I am very happy to announce the new site, www.2ndAmendmentFight.com is up now. All articles from this blogger site have been moved over to the new site & new original content is going up there
I have been published on six sites so far, PolicyMic.com (now Mic.com), Vocativ, BuzzPo, The Brenner Brief (now simply www.brennerbrief.com and referred to as 'Broadside News'), Tavern Keepers (no author bio page, but here's one article), and The Bell Towers. On this blogger site, I simply re-published articles after originally being posted on these other sites. The new site has all of these articles and brand-new ones, not published anywhere else first.
My objective remains to educate: Education Defeats Propaganda. The new site's slogan is:
Intelligent Information to Win the 2nd Amendment Fight!
EDUCATION DEFEATS PROPAGANDA (TM)
The gun control topic is fraught with misinformation, half-truths and outright lies, pushed by unscrupulous politicians and activists and perpetuated by ignorant (or willing accomplices) in the media. I aim to counter that, and to promote genuine attempts to solve the problems by addressing the root causes of violence, not by simply offering cosmetic "feel good" policies that research shows us would not actually solve anything.
If the problem is violence, homicides, crime, violent crime, and the goal is increased safety - safe neighborhoods, schools, streets, parks, shopping centers, etc. - then my approach is to seek solid research that answers whether any particular policy would achieve that goal and reduce the problem. Thus I examine gun policy proposals by asking if if it will solve the problems of violence and reduce crime, thereby making the world safer for the rest of us.
I also address our fundamental Natural Rights to defend ourselves.
Gun buyback programs are seeing renewed discussion in many American
cities in part because gun buybacks may seem like an intuitive way to
reduce crime, by reducing the number of ‘guns on the streets.’ The
research, however, clearly demonstrates that gun buybacks are a waste of
tax dollars and an utter failure in terms of making people any safer.
The theoretical premise behind gun buyback programs is that the
program will lead to fewer guns on the streets because fewer guns are
available for either theft or trade, and that consequently violence will
decline. However, criminologists say
buybacks have no impact on gun crime or gun-related injuries and that
the programs do not target the guns most likely to be used in violence.
A gun buyback in Seattle, for example, showed no statistically
significant change in gun-related homicides afterwards. Similarly, a
2002 study in Milwaukee found that handguns sold back to local police
didn’t fit the profile of handguns used in homicides. Even Garen
Wintemute, director of the injury-prevention center at the University of
California, Davis who believes gun buybacks have ‘intangible’ value
concedes “[gun buybacks] never will reduce rates of violent crime.”
The National Research Council (NRC) found “theory underlying gun
buyback programs is badly flawed and the empirical evidence demonstrates
the ineffectiveness of these programs.”
The study cited three reasons that buybacks are not effective: First,
guns obtained through buybacks are the least likely to be used in
criminal activities. Guns turned in tend to be of two categories: old,
malfunctioning guns whose resale value is less than the reward offered
in buyback programs, or guns owned by individuals who derive little
value from the possession of the guns (for example, those who have
inherited old guns).
Additionally, gun buybacks attract people who are unlikely to commit
crimes in the first place, and more importantly, are extremely unlikely
to entice criminals to sell their weapons. The NRC states “those who are
either using guns to carry out crimes or as protection in the course of
engaging in other illegal activities, such as drug selling, have
actively acquired their guns and are unlikely to want to participate in
such programs.” Bottom line: these aren’t the guns ‘on the street’ in
the first place.
Second, the number of guns “on the street” typically does not
decline. This is because replacement guns are relatively easy to obtain,
therefore, the actual decline in the number of guns on the street may
be smaller than the number of guns that are turned in. Bottom line: guns
sold in the hopes they won’t end up on the street are easily replaced
via other sources.
Third, the likelihood that any particular gun will be used in a crime
in a given year is low. There were 8,855 total firearm homicides in the
United States in 2012, but perhaps 380 million firearms. Congressional
Research Service estimated 310 million firearms in 2009, but that estimate is now low. There have been over 71 million NICS checks
(the background check required for all retail gun sales) from 2010
through 2013. The FBI cautions there is not necessarily a one-to-one
ratio between a check and a firearm sale. There are two reasons for
this: one, a check may be denied. Although historically, most denials
are false positives, resulting in only 0.6% of all NICS checks
ultimately denied (roughly
1.1 million denials out of 191 million checks from 1998 through May,
2014). The second reason is that more than one firearm may be purchased
at the same time which would only generate one NICS check for the entire
transaction.
Thus, there may be upwards of 380 million firearms in the United
States. The NRC notes that even if a different firearm were used in each
homicide, the likelihood that a particular gun would be used to kill an
individual in a particular year is extremely small. The typical gun
buyback program yields less than 1,000 guns.
