The Life-and-Death Cost of Gun Control

jimpeel

Well-Known Member
http://foxforum.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/12/02/jlott_guncontrol/

December 2nd, 2008 11:45 AM Eastern
The Life-and-Death Cost of Gun Control

By John R. Lott, Jr.
Author/Senior Research Scholar, University of Maryland


Banning guns is in the news. India practically bans guns, but that didn’t stop the horrific Muslim terrorist attacks this last week.

A football player concerned for his safety violates New York City’s tough gun control regulations by carrying a concealed handgun, and people call for everything from banning NFL players from carrying guns to demanding that the athlete serve many years in jail.

"When police can’t promise to protect law-abiding citizens such Plaxico Burress or the victims in India, why don’t we allow people the right to protect themselves?"​
Where is the sympathy or debate in either case over letting people defend themselves? Given that the terrorists smuggled their machine guns in with them, would anyone argue that India’s extremely strict gun licensing and artificially high prices for guns helped prevent the terrorist attacks? In fact, the reverse is more likely the case.

Would Plaxico Burress, the New York Giant’s receiver who was arrested yesterday, really have been safer just trusting the police to protect him?

Terrorism

In India, victims watched as armed police cowered and didn’t fire back at the terrorists. A photographer at the scene described his frustration: “There were armed policemen hiding all around the station but none of them did anything. At one point, I ran up to them and told them to use their weapons. I said, ‘Shoot them, they’re sitting ducks!’ but they just didn’t shoot back.”

Meanwhile, according to the hotel company’s chairman, P.R.S. Oberoi, security at “the hotel had metal detectors, but none of its security personnel carried weapons because of the difficulties in obtaining gun permits from the Indian government.”

India has extremely strict gun control laws, but who did it succeed in disarming?

The terrorist attack showed how difficult it is to disarm serious terrorists. Strict licensing rules meant that it was the victims who obeyed the regulations, not the terrorists.

Academic research has continually found that police are the single most important factor in reducing crime, but police can’t always be depended on to be quick enough.

The attack also illustrates what Israelis learned decades ago. — Putting more soldiers or police on the street didn’t stop terrorist’s machine gun attacks. Terrorists would either wait for the armed soldiers or police to leave the area or kill them first. Likewise, in India, the Muslim terrorists’ first targets were those in uniform (whether police or security guards).

Terrorists only stopped using machine guns to attack Israelis once citizens were allowed to carry concealed handguns. In large public gatherings, a significant number of citizens will be able to shoot at terrorists during an attack — and the terrorists don’t know who has them.

With mass shootings becoming more difficult, terrorists were forced to switch to a less effective strategy: bombs. Bombings are more difficult for armed citizens to stop because they can’t respond after the bomb blows up.

Still, even though handguns can only kill would-be bombers before they set off their bombs, during waves of terror attacks, Israel’s national police chief will call on all citizens who are allowed to carry guns to make sure they carry their firearms at all times, and Israelis have many examples where citizens with concealed handguns have saved lives.

In their warped minds, both terrorists and the murderers are kamikaze-like killers, who value maximizing the carnage. Even if the killers expect to die anyway, letting victims have guns at the scene can help deter these crimes in the first place by reducing their expected return.

Do Football Players Need Self-Defense?

Physically huge NFL players admitting they feel threatened by crime? This hardly fits their tough, macho image. Our concern is supposed to be for women walking alone at night. Who can have sympathy for a professional football player such as Plaxico Burress who is 6 feet 5 inches and weighs 232 lbs.?

Burress, who has no previous criminal record, now faces between three and a half to 15 years for illegally carrying a concealed handgun with him in Manhattan, if convicted. He was arrested Monday and was released on $100,000 bail. — Burress had had a concealed handgun permit in the state of Florida for the last five years, but he forgot to renew it in May this year.

While the massive size and strength of NFL players might make them seem like unlikely potential crime victims, their wealth and high public profile nonetheless make them particularly attractive targets for violent criminals. While “only” two players were murdered last year, that means a murder rate of 118 per 100,000 people, compared to 5.9 per 100,000 for the rest of the population. In other words, the rate for NFL players was 20 times higher than the average for the rest of the country. This is even higher than the most at risk segment of the population -– young black males between 18 and 24. It is even higher than the risk faced by police officers.

