Utah Mall Shooting was a "No Guns" Zone
Last Thursday I talked about how a concealed handgun saved lives at a Utah mall shooting.
As a quick update, it's now coming out that that mall had a "No Guns" policy and posted signs saying such. There are more "newsy" sources out there than this one, but it's the only one with an actual picture I could find. It comes from the personal blog of John Lott, the noted firearms researcher that I've mentioned before.
How did the crazed shooter ever get his guns past that magic sign that is supposed to protect us? Why would he ever choose to go to that mall instead of another one that may not post signs prohibiting good guys from defending themselves? Criminals (even insane ones) prefer easy targets.
For a larger image so you can read the rules (specifically #10), click here.
This article is permanently linked here.
2 comments
2 Comments:
I wanted to let you know that I've refined my position somewhat; I'm no longer in favor of gun control (although I never was 100%), but I'm now just in favor of outlawing anything semi-automatic or automatic. Although I might consider allowing some semi-auto handguns with very low-volume magazines. I think it makes sense.
Can of worms: opened.
Actually, I never thought that you were an actual supporter of gun control based on the intelligent responses and questions you've posted on here. You're just refining your process. :)
I grew up around firearms, but before I started researching the politics and actual statistics associated with the issue, I also thought like you that nobody would need anything besides a simple .22 for target plinking or something. As you have seen, I've since changed that position. :)
Anyway, I appreciate your comment and won't try to give a detailed argument why there's nothing wrong with law-abiding citizens owning semi-auto or even select fire (full auto) firearms.
Briefly though, I'd like to ask what your motivation was for that conclusion. Was it to reduce crime? If so, I have provided tons of anecdotal evidence as well as indisputable overall statistics that prove that gun bans aren't only ineffective, they are counter-productive.
If gun bans do work, then DC, Chicago, and England would be the safest places on Earth. Unfortunately, that isn't true and "gun crime" skyrocketed after they passed their gun laws.
Criminals are the ones that use guns to murder and there are already laws against criminals owning ANY gun, let alone a semi-auto or machine gun. How would taking away my semi-auto rifles and "large capacity" handgun magazines make the world safer? I'm the only person that would turn them in... not Joe GangBanger that has his gun illegally in the first place.
Remember that if laws against semi-auto guns or "large capacity" handgun magazines were passed, the Utah Mall shooter would not have been stopped and he would have killed even more people. It's pretty hard to fight a mall terrorist when you have to stop to break down and reload your single shot pistol or rifle after every shot.
I do hope we can continue to talk about this, because I'm always intrigued on what people think about these issues.
(And by the way, both the NRA and the Brady Campaign would define "gun control supporter" as someone that would support a semi-auto ban.) :)
Post a Comment
<< Home