The NRC states
“In light of the weakness in the theory underlying gun buybacks, it is
not surprising that research evaluations of U.S. efforts have
consistently failed to document any link between such programs and
reductions in gun violence (Callahan et al., 1994; Police Executive
Research Forum, 1996; Rosenfeld, 1996).”
How have larger scale gun buybacks fared? In 1996 the Australian
government banned a significant number of firearms and held a mandatory
nationwide gun buyback. The buyback resulted in the destruction of 643,726 firearms at a cost of $500 million AUD.
Just as in smaller scale buybacks in the United States, research
suggests the Australian buyback was a waste of public money that made
little difference in gun-related death rates. Weapons subject to the
buyback in Australia accounted for a modest share of all homicides or
violent crimes prior to the buyback. Numerous academics found the
same results. In 2003, Reuter and Mouzos were unable to find evidence of a substantial decline in rates for gun crimes.
In 2005, Dr. Don Weatherburn, the head of the New South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, stated
that the 1996 legislation had had little to no effect on violence. He
noted that though the homicide rate had fallen, the rate of decline had
been steady, and began before the 1996 reforms. Dr. Weatherburn
stated “I would need to see more convincing evidence than there is to be
able to say that gun laws have had any effect.”
In 2006, a study published in the British Journal of Criminology by
McPhedran and Baker found that the gun buyback and associated gun
control laws had no influence on firearm homicide in Australia, and the
buyback and other reforms could not be shown to alter rates of suicide
or homicide. They conclude the lack of effect from either the massive
buyback has significant implications for public policy – not only in
Australia, but internationally. They stated “It is tempting to equate
strict firearmm legislation with effective firearm legislation. [But] if
policy is to be truly effective, it must have clearly defined outcomes
and it must be able to bring about those outcomes,” adding, “There is
insufficient evidence to support the simple premise that reducing the
stockpile of civilian firearms will result in a reduction in either
firearm or overall sudden death rates.” McPhedran, stated
in a Time magazine interview, “looking purely at the statistics, the
answer is there in black and white. The hypothesis that the removal of a
large number of firearms owned by civilians [would lead to fewer
gun-related deaths] is not borne out by the evidence.”
A 2009 study
by Lee and Suardi, of the Melbourne Institute at The University of
Melbourne found the results of Australian buybacks “did not have any
large effects on reducing firearm homicide or suicide rates.” They
stated “Although gun buybacks appear to be a logical and sensible policy
that helps to placate the public’s fears, the evidence so far suggests
that …gun buybacks have not translated into any tangible reductions in
terms of firearm deaths.”
It should be noted that all the academics cited above came to the
same conclusion, but two of them (McPhedran & Baker, 2006 and
Lee & Suardi, 2009) were criticized by Harvard criminologist, David
Hemenway. However, his criticisms were published in “Bulletins”, a
one page equivalent of a press release – not in a peer-reviewed
publication, like the British Journal of Criminology. The funding of
Bulletins is through anti-gun, far left activist organization,
the Joyce Foundation. Further Hemenway is the only criminologist to have
his research openly mocked in a U.S. Court of Appeals decision.
In this light, Hemenway’s non-peer reviewed criticisms stand in
contrast with the majority of academics (which includes the head of the
New South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research in Australia)
whose conclusion is the buyback and other reforms had no measurable
effect.
In total, there have been more than 1 million guns destroyed through 38 buybacks in Australia. But since 1996, more than 1 million firearms have been legally imported
into Australia, eliminating the reduction achieved through the
buybacks. Therefore the theoretical benefit of reducing the supply of
guns has been eradicated through legal purchases.
More to point, these buybacks have not taken guns out of the hands of
those most likely to commit crimes or prevented criminals from
obtaining guns illegally. Though there is disagreement on the extent,
guns are smuggled into Australia. In just the New South Wales province
alone, police seized nearly 7,000 illegal firearms in 2011. Criminals were caught shipping guns from Germany to a Sydney post office. Police said they had “broken a major supply route of guns into Australia”. Police have also busted illegal arms dealers supplying criminals with Uzi’s, M16′s and M25 sniper rifles. Most guns stolen from licensed owners are rifles, but most crimes are committed with handguns, “which leads police to conclude they’re coming from overseas”.
The 1996 reforms required guns to be registered and owners licensed,
proving they had a “genuine cause” to have a gun. However most firearm
murders in Australia’s are done with illegal firearms, not legally
registered firearms. According to Reuter and Mouzos’ 2003 study,
only one gun homicide in the two years following the 1996 buyback and
gun reforms used a registered gun. The Australia Institute of
Criminology (AIC) report of the 2006-07 fiscal year stated
that 93% of firearms involved in homicides were not registered and were
used by unlicensed individuals.-This is strong evidence demonstrating
that reducing supply in the general population does little to deter the
criminal element from obtaining guns.