Last year, the Washington Redskins’ Sean Taylor was killed during a robbery at his house. The Denver Broncos’ defensive back Darrent Williams was killed outside a nightclub.

As Tampa Bay Buccaneers cornerback Ronde Barber noted, “We are targets, we need to be aware of that everywhere we go.” Yet, the news coverage doesn’t engender much sympathy for Plaxico Burress.

So, what do many NFL players do when they realize that their physical strength does not give them enough protection from violent crime? The same thing that many other would-be victims do — they get guns. Well over 50 percent of NFL players are estimated to own guns, somewhat higher than the 45 percent of American adults who own guns.

Not everyone approves. Mike Ditka, the Hall of Fame tight end and former Chicago Bears football coach, advocates banning NFL players from owning guns. Ditka said, “I don’t understand the league, why can anybody have a gun? I will have a policy, no guns, any NFL players we find out, period, you’re suspended.” AOL Sports writer Michael Smith also supports the ban and says, “If you carry a gun around, you’re more likely to hurt yourself than protect yourself.”

It would be great if the police were always there to rescue would-be victims, but as the police themselves understand, they virtually always arrive on the scene after the crime has already occurred. Fortunately, just as criminals are deterred by higher arrest rates or longer prison sentences, the fact that potential victims own guns deters some attackers. The Department of Justice’s National Crime Victimization Survey, which covers almost 30 years, also shows that having a gun is consistently by far the safest course of action for victims.

Over the last three or four years, numerous professional players can attest to the benefits of owning guns. For example, Corey Fuller, the 5-foot, 10-inch, 210-pound defensive back for the Baltimore Ravens, was confronted by two armed robbers outside his Tallahassee house. One robber chased Fuller into his house where his wife and children were sleeping, but Fuller was able to grab a gun and fire at the attackers, who then ran away.

T.J. Slaughter, a 6-foot, 233-pound linebacker, was arrested for allegedly pointing a gun at motorists who pulled up next to him on the highway. Slaughter denied that he had pointed the gun at the motorists and claimed that they had threatened him. No charges were filed, though, possibly following Dikta’s rule, the Jacksonville Jaguars still cut Slaughter the next day. Jacksonville claimed Slaughter was performing poorly.

Professional athletes’ physical strength hardly makes them immune to crime. Take a couple additional examples.

– The Oakland Raiders’ Javon Walker (height: 6-3, weight: 215 lbs.) was robbed and beaten this past June while visiting Las Vegas. He was hospitalized with a concussion and facial injuries.

– The Houston Texans’ Dunta Robinson (height: 5-10, weight: 184 lbs.) was robbed by two men in his home a year ago. The robbers bound him with duct tape and stole jewelry.

Unfortunately all of the nation’s four leading pro-sports leagues — the National Football League, the National Basketball Association, the National Hockey League and Major League Baseball — trivialize the athletes’ concerns over safety. The NFL’s official advice: “In some circumstances, such as for sport or protection, you may legally possess a firearm or other weapon. However, we strongly recommend that you not do so.” The league advocates passive behavior when confronted by a criminal.

Fred Taylor (height: 6-1, weight: 228) a running back with the Jacksonville Jaguars made the point clear: “League officials tell us we need to take measures to protect ourselves. But the NFL says we can’t have guns in the facility –even in the parking lot. Crooks know this. They can just sit back and wait for us to drive off, knowing we won’t have anything in our vehicle from point A to point B.”

Even professional athletes are not supermen. T.J. Slaughter expresses no regrets for having a gun despite running afoul of political correctness and being cut by the Jaguars. He says, “I believe legally owning a gun is the right thing to do. It offers me protection. I think one day it could save my life.” It seems a lesson that many who are not quite as strong can also learn from.

Toys R Us

The media can’t be blamed for some of the left out information and misimpressions about guns. For example, the news coverage over the weekend about a shooting at a Toys R Us in Palm Desert, California gave the wrong impression about guns. It seemed the perfect fit –- two couples squabbling over who would get a toy resulting in a deadly shoot out. Surely this demonstrated the dangers of letting people have guns for self defense.

