if these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained?"
-- Chief Justice John Marshall, Marbury v. Madison, 1803
Gun-Free Free Zones
by Lee
Of course this idea would come from Texas.
Gov. Rick Perry, mulling ways to stop the kind of murderous rampages that recently left 33 dead on a college campus in Virginia, said Monday there’s one sure-fire solution he likes: allow Texans to take their concealed handguns anywhere.
Period.
Perry said he opposes any concealed gun-toting restrictions at all — whether it’s in a hospital, a public school, a beer joint or even the local courthouse.
“The last time I checked, putting a sign up that says ‘Don’t bring your weapons in here,’ someone who has ill intent on their mind — they could care less,” Perry told reporters. “I think it makes sense for Texans to be able to protect themselves from deranged individuals, whether they’re in church or whether on a college campus or wherever.”
In general terms I agree with him. But this is also a good point.
State Rep. Lon Burnam, D-Fort Worth, called Perry’s proposal “a terrible idea.”
“Anybody has a right to tell somebody that they can’t bring their handgun into their place of business,” Burnam said. “I think the governor is just overreaching in a counterproductive way and it’s kind of typical (of the) governor — shoot from the hip, literally and figuratively.”
I view guns just like I do smoking. It should be up to each establishment whether they wish to permit people to carry, and it should be a crime to carry a weapon inside a store of building or church or other place which chooses to institute a no-weapons policy. I also have some reservations about allowing people to carry weapons in bars, but I haven’t really fleshed that through. There was, however, one fascinating little statistic at the end of the article.
About 260,000 Texans, who have undergone mandatory background check and training, are licensed to carry a concealed weapon, records show. In the last fiscal year, 180 licenses were revoked and 493 were suspended for unknown reasons, records show.
So there’s a quarter million private citizens carrying firearms. Let’s be generous and say that 1,000 were revoked for some reason. That’s 1/260th or 0.00384615385% of permits which have been revoked.
If we go by typical left-wing anti-gun hysteria, the streets of Texas should be running with blood from all these cowboy yahoo rednecks packing weapons, having shootouts over traffic infractions and arguments with store clerks. To borrow a line from 300, the bullets should be blotting out the sun.
Interesting, isn’t it, that this hasn’t happened.
Comments
Having lived in places that severely restrict guns and now living in Texas, which doesn’t, I can tell you which one I feel safer in.
So long as no one decides to shoot another telescope.
Holy freaking crap, I’m back. It took a religious experience on the beaches of Long Island, but my blog is back, too. :)
Texas rocks for this, if anything.
Lee, here’s another issue to consider: Liability.
If a business owner denies people natural tools of self-defense on a premises, they’d then be responsible for providing for the safety of their patrons. (Legal precedent has clearly established that no such duty falls upon law enforcement.)
That, to me, is exactly as it should be.
Wait a minute, though - if you don’t believe in a young earth, then don’t you believe that the Big Bang will protect you from guns?
Should they demand I get a lobotomy or wear a straightjacket so I can’t use my martial arts? How about if I bring in a cane or perhaps an expanding steel baton - those are legal anyplace, and trust me, I can kill you damned fast with either one, or my bare hands, with little effort.
Sure, go ahead and tell me I can’t bring in a gun to protect myself. I’m armed anyway.
LIB’s tend to say only the Gov, and police should have guns, for reasons of safety , training and for positive control.
..
hmm
how many murders, accidental shootings and missed shots have there been in say the last few years?
as for training, I have shot with cops on various gun ranges over the years and i can tell you, the accuracy and reliability of police shooting leaves a LOT to be desired.
When I lived in Houston around 1980 the Houston chronicle did a survey and found about 70% of the people at that time had guns in their glove compartment, before concealed carry.
Aaron - Free Will - it will be interesting, they had a big shooting at Trolley Square in Salt Lake several weeks ago and that is supposed to be a gun free zone.
If we go by typical left-wing anti-gun hysteria, the streets of Texas should be running with blood from all these cowboy yahoo rednecks packing weapons, having shootouts over traffic infractions and arguments with store clerks.
And by your typical crazed, right-wing, pro-gun, foaming at the mouth logic, Australia should be overrun by criminals who have essentially taken control of the streets, with not a person who has the means to stand up to them.
as for training, I have shot with cops on various gun ranges over the years and i can tell you, the accuracy and reliability of police shooting leaves a LOT to be desired.
That might of been true a few years ago but after 911 alot has changed. More agencies are going to higher caliber side arms (The CHP went to 40 cal. about 15 years ago, back then the CHP and the FBI were the only ones using 40’s, now many agencies are) Most agencies now have rifles as well as shotguns in patrol cars (CHP has M-16’s in every car). Years ago we would read teletypes of shootings werre several rounds were exchanged with little or no injury or death, not anymore.