Besides producing no change on firearm homicide, the Australian gun
reforms seem to have had unintended negative consequences. By 2008, there had been an increase
of over 40% in assaults and 20% in sexual assaults. Violent crime as a
whole has soared in Australia since the 1996 gun ban. AIC data shows
that Australia has more violent crime per 100,000 people than the U.S.
or Canada. Australia’s violent crime rate is only outpaced by the UK,
whose violent crime rate has skyrocketed since their late-90′s gun ban.
Professor Mason of George Washington University states: “What to conclude? Strict gun laws in [Great Britain and] Australia haven’t made their people noticeably safer.”
Obama said
he would “be willing to work with anyone to craft solutions” to our gun
violence problem. Looking like you’re doing something is not the same
thing as actually achieving a positive result. If the positive result we
want to see in our society is less homicides and violent crime, then
buybacks are empirically demonstrated to not be a solution. The best
benefit cited by any proponent of buybacks is “intangible” benefit of
getting the conversation of gun violence going. It would seem there are
more cost-effective means of getting a public debate going than spending
hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars to do so. What we might focus
on, is the underlying causes of violence: poverty, drug abuse, gangs,
and mental illness. Getting at the root causes of violence would seem to
have a better chance at producing positive results than what we already
ready know will not produce results.
By Matt MacBradaigh.Matt
is a Christian, Husband, Father, Patriot, and Conservative from the
Pacific Northwest. Matt writes about the Second Amendment, Gun Control,
Gun Rights, and Gun Policy issues and is published on The Bell Towers, The Brenner Brief, PolicyMic. TavernKeepers, and Vocativ.
Gun buyback programs are seeing renewed discussion in many American cities in part because gun buybacks may seem like an intuitive way to reduce crime, by reducing the number of ‘guns on the streets.’ The research, however, clearly demonstrates that gun buybacks are a waste of tax dollars and an utter failure in terms of making people any safer.
The theoretical premise behind gun buyback programs is that the program will lead to fewer guns on the streets because fewer guns are available for either theft or trade, and that consequently violence will decline. However, criminologists say buybacks have no impact on gun crime or gun-related injuries and that the programs do not target the guns most likely to be used in violence.
A gun buyback in Seattle, for example, showed no statistically significant change in gun-related homicides afterwards. Similarly, a 2002 study in Milwaukee found that handguns sold back to local police didn’t fit the profile of handguns used in homicides. Even Garen Wintemute, director of the injury-prevention center at the University of California, Davis who believes gun buybacks have ‘intangible’ value concedes “[gun buybacks] never will reduce rates of violent crime.”
The National Research Council (NRC) found “theory underlying gun buyback programs is badly flawed and the empirical evidence demonstrates the ineffectiveness of these programs.”
The study cited three reasons that buybacks are not effective: First, guns obtained through buybacks are the least likely to be used in criminal activities. Guns turned in tend to be of two categories: old, malfunctioning guns whose resale value is less than the reward offered in buyback programs, or guns owned by individuals who derive little value from the possession of the guns (for example, those who have inherited old guns).
Additionally, gun buybacks attract people who are unlikely to commit crimes in the first place, and more importantly, are extremely unlikely to entice criminals to sell their weapons. The NRC states “those who are either using guns to carry out crimes or as protection in the course of engaging in other illegal activities, such as drug selling, have actively acquired their guns and are unlikely to want to participate in such programs.” Bottom line: these aren’t the guns ‘on the street’ in the first place.
Second, the number of guns “on the street” typically does not decline. This is because replacement guns are relatively easy to obtain, therefore, the actual decline in the number of guns on the street may be smaller than the number of guns that are turned in. Bottom line: guns sold in the hopes they won’t end up on the street are easily replaced via other sources.
Third, the likelihood that any particular gun will be used in a crime in a given year is low. There were 8,855 total firearm homicides in the United States in 2012, but perhaps 380 million firearms. Congressional Research Service estimated 310 million firearms in 2009, but that estimate is now low. There have been over 71 million NICS checks (the background check required for all retail gun sales) from 2010 through 2013. The FBI cautions there is not necessarily a one-to-one ratio between a check and a firearm sale. There are two reasons for this: one, a check may be denied. Although historically, most denials are false positives, resulting in only 0.6% of all NICS checks ultimately denied (roughly 1.1 million denials out of 191 million checks from 1998 through May, 2014). The second reason is that more than one firearm may be purchased at the same time which would only generate one NICS check for the entire transaction.