But political correctness made it difficult for local authorities to even admit a simple and important fact — the two couples were members of rival gangs. As Palm Desert city councilman Bob Spiegel told The L.A. Times, there were apparently “two rival groups shopping at the store.” Even stories that mentioned the gangs often left the mention until the end.

Unfortunately, commentators at places such as the Huffington Post confuse letting gang members and law-abiding citizens carry guns. As one remarked: “does anybody still think concealed weapons laws are a good idea?” But in contrast to gang members, data for states like Florida or Texas indicate that concealed handgun permit holders lose their permits for any gun-related violation at hundredths or thousandths of one percent and even then usually for very trivial, non-threatening violations.

Conclusion


When police can’t promise to protect law-abiding citizens such Plaxico Burress or the victims in India, why don’t we allow people the right to protect themselves? Unfortunately, bans do more to encourage crime than prevent it.

John Lott is the author of Freedomnomics and a senior research scholar at the University of Maryland.
 

Gonz

molṑn labé
Staff member
The job of the police is to investigate crimes. They're too busy popping motorists for seatbealt violations to stop criminals.
 

GrandCaravanSE

Active Member
The job of the police is to investigate crimes. They're too busy popping motorists for seatbealt violations to stop criminals.

I'll second that, the other day my friend got pulled over for not stopping, i was in the car he was going Zero MPH, the cop said you dident stop for long enough.
 

MrBishop

Well-Known Member
Next you'll be telling us taht More open Gun Control laws in the USA would've stopped 9/11

*punch*
 

2minkey

bootlicker
Next you'll be telling us taht More open Gun Control laws in the USA would've stopped 9/11

*punch*

probably not. but studies have shown an increase in LEGAL gun ownership does not correlate with the nightmare scenarios - an ak47 in every 12 year-old's hands - that some would predict. this is one of those issues where the left is prone to believing its own bullshit - much like the right is about, well, most everything else.
 

spike

New Member
this is one of those issues where the left is prone to believing its own bullshit - much like the right is about, well, most everything else.

The right is prone to believeing it's own bullshit on this one as well. Witness Jim's ideas on having just about everyone carrying guns everywhere they go.

but studies have shown an increase in LEGAL gun ownership does not correlate with the nightmare scenarios

Where are these studies and exactly what do they correlate to?
 

MrBishop

Well-Known Member
probably not. but studies have shown an increase in LEGAL gun ownership does not correlate with the nightmare scenarios - an ak47 in every 12 year-old's hands - that some would predict. this is one of those issues where the left is prone to believing its own bullshit - much like the right is about, well, most everything else.
Jim's use of the India debacle is effectively the same thing.

Everyone would be safe gun owners..if we all owned guns
Crime would vanish..if we all owned guns
Peace would envelop the Earth..if we all owned guns
Britney Spears would keep her underwear on..if we all owned guns

Allright..the last two were a bit over the top, but gun ownership isn't the be all and end all of RIGHTS.
 

2minkey

bootlicker
yeah, sure.

thar's igits on both sides.

for every 'save the children' anti there's at least one wacko with end-of-the-world, guns-a-blazin fantasies like jimbo.

and, oh, 9/11 could have been prevented if every american had been armed with a clawhammer, a short-barreled 12 gauge, and a box of grenades like it guarantees in the constitution!!!!
 

H2O boy

New Member
gun ownership isn't the be all and end all of RIGHTS.

maybe not, but it certainly makes enforcing or protecting the rest of them a bit easier

criminals are going to have guns whether they are legal or not. thats why we call them criminals. if i have one too, we call him a dead criminal. if i dont have one we might call me a crime victim. i prefer the former.

ive owned a gun for the majority of my life and have yet to even consider using one in the commission of a crime. ive also owned a washing machine for a number of years and likewise have yet to utilize it in the commission of a crime. ive been in possession of a penis since birth, and again, have not used it in the commission of a crime. these facts may speak more to my moral character than to the potential of owning any of them as correlates to criminal activities.

