that is sure to rile liberals; so-called “gun-free” zones appear to be a haven for murderers.
Academia.org reports on some astounding new findings:
“Dr. J. Eric Dietz, director of Purdue University’s Homeland Security Institute, concluded that in a study of all mass shootings since the 1950s, only two occurred outside gun-free zones,” Jesse Kremer, a Republican state representative from Wisconsin, claimed on his web site.
When contacted by the Chronicle of Higher Education, Dr. Dietz was more measured in his conclusions. Nevertheless, the reporter he talked to, Eric Kelderman, reported that “Mr. Dietz, a former director of the State of Indiana’s Homeland Security Department, says the conclusion to be drawn from his research is that to reduce casualties in active-shooter scenarios, you have to reduce the time it takes the police to engage with the shooter.”
“His [computer] model showed that the number of victims could fall by nearly 70 percent when an armed police officer is on site. Having a small number of faculty members who are armed would reduce the number of deaths by 10 percent to 15 percent, he said.”
While the Dietz study is not a ringing endorsement of concealed carry laws, it goes against widespread beliefs in both the media and academia. You will probably hear crickets chirp before CNN reports it.
When we are discussing such matters of life and death, the rules change. The threat of a hefty speeding ticket can deter a common speeder, but a sign stating that one is breaking a policy by carrying a gun into a “gun-free” zone is only likely to disarm the rule-following populace, not the vicious cowards who prey upon disarmed members of society.
Advertising pockets of the population that are unable to fight back is not only moronic, it is demonstrably unsafe.
It’s time to end “gun-free” zones.