Thus, there may be upwards of 380 million firearms in the United States. The NRC notes that even if a different firearm were used in each homicide, the likelihood that a particular gun would be used to kill an individual in a particular year is extremely small. The typical gun buyback program yields less than 1,000 guns.
The NRC states “In light of the weakness in the theory underlying gun buybacks, it is not surprising that research evaluations of U.S. efforts have consistently failed to document any link between such programs and reductions in gun violence (Callahan et al., 1994; Police Executive Research Forum, 1996; Rosenfeld, 1996).”
How have larger scale gun buybacks fared? In 1996 the Australian government banned a significant number of firearms and held a mandatory nationwide gun buyback. The buyback resulted in the destruction of 643,726 firearms at a cost of $500 million AUD.
Just as in smaller scale buybacks in the United States, research suggests the Australian buyback was a waste of public money that made little difference in gun-related death rates. Weapons subject to the buyback in Australia accounted for a modest share of all homicides or violent crimes prior to the buyback. Numerous academics found the same results. In 2003, Reuter and Mouzos were unable to find evidence of a substantial decline in rates for gun crimes.
In 2005, Dr. Don Weatherburn, the head of the New South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, stated that the 1996 legislation had had little to no effect on violence. He noted that though the homicide rate had fallen, the rate of decline had been steady, and began before the 1996 reforms. Dr. Weatherburn stated “I would need to see more convincing evidence than there is to be able to say that gun laws have had any effect.”
In 2006, a study published in the British Journal of Criminology by McPhedran and Baker found that the gun buyback and associated gun control laws had no influence on firearm homicide in Australia, and the buyback and other reforms could not be shown to alter rates of suicide or homicide. They conclude the lack of effect from either the massive buyback has significant implications for public policy – not only in Australia, but internationally. They stated “It is tempting to equate strict firearmm legislation with effective firearm legislation. [But] if policy is to be truly effective, it must have clearly defined outcomes and it must be able to bring about those outcomes,” adding, “There is insufficient evidence to support the simple premise that reducing the stockpile of civilian firearms will result in a reduction in either firearm or overall sudden death rates.” McPhedran, stated in a Time magazine interview, “looking purely at the statistics, the answer is there in black and white. The hypothesis that the removal of a large number of firearms owned by civilians [would lead to fewer gun-related deaths] is not borne out by the evidence.”
A 2009 study by Lee and Suardi, of the Melbourne Institute at The University of Melbourne found the results of Australian buybacks “did not have any large effects on reducing firearm homicide or suicide rates.” They stated “Although gun buybacks appear to be a logical and sensible policy that helps to placate the public’s fears, the evidence so far suggests that …gun buybacks have not translated into any tangible reductions in terms of firearm deaths.”
It should be noted that all the academics cited above came to the same conclusion, but two of them (McPhedran & Baker, 2006 and Lee & Suardi, 2009) were criticized by Harvard criminologist, David Hemenway. However, his criticisms were published in “Bulletins”, a one page equivalent of a press release – not in a peer-reviewed publication, like the British Journal of Criminology. The funding of Bulletins is through anti-gun, far left activist organization, the Joyce Foundation. Further Hemenway is the only criminologist to have his research openly mocked in a U.S. Court of Appeals decision. In this light, Hemenway’s non-peer reviewed criticisms stand in contrast with the majority of academics (which includes the head of the New South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research in Australia) whose conclusion is the buyback and other reforms had no measurable effect.
In total, there have been more than 1 million guns destroyed through 38 buybacks in Australia. But since 1996, more than 1 million firearms have been legally imported into Australia, eliminating the reduction achieved through the buybacks. Therefore the theoretical benefit of reducing the supply of guns has been eradicated through legal purchases.
More to point, these buybacks have not taken guns out of the hands of those most likely to commit crimes or prevented criminals from obtaining guns illegally. Though there is disagreement on the extent, guns are smuggled into Australia. In just the New South Wales province alone, police seized nearly 7,000 illegal firearms in 2011. Criminals were caught shipping guns from Germany to a Sydney post office. Police said they had “broken a major supply route of guns into Australia”. Police have also busted illegal arms dealers supplying criminals with Uzi’s, M16′s and M25 sniper rifles. Most guns stolen from licensed owners are rifles, but most crimes are committed with handguns, “which leads police to conclude they’re coming from overseas”.