unless one is a liberal. then it only encourages a string of useless questions associated with the original point by the thinnest of possible threads and spun to ensure strict party line adherence to the parroting of the exalted one/s. because guns are bad, m'kay? yeah, whatever

let us try an experiment just for fun shall we? i will meet anyone who wishes to try it in a major city halfway from each of our homes. we will spend the night cruising the less savory parts of that city yet breaking zero laws. i will be armed, you will not. first one to die loses
 

spike

New Member
let us try an experiment just for fun shall we? i will meet anyone who wishes to try it in a major city halfway from each of our homes. we will spend the night cruising the less savory parts of that city yet breaking zero laws. i will be armed, you will not. first one to die loses

You bringing your washing machine?
 

jimpeel

Well-Known Member
Next you'll be telling us taht More open Gun Control laws in the USA would've stopped 9/11

*punch*

Read my sig line and you will know the answer to that. Three thousand Americans died that day due to the inability of the pilots to defend the cockpit. Of course, one Liberal anti-firearm hack stated that if the pilots had been armed it would have just escalated the violence.

And if you think that arming the pilots is a bad idea, or that firearms would be ineffective, read this about how a pilot killed a hijacker who was armed with a bit more than a box cutter:

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/1087467.html

Hero in the cockpit
Pistol served pilot well in '54
By EVAN MOORE Copyright 2001 Houston Chronicle
Oct. 14, 2001, 1:07AM

FORT WORTH -- Until now it was largely forgotten, a brief, tragic incident that lay buried in fading newspaper accounts and the memories of only a few, but the shooting of a hijacker by an airline pilot almost 50 years ago has taken on a new significance today.

It occurred shortly before noon on July 6, 1954, when a strapping teen-ager armed with a pistol commandeered an American Airlines DC-6 at the Cleveland Airport, only to be shot and fatally wounded by the captain.

The shooting ended the life of Raymond Kuchenmeister, 15. It made a reluctant hero of the late Capt. William "Bill" Bonnell of Fort Worth and left an indelible mark on Bonnell's psyche that he could never successfully erase.

Moreover, in light of the recent terrorist attacks and the ensuing debates over whether pilots should be armed, the 1954 incident illustrates a forgotten time when pilots not only routinely carried pistols, but were required to carry them.

On that Tuesday, 47 years ago, Bonnell was carrying his, a small, .380-caliber Colt semiautomatic, holstered in his flight bag.

Bonnell, a tall, quiet man, was a former Army Air Corps pilot who had served three stints in the service, two of those flying transport planes over China and Burma during World War II.

He also was ambidextrous.

"Bill could use either hand equally well," Jean Bonnell, his widow, recalled. "He used to play jokes on the shooting instructors in the military. There'd be a line of officers, all in the same stance, shooting at targets. One time, the instructor would walk down the line and Bill would be shooting right-handed. The next time, he'd be shooting with his left. He shot the same score with both hands."

Bill Bonnell joined American Airlines in 1936, and that airline, like others, transported U.S. mail.

"Back in those days, the pilot or co-pilot had to hand-carry the mail from the plane to the terminal," recalled George Patten, 85, a retired American pilot and a friend of Bonnell's. "Postal regulations required that you be armed. We all had to have guns, and American had us buy little .380s."

Bonnell's pistol remained in his flight bag. His widow recalled that he had not removed the weapon in years before the day of the hijacking.

On that day, Bonnell had flown from Fort Worth to Cleveland in the morning and was preparing for the return flight. The plane was carrying almost a full load, 58 passengers, and all had been seated.

Bonnell stopped and spoke to a young mother with two small children seated at the front. He then entered the cockpit and had already locked himself, his co-pilot and the engineer inside when Kuchenmeister approached the airplane ramp.

Police said Kuchenmeister, the oldest of seven children, was a troubled youth who had stolen a pistol and persuaded his 12-year-old brother to run away from home with him. He hatched his plan to hijack a plane earlier in the day, but once at the airport, the 12-year-old declined to accompany him.

