This is actually a good article by The National Review

DAMN! Google the header and it will come up. Can't post the link.

Someone else want to try?

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/425802/gun-free-zones-don't-save-lives-right-to-carry-laws-do

This is actually a good article by The National Review

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/425802/gun-free-zones-don't-save-lives-right-to-carry-laws-do
That might work better.


It's not that good of an article.

It implies if there were no "gun free zones" and there were armed guards/people that the shooters would choose not to do anything at all.
"Some have a hard time accepting that criminals can be deterred from committing crimes."

At best the article proves that some people that go on "shooting sprees" premeditate their crime.

"hard to ignore that mass public shooters keep choosing to attack locations where victims can’t defend themselves"

"Mass killers have even explicitly talked about their desire to attack gun-free zones"

"Holmes decided not to attack an airport because of what he described in his diary as its 'substantial security.'"

"only one theater banned permitted concealed handguns. That’s the one he attacked."

"He ruled out various targets because he worried that someone with a gun would stop his killing spree."

There is no proof that having guns in those places would have "deterred from committing crimes."

Only that the shooters thought about what they were doing and the result they wanted.

And this?:
"We studied 13 different types of gun-control laws as well as the impact of law enforcement, but the only law that had a statistically significant impact on mass public shootings was the passage of right-to-carry laws. Right-to-carry laws reduced both the frequency and the severity of mass public shootings"
is just horrible.
It proves nothing, is based on nothing.
Might as well say "we studied 13 different types of Obamacare laws as well as the impact of hospitals, but the only law that had a statistically significant impact on mass health care was the passage of right to choice laws. Right to choice laws reduced both the frequency and the severity of pregnancies, reducing the need for prenatal care."

It's not journalism, it's no different than a forum post.
Not an article, but an opinion.

It's not journalism, it's no different than a
forum post.
Not an article, but an opinion.

Hmmm....quite the quandary...who's opinion should I put more stock in? John Lott, the author of the article....

"" studied economics at UCLA, receiving
his B.A. in 1980, M.A. in 1982, and Ph.D.
in 1984. Lott has held positions in law and
economics at several institutions, including
the Yale Law School , Stanford , UCLA, the
Wharton Business School , Texas A&M
University , and Rice University . Lott was the
chief economist at the United States
Sentencing Commission (1988–1989). He
spent five years as a visiting professor
(1994–95) and as a fellow (1995–99) at the
University of Chicago. Lott was a resident
scholar at the American Enterprise Institute
(2001–2006). He left AEI for SUNY
Binghamton . [11] From July 2007 to 2010,
Lott was a senior research scientist at the
University of Maryland Foundation at the
University of Maryland, College Park

Nobel laureate
Milton Friedman said that "John Lott has
few equals as a perceptive analyst of
controversial public policy issues." ""
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Lott


......or a faceless forum poster who tries to micro analyze in every post he makes?

I think Ill go with John Lott....

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/425802/gun-free-zones-don't-save-lives-right-to-carry-laws-do
That might work better.


It's not that good of an article.

It implies if there were no "gun free zones" and there were armed guards/people that the shooters would choose not to do anything at all.
"Some have a hard time accepting that criminals can be deterred from committing crimes."

At best the article proves that some people that go on "shooting sprees" premeditate their crime.

"hard to ignore that mass public shooters keep choosing to attack locations where victims can’t defend themselves"

"Mass killers have even explicitly talked about their desire to attack gun-free zones"

"Holmes decided not to attack an airport because of what he described in his diary as its 'substantial security.'"

"only one theater banned permitted concealed handguns. That’s the one he attacked."

"He ruled out various targets because he worried that someone with a gun would stop his killing spree."

There is no proof that having guns in those places would have "deterred from committing crimes."

Only that the shooters thought about what they were doing and the result they wanted.

And this?:
"We studied 13 different types of gun-control laws as well as the impact of law enforcement, but the only law that had a statistically significant impact on mass public shootings was the passage of right-to-carry laws. Right-to-carry laws reduced both the frequency and the severity of mass public shootings"
is just horrible.
It proves nothing, is based on nothing.
Might as well say "we studied 13 different types of Obamacare laws as well as the impact of hospitals, but the only law that had a statistically significant impact on mass health care was the passage of right to choice laws. Right to choice laws reduced both the frequency and the severity of pregnancies, reducing the need for prenatal care."

It's not journalism, it's no different than a forum post.
Not an article, but an opinion.