The 1996 reforms required guns to be registered and owners licensed, proving they had a “genuine cause” to have a gun. However most firearm murders in Australia’s are done with illegal firearms, not legally registered firearms. According to Reuter and Mouzos’ 2003 study, only one gun homicide in the two years following the 1996 buyback and gun reforms used a registered gun. The Australia Institute of Criminology (AIC) report of the 2006-07 fiscal year stated that 93% of firearms involved in homicides were not registered and were used by unlicensed individuals.-This is strong evidence demonstrating that reducing supply in the general population does little to deter the criminal element from obtaining guns.
Besides producing no change on firearm homicide, the Australian gun reforms seem to have had unintended negative consequences. By 2008, there had been an increase of over 40% in assaults and 20% in sexual assaults. Violent crime as a whole has soared in Australia since the 1996 gun ban. AIC data shows that Australia has more violent crime per 100,000 people than the U.S. or Canada. Australia’s violent crime rate is only outpaced by the UK, whose violent crime rate has skyrocketed since their late-90′s gun ban. Professor Mason of George Washington University states: “What to conclude? Strict gun laws in [Great Britain and] Australia haven’t made their people noticeably safer.”
Obama said he would “be willing to work with anyone to craft solutions” to our gun violence problem. Looking like you’re doing something is not the same thing as actually achieving a positive result. If the positive result we want to see in our society is less homicides and violent crime, then buybacks are empirically demonstrated to not be a solution. The best benefit cited by any proponent of buybacks is “intangible” benefit of getting the conversation of gun violence going. It would seem there are more cost-effective means of getting a public debate going than spending hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars to do so. What we might focus on, is the underlying causes of violence: poverty, drug abuse, gangs, and mental illness. Getting at the root causes of violence would seem to have a better chance at producing positive results than what we already ready know will not produce results.
This article was originally published on The Bell Towers. Original publish date Jul 21, 2014. Original author, Matt MacBradaigh.
The recent Reynolds High School shooting in Troutdale, Oregon proves
two things about gun control: good guys with guns stop bad guys with
guns, and gun free zones do not prevent shootings.
Troutdale OR Police Chief Scott Anderson. Photo credit: modified YouTube video screen capture
Following the Reynolds High School shooting,
the usual anti-gun rights activists, liberal politicians and mainstream
media talking heads are regurgitating the same-old talking points they
always do. However, there are two important points that we all should
take away that will likely be missed: armed guards – armed “good guys” –
do indeed stop shootings and save lives, and gun free zones do not stop
shootings.
Following the Sandy Hook Elementary tragedy in Newtown, Connecticut, the NRA advocated
the use of armed personnel, in whatever form any particular school
district deemed appropriate – police, retired law enforcement, or armed
faculty and staff. Liberals lost their collective minds over the
suggestion, and the NRA was severely criticized by liberals, mainstream media,
and anti-gun organizations. However in practice, schools do just
that, utilizing armed law enforcement on campuses across our nation. According to the Department of Justice,
nearly 17,000 officers from almost half of police and one-third of
sheriff departments serve as School Resource Officers (SROs) in roughly
half of all schools. And since Newtown, some districts have also opted for school staff to be armed.
Like the school shooting at Arapahoe High School in Centennial, Colorado last year that was stopped in “less than 80 seconds”
because of the rapid response by the armed sheriff deputy officer
stationed at that school, the shooting at Reynolds High school was
stopped short by two armed SROs. In both incidents, only one student was
murdered by the shooter; in both incidents the shooter, a student,
committed suicide once pinned down by armed officers.
Troutdale Police Chief Scott Anderson said
the shooter at Reynolds High School killed a fellow student in the
locker room. He then shot and wounded a coach, Mr. Rispler, who fled and
initiated the school’s lockdown procedure. Wearing a non-ballistic vest
used for carrying ammunition and a multi-sport helmet, the shooter
moved down the hallway where he encountered and exchanged gunfire with
Troutdale Police officers, who were closing in on him from two separate
hallways. He then moved into a separate, smaller bathroom where he took
his own life.
The shooter was armed with an AR-15 rifle, along with nine magazines
of ammunition, loaded with several hundred rounds (likely 270 rounds:
nine magazines at 30 rounds capacity each). It is for this reason Anderson said the fast response by Troutdale Police school resource officers saved many lives:
I cannot emphasize enough the role that Mr. Rispler and
the responding officers played in saving many, many lives. Given the
weapons and amount of ammunition that the shooter was carrying, the
early notification and the initial law enforcement response were
critical.
Reynolds is the state’s second-largest high school with 2,800 students.
Though the loss of one life was tragic, it could have been much worse
if not for the rapid response. Police said they had uncovered no
connection between the murdered student and the shooter; it is unlikely
that the shooter intended to kill only one student. Police at both
Arapahoe and Reynolds schools emphasized the rapid response of armed
officers stationed on-site. Police also emphasized school lockdown
drills after both shootings. Armed good guys, it seems, do stop
tragedies short and save lives.