So, alone, clad in dirty denim pants and a leather jacket, Kuchenmeister left his little brother in the terminal and walked out on the tarmac. There he pushed past an airline agent and was headed up the stairs to the plane when the agent demanded his ticket.

"This is my ticket," the burly youth reportedly said, and pointed the pistol at the agent.

The agent retreated, and at the entrance to the plane, Kuchenmeister told a stewardess he needed to see the pilot. Thinking he was part of the ground crew, she opened the cockpit, where Kuchenmeister, unnoticed by the passengers, stepped into the cramped quarters, closed the door and turned the gun on Bonnell.

"I want to go to Mexico," Kuchenmeister told Bonnell and his crew. "No stops."

Bonnell and the co-pilot attempted to explain to Kuchenmeister that the plane did not have enough fuel to reach Mexico, but the youth would not be deterred.

Finally, flight engineer Bob Young told Kuchenmeister they would take off but that it was necessary to throw a switch behind Kuchenmeister before the plane could taxi.

As the hijacker turned to look for the switch, Bonnell reached into his flight bag with his left hand, removed the pistol, swung around to his right and shot Kuchenmeister. The wounded hijacker then attempted to shoot Bonnell, but his pistol misfired and Bonnell shot him again.

"I shot him in the hip," Bonnell later recalled. "He sagged a bit. I let him have it again, a little higher.

"I had a maniac on my plane. We had women and children. What the hell could a guy do?"

Kuchenmeister was taken to a hospital, and Bonnell, the only qualified American pilot in Cleveland at the time, flew the plane back to Fort Worth. In midflight, he received word from Cleveland that the hijacker was only 15 and that he had died.

When Bonnell stepped from the plane, reporters described him as ashen and shaking.

"Bill told me later that the first thing he thought about when he was reaching for the gun was that woman and her two children at the front of the plane," Jean Bonnell said. "I said, `Why didn't you shoot him in the head with the second shot?'

"Bill said, `Because I didn't want to kill him.' "

Bill Bonnell returned to Cleveland the following day. "He wanted to go out and talk to the boy's family, to pay for the funeral," Jean Bonnell said, "but the police talked him out of it."

Bonnell received hundreds of letters from the passengers on that flight and their relatives, commending him for his actions.

"But Bill was never proud of what he'd done," Jean Bonnell said. "He'd been in the service, and he'd had to fight, but this was different. He told me it took him a day to convince himself that hijacker was really 15. He told me, `My God, Jean, we have a 13-year-old son.'

"After the first few weeks, he stopped talking about it and would never talk about it again. I don't think he ever completely got over it.

"But what if he hadn't had that gun? What if he hadn't shot? What would have happened to all those passengers?"

The event was front-page news for two days, then faded away, and for 47 years the Bonnell family refused to discuss it publicly. Jean Bonnell said she agreed to speak about her husband now only because of the recent terrorist attacks and requests by pilots associations to be armed.

After the Sept. 11 attacks, the Airline Pilots Association and the Allied Pilots Association proposed allowing pilots to carry handguns loaded with lightweight projectiles. The first group modified its proposal to include only stun guns, but the Allied association has not altered its stance.

President Bush has opposed the idea, as have the Airports Council International and the Association of Flight Attendants, though a number of legislators from both parties have supported the pilots' groups. The Senate passed an aviation security bill Thursday that would allow pilots to carry handguns. A similar bill is pending in the House.

In the meantime, congressional action on the proposal could be unnecessary, according to the Code of Federal Regulations governing aviation. That document, Chapter 11, Part 108, provides that no person can carry a weapon onto a plane unless that person is "authorized to have the weapon by the certificate holder (airline) and has completed a course of training in the use of firearms acceptable to the Administrator (FAA)."

That regulation was adopted in 1981 and has not been changed. Federal Aviation Administration officials acknowledged that the regulation is "on the books" and that it provides for armed pilots, but refused to answer more questions about it.

Bill Bonnell quit carrying his weapon July 7, 1954.

"He never carried it again," Jean Bonnell said. "Bill retired (in 1970). We moved, and we burned all the letters he'd received and any news clippings. We didn't want to remember it, but he could never really put it behind him.

"He died in 1991, and I'm afraid his later years were not very happy ones.

