Every school and non-school mass shooting in the United States over the past decade has taken place in one of the states in the upper half of the country by strictness of gun control laws, as measured by the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence. The sole exception was the targeted political assassination attempt of Representative Gabrielle Giffords in Arizona in 2011.
Even in mass shootings that unfolded in states near the middle of the rankings — e.g., Colorado — the massacres took place in locations where guns were banned. In Aurora, Colorado, the shooting was carried out in a Century 16 cinema, whose parent company’s policy prevents firearms on its premises.
As gun control expert John Lott has pointed out, virtually every mass shooting in U.S. history has been carried out against unarmed civilians, whether in gun-free schools, on gun-free college campuses or in gun-free government buildings. There are no mass killings at shooting ranges, hunting parties or policeman’s balls.
Many shootings, such as the assault at Virginia Tech in 2007 or the Binghamton immigration center in 2009, could have been halted, had one of the victims been carrying a firearm. This hypothetical doesn’t perfectly apply in the Sandy Hook, Conn. elementary school shooting last Friday—at least for the schoolchildren—but the impact of most shootings could have been mitigated by the presence of an armed victim.
Liberals insist, every time there’s a mass shooting, “It’s time to have a debate about gun control.” We’ve had that debate many times, and the Left always fails to make the case that the citizenry are safer as sitting ducks. Even the Supreme Court has finally come around to acknowledging the Second Amendment.
Liberals also mistakenly believe that correlation is causation, such that the simultaneous presence of relatively lax gun laws and high crime rates means the former causes the latter. As John Lott has also shown, wide variations exist in cultural norms, social histories and violence rates across states, regions, and countries. What’s most relevant is what happens when stricter or looser gun control measures are introduced into a jurisdiction and how this change affects crime rates. The evidence from Lott’s research is incontrovertible: Passing concealed carry weapons laws reduces crime, and passing restrictions on gun ownership and use increases it.
The liberal fallacy occurs when a conservative argues, ‘This intrusive, unconstitutional policy you’re pushing has no demonstrable effect on, and arguably exacerbates, the problem you’re trying to eradicate’ —to which the liberal invariably replies, ‘Let’s have more of it!’
The mainstream media will accuse conservatives of being cold-hearted if we argue the futility of gun control policies and don’t spend enough time welling up over pictures of crying faces. But wouldn’t the policies we’re recommending prevent more crying faces?
Everyday citizens generally observe gun control laws, but mass killers—who usually turn themselves in or kill themselves after the shootings—don’t flinch over violating firearm possession rules. Mass murderers tend not to suffer moral anguish over disobeying gun control laws.