The other takeaway that should be painfully obvious, is that gun free
zone signs do not stop shootings. How many more concrete examples do we
need before we recognize this obvious truth? Gun free zones are an
utter failure as a policy to make people “more safe,” as they are
intended. The Aurora, Colorado movie theater, Virginia Tech, Seattle
Pacific University, Arapahoe High School, Columbine High School,
Reynolds High School, Fort Hood, and the Washington Naval Yard shootings
all took place in so-called “gun free zones.” Indeed every shooting in a
so-called “gun free zone” further makes the case against gun free
zones. Laws and signs do not self-enforce, which is why we have law
enforcement officers. Perhaps is it time to stop advertising that our
children’s schools (and movie theaters and military bases) are free-fire
victim zones, and end gun free zones.
By Matt MacBradaigh.Matt
is a Christian, Husband, Father, Patriot, and Conservative from the
Pacific Northwest. Matt writes about the Second Amendment, Gun Control,
Gun Rights, and Gun Policy issues and is published on The Bell Towers, The Brenner Brief, PolicyMic. TavernKeepers, and Vocativ.
The recent Reynolds High School shooting in Troutdale, Oregon proves two things about gun control: good guys with guns stop bad guys with guns, and gun free zones do not prevent shootings.
Following the Reynolds High School shooting, the usual anti-gun rights activists, liberal politicians and mainstream media talking heads are regurgitating the same-old talking points they always do. However, there are two important points that we all should take away that will likely be missed: armed guards – armed “good guys” – do indeed stop shootings and save lives, and gun free zones do not stop shootings.
Following the Sandy Hook Elementary tragedy in Newtown, Connecticut, the NRA advocated the use of armed personnel, in whatever form any particular school district deemed appropriate – police, retired law enforcement, or armed faculty and staff. Liberals lost their collective minds over the suggestion, and the NRA was severely criticized by liberals, mainstream media, and anti-gun organizations. However in practice, schools do just that, utilizing armed law enforcement on campuses across our nation. According to the Department of Justice, nearly 17,000 officers from almost half of police and one-third of sheriff departments serve as School Resource Officers (SROs) in roughly half of all schools. And since Newtown, some districts have also opted for school staff to be armed.
Like the school shooting at Arapahoe High School in Centennial, Colorado last year that was stopped in “less than 80 seconds” because of the rapid response by the armed sheriff deputy officer stationed at that school, the shooting at Reynolds High school was stopped short by two armed SROs. In both incidents, only one student was murdered by the shooter; in both incidents the shooter, a student, committed suicide once pinned down by armed officers.
Troutdale Police Chief Scott Anderson said the shooter at Reynolds High School killed a fellow student in the locker room. He then shot and wounded a coach, Mr. Rispler, who fled and initiated the school’s lockdown procedure. Wearing a non-ballistic vest used for carrying ammunition and a multi-sport helmet, the shooter moved down the hallway where he encountered and exchanged gunfire with Troutdale Police officers, who were closing in on him from two separate hallways. He then moved into a separate, smaller bathroom where he took his own life.
The shooter was armed with an AR-15 rifle, along with nine magazines of ammunition, loaded with several hundred rounds (likely 270 rounds: nine magazines at 30 rounds capacity each). It is for this reason Anderson said the fast response by Troutdale Police school resource officers saved many lives:
I cannot emphasize enough the role that Mr. Rispler and the responding officers played in saving many, many lives. Given the weapons and amount of ammunition that the shooter was carrying, the early notification and the initial law enforcement response were critical.
Reynolds is the state’s second-largest high school with 2,800 students.
Though the loss of one life was tragic, it could have been much worse if not for the rapid response. Police said they had uncovered no connection between the murdered student and the shooter; it is unlikely that the shooter intended to kill only one student. Police at both Arapahoe and Reynolds schools emphasized the rapid response of armed officers stationed on-site. Police also emphasized school lockdown drills after both shootings. Armed good guys, it seems, do stop tragedies short and save lives.
The other takeaway that should be painfully obvious, is that gun free zone signs do not stop shootings. How many more concrete examples do we need before we recognize this obvious truth? Gun free zones are an utter failure as a policy to make people “more safe,” as they are intended. The Aurora, Colorado movie theater, Virginia Tech, Seattle Pacific University, Arapahoe High School, Columbine High School, Reynolds High School, Fort Hood, and the Washington Naval Yard shootings all took place in so-called “gun free zones.” Indeed every shooting in a so-called “gun free zone” further makes the case against gun free zones. Laws and signs do not self-enforce, which is why we have law enforcement officers. Perhaps is it time to stop advertising that our children’s schools (and movie theaters and military bases) are free-fire victim zones, and end gun free zones.