"A lot of people thought he was a hero, but Bill never considered himself one."
 

2minkey

bootlicker
he's obviously an expert and a crack shot if he shot someone in the hip with a 380.

please, jim, more stories of gun-based heroism.

golly i may achieve an erection yet this morning.
 

MrBishop

Well-Known Member
Details of a gun fired on a flight from Denver Saturday morning began to emerge today.
Federal regulators confirmed that the pilot accidentally fired the gun in the cockpit and the bullet exited the plane just beneath a window as the US Airways jet approached its landing in Charlotte just before noon.



"We're just not able yet to get into exactly what occurred, how the gun was handled, before it went off," said Greg Alter, spokesman for the Federal Marshal Service, one of the agencies investigating the incident. "It's just premature to speculate."
Alter said gun did not fire on its own. The pilot, who has not been identified, is cooperating with the investigation, he said.



US Airways confirmed that the pilot had been taken off flight duty.


The pilot was in the left seat of the cockpit and the bullet went through the hull on his side of the plane, just beneath the window.



The pistol was identified Monday as a .40 caliber semiautomatic Heckler & Koch USP, 28-ounce German-made handgun. Alter would not speculate on the duration of the investigation, but said "it should be in short order."



"The most important thing is to make sure this never happens again," he said.
Spokespeople for the government and the airline have declined to speculate on what sanctions, if any, or changes in procedure might result from the investigation.


Alter said the pilot had been suspended from a federal program that allows pilots and crew to be armed.



Agencies involved in the investigation have said the aircraft was never in danger, but some aviation sources disagree
"The hole from the bullet wouldn't bring down a plane by itself, but it can put in motion a lot of bad things that could lead instruments to fail or pilots to become wounded," said engineering contractor John Thomas of Littleton, who has designed airplanes for combat duty.



"I would not say they were never in danger. I would say US Airways, the pilot and all the people on that flight were lucky."



Charles Lien of Denver, a retired electrical engineer who specialized in the design of power systems for military and commercial aircraft, agreed.
"I do not pretend to be an expert, but I know that the most vulnerable portion of the cockpit in a commercial aircraft are the windows, particularly the windscreen," he said. "If the shot had penetrated the window, it would have compromised the window's mechanical integrity. This could have caused the window to collapse and subject the cockpit to explosive decompression."



The incident is believed to be the first gunfire in flight since security measures were broadened to allow pilots to carry weapons in the aftermath of 9/11.
The plan, an Airbus A319, also has been grounded during the investigation, said Federal Aviation Administration spokesman Mike Fergus.
The plane is being thoroughly checked, he said, to make sure none of the instrumentation or hydraulics had been compromised.



The Associated Press obtained photographs Monday of the the plane, showing the bullet's entry into the cockpit wall and its exit beneath a window.
US Airways spokesman Morgan Durrant said the photographs did not come from the airline.



Flight 1536 left Denver at 6:45 a.m. Saturday with 124 passengers, two pilots and three flight attendants, records showed.
http://www.denverpost.com/ci_8694736


How about something more recent, Jim?
 

spike

New Member
Read my sig line and you will know the answer to that. Three thousand Americans died that day due to the inability of the pilots to defend the cockpit.

That's not a logicial statement Jim. Many thing could have prevented 9-11, so singling out one scenario and then calling it a the cause doesn't work. If everyone on the plane had a gun it could have been prevented but we probably don't need planes full of loaded weapons.

Or maybe if airport security was a little better.

Of course, one Liberal anti-firearm hack stated that if the pilots had been armed it would have just escalated the violence.

Who was that? Are you trying to make wide scale generaliztions based on one person or something? What's your point?

And if you think that arming the pilots is a bad idea, or that firearms would be ineffective, read this about how a pilot killed a hijacker who was armed with a bit more than a box cutter:

Generalizations from a single scenario again.
 

GrandCaravanSE

Active Member
We don't need more gun control laws we just need smarter people selling them, they will pretty much give you a gun nowadays.
 

H2O boy

New Member
You bringing your washing machine?

beats being empty handed, but no

pistol_m9_500.jpg
 
Top