This article was originally published on Brenner Brief. Original publish date Jun 13, 2014. Original author, Matt MacBradaigh.
Liberals exploit bogus mental health talking points to push for gun control. Another school shooting, this time in Troutsdale, Oregon,
where one student was fatally shot by another student, who later shot
himself when pinned down by armed school guards. Another flare-up in the
gun control debate and whether mental illness plays an important role
in gun violence, and if so, to what extent? Mainstream media pundits and
liberal politicians alike are, again, off the mark.
CNN’s Fareed Zakaria wrote:
Every time there is a serious gun massacre in the United
States — and alas, these are fairly common — the media focuses on the
twisted psychology of the shooter and asks why we don’t pay more
attention to detecting and treating mental illness… The question we
should be really focused on is… why there are so many of them in
America… America’s per capita gun homicide rate in 2009 was 12 times
higher than the average of Canada, Germany, Australia and Spain. Does
anyone think that we have 12 times as many psychologically troubled
people as they do in these countries?
Likewise, President Obama also touched on mental illness in his remarks following the shooting, “The United States does not have a monopoly on crazy people. It’s not the only country that has psychosis.”
There are several points in which both Mr. Zakaria and President Obama are wrong.
First, the word choice “massacre.” Massacre is defined by Merriam-Webster as
“the act or an instance of killing a number of usually helpless or
unresisting human beings under circumstances of atrocity or cruelty.”
One person, although tragic, is not “a number of” people.
Second, the word choice of “fairly common.” This would depend on
whose information one bases their assessment. If one bases it on the
list of 74 supposed “school shootings” since Newtown compiled by
anti-gun rights activist and billionaire-funded group Moms Demand
Action, then more than one per week sounds fairly common. The problem? The list is bogus according
to analysis done by Politifact, who found they included incidents such
as a 2013 Clarksville, Tennessee incident, where authorities were
called to a high school parking lot at 2 a.m. and “found the body of a
38-year-old homicide victim with no links to the school.” CNN found the
number of actual school shootings since Newtown to be just 15.
Third, the “gun homicide” rate is an arbitrary and misleading
comparative to gauge countries’ overall homicide rate, since nations
have differing gun laws. We would expect nations with restrictive gun
laws to have less murder with a gun, but what about the murder rate overall? Do we feel better if people are murdered, just not with a gun? Of course not! A Harvard-published study of
36 European nations, which have stronger gun control than the U.S.,
found there is no link whatsoever between gun availability and the
countries’ homicide rate. They note this is because guns (or any weapon
type) don’t cause crime, socio-cultural and economic factors do. This is
why in the U.S., the homicide rate in very restrictive gun controlled Chicago’s South side is so high (over 500 murders in 2012).
Fourth, there is a problem with putting the blame for all murders on
“psychologically troubled people” or as President Obama put it, “crazy
people.” Arguably, most or all mass murderers are psychologically
troubled, but mass murder typically results in “less than 100 victims” out of nearly 13,000 murders reported annually by the FBI.
This amounts to yet another disingenuous,
weak-sauce attempt by the left to subtly make the point that “it’s the
guns.” The “reasoning,” if we deign to call it that, is obvious: “Gee,
if the U.S. doesn’t have a monopoly on crazy people, but more gun
murders, it must be the guns. We need gun control.”
This fails a basic fact that the left only seems to remember when
it’s convenient, that correlation does not equal causation. Guns don’t
cause crime, socio-cultural and economic factors do. Knowing this
requires more thought than blindly accepting that “it’s the guns,” and
that is what the left is counting on – that people are too stupid to
critically think about their talking points.
Brenner Brief recently reported that
even if absolutely all legally owned civilian guns were banned and
confiscated, we should expect little reduction in criminal activity. The Department of Defense states 80 percent of criminals obtain guns illegally, the FBI reports gangs traffic guns along with narcotics into the U.S., and criminologists find that 90 percent of adult murderers have adult criminal records with multiple contacts to the Justice system. In addition, the CDC says
that law-abiding citizens use guns to defend themselves, reduce injury,
save lives at least a half million to several million times annually,
and that lawful carrying of a gun is a deterrent to crime.
Therefore, besides very little to no reduction in criminal activity, we
would also remove the lawful deterrent and expect to see an increase in crime, injury and lost lives.
By Matt MacBradaigh.Matt
is a Christian, Husband, Father, Patriot, and Conservative from the
Pacific Northwest. Matt writes about the Second Amendment, Gun Control,
Gun Rights, and Gun Policy issues and is published on The Bell Towers, The Brenner Brief, PolicyMic. TavernKeepers, and Vocativ.
Liberals exploit bogus mental health talking points to push for gun control. Another school shooting, this time in Troutsdale, Oregon, where one student was fatally shot by another student, who later shot himself when pinned down by armed school guards. Another flare-up in the gun control debate and whether mental illness plays an important role in gun violence, and if so, to what extent? Mainstream media pundits and liberal politicians alike are, again, off the mark.
Every time there is a serious gun massacre in the United States — and alas, these are fairly common — the media focuses on the twisted psychology of the shooter and asks why we don’t pay more attention to detecting and treating mental illness… The question we should be really focused on is… why there are so many of them in America… America’s per capita gun homicide rate in 2009 was 12 times higher than the average of Canada, Germany, Australia and Spain. Does anyone think that we have 12 times as many psychologically troubled people as they do in these countries?
Likewise, President Obama also touched on mental illness in his remarks following the shooting, “The United States does not have a monopoly on crazy people. It’s not the only country that has psychosis.”
There are several points in which both Mr. Zakaria and President Obama are wrong.
First, the word choice “massacre.” Massacre is defined by Merriam-Webster as “the act or an instance of killing a number of usually helpless or unresisting human beings under circumstances of atrocity or cruelty.” One person, although tragic, is not “a number of” people.
Second, the word choice of “fairly common.” This would depend on whose information one bases their assessment. If one bases it on the list of 74 supposed “school shootings” since Newtown compiled by anti-gun rights activist and billionaire-funded group Moms Demand Action, then more than one per week sounds fairly common. The problem? The list is bogus according to analysis done by Politifact, who found they included incidents such as a 2013 Clarksville, Tennessee incident, where authorities were called to a high school parking lot at 2 a.m. and “found the body of a 38-year-old homicide victim with no links to the school.” CNN found the number of actual school shootings since Newtown to be just 15.
Third, the “gun homicide” rate is an arbitrary and misleading comparative to gauge countries’ overall homicide rate, since nations have differing gun laws. We would expect nations with restrictive gun laws to have less murder with a gun, but what about the murder rate overall? Do we feel better if people are murdered, just not with a gun? Of course not! A Harvard-published study of 36 European nations, which have stronger gun control than the U.S., found there is no link whatsoever between gun availability and the countries’ homicide rate. They note this is because guns (or any weapon type) don’t cause crime, socio-cultural and economic factors do. This is why in the U.S., the homicide rate in very restrictive gun controlled Chicago’s South side is so high (over 500 murders in 2012).
Fourth, there is a problem with putting the blame for all murders on “psychologically troubled people” or as President Obama put it, “crazy people.” Arguably, most or all mass murderers are psychologically troubled, but mass murder typically results in “less than 100 victims” out of nearly 13,000 murders reported annually by the FBI.
The overly simplistic statements that ‘the U.S. doesn’t have a monopoly on mentally disturbed people’ also utterly fail to conduct even a cursory examination of how other nations handle mental illness – like involuntary detainment for observation, for instance – compared to the United States. The killer in the Isla Vista Santa Barbara massacre was reported to authorities by family that was genuinely worried he was a danger to himself or others, and law enforcement met with him three separate times, but failed to detain him for observation, or to get a warrant to search his residence, where he kept a journal with detailed plans for his murder rampage. How might other nations handle a similar situation?
This amounts to yet another disingenuous, weak-sauce attempt by the left to subtly make the point that “it’s the guns.” The “reasoning,” if we deign to call it that, is obvious: “Gee, if the U.S. doesn’t have a monopoly on crazy people, but more gun murders, it must be the guns. We need gun control.”
This fails a basic fact that the left only seems to remember when it’s convenient, that correlation does not equal causation. Guns don’t cause crime, socio-cultural and economic factors do. Knowing this requires more thought than blindly accepting that “it’s the guns,” and that is what the left is counting on – that people are too stupid to critically think about their talking points.
As this author recently wrote, even if absolutely all legally owned civilian guns were banned and confiscated, we should expect little reduction in criminal activity. The Department of Justice states 80 percent of criminals obtain guns illegally, the FBI reports gangs traffic guns along with narcotics into the U.S., and criminologists find that 90 percent of adult murderers have adult criminal records with multiple contacts to the Justice system. In addition, the CDC says that law-abiding citizens use guns to defend themselves, reduce injury, save lives at least a half million to several million times annually, and that lawful carrying of a gun is a deterrent to crime. Therefore, besides very little to no reduction in criminal activity, we would also remove the lawful deterrent and expect to see an increase in crime, injury and lost lives.
This article was originally published on Brenner Brief. Original publish date Jun 12, 2014. Original author, Matt MacBradaigh.