And by your typical crazed, right-wing, pro-gun, foaming at the mouth logic, Australia should be overrun by criminals who have essentially taken control of the streets, with not a person who has the means to stand up to them.
Thats because them Aussies all carry those big ass bowie knives (I saw Crocidile Dundee).
And by your typical crazed, right-wing, pro-gun, foaming at the mouth logic, Australia should be overrun by criminals who have essentially taken control of the streets, with not a person who has the means to stand up to them.
But that’s the distinction. Unlike most people on either side of this debate, I’ve lived in Australia, the UK, and the US, so I understand the cultural differences. While our societies are similar in so many ways, they’re vastly different in many others. So looking a Australia’s crime rates and deducing that it’s because of their gun control laws is ridiculous.
I never said once that Australia should be a society ruled by criminals because they don’t have guns. But what I am saying is that in America increasing the number of guns in the hands of licensed, trained private citizens will, at the very least, not make the crime rate go up, and in many cases it will actually make it go down to one degree or another.
In other words, other than making liberals feel bad, there’s really no downside to increased CCW.
But it is true, however, that there are armed Asian gangs in Melbourne and other cities carrying large knives and swords, and these will kill an unarmed person just as easily as a bullet from a gun.
You are missing a vital point when concluding that concealed carry will prevent VT-like crimes - do you think that crazy Korean actually would have cared if some random person started firing back at him? He was fully prepared to die and probably would’ve welcomed a shoot-out with someone. There is zero deterrent effect. (yes, it may prevent someone from burglarizing your home if they know you may be armed, I’m not saying ban guns completely).
All these concealed carry laws do is change a simple bar-fight that could be settled with fists into a gun battle. Good work.
As left wing asshat as Vermont is, the gun laws make alot of sense there. You own a gun, it’s your private property. You own bullets, they’re your private property. You can carry it all on you like a pocket watch, which is your private property.
Also, I add that as long as those places that stop legal gun owners from carrying their firearms properly and in plain views post signs that say:
“THIS is a gun free zone. No guns, please! We fully accept all liability for all criminal shootings and mass murder shootings a la the style of Columbine and VA Tech.”
You are missing a vital point when concluding that concealed carry will prevent VT-like crimes - do you think that crazy Korean actually would have cared if some random person started firing back at him? He was fully prepared to die and probably would’ve welcomed a shoot-out with someone. There is zero deterrent effect. (yes, it may prevent someone from burglarizing your home if they know you may be armed, I’m not saying ban guns completely).
Hey Razor, have you read any of the other posts about this shooting?
Several people, including myself, have posted links to several other shootings where an off duty police officer or some other ARMED citizen was in the area, and the outcome was much different. Incidents where after a few shots, these “pussies” were confronted and invariably they run like little girls and 2 or 3 fatalities does not lead to 30.
I can easily understand some pyscho playing the scenario in his head where he will terrorize people, picking them off at his pleasure, then when his ammo is exhauted he will take his own life, all on his terms, but interrupt this scenario and show some resistance and, at least in the stories that I found, they retreat and run.
Granted, nobody knows what this guy would of done, but in the past similiar tragedies have been averted.
All these concealed carry laws do is change a simple bar-fight that could be settled with fists into a gun battle. Good work.
Thats just silly and I don’t think you thought about this very hard. We have a working laboratory on this issue in Texas and we are not seeing the outcome you prophise. Even with their liberal gun laws, only a very small percentage are actually packing.
But that’s the distinction. Unlike most people on either side of this debate, I’ve lived in Australia, the UK, and the US,
Not so different to me, actually. (and our ages and birthdays are pretty close, too).
But what I am saying is that in America increasing the number of guns in the hands of licensed, trained private citizens will, at the very least, not make the crime rate go up, and in many cases it will actually make it go down to one degree or another.
There is very little actual evidence for this, apart from John Lott’s quite bogus study.
You are missing a vital point when concluding that concealed carry will prevent VT-like crimes
To echo and underline what richtaylor said above,…
No Razor, you are missing a vital point. If this guy was confronted by an armed citizen then it is likely that the death toll would have been reduced. So you are wrong. It would have prevented crime - fewer murders would have taken place. QED.
There is very little actual evidence for this, apart from John Lott’s quite bogus study.
There’s plenty of evidence. In the last 10 years or so 33 states have passed CCW laws. You know what? The crime rate, including the murder rate due to handguns, hasn’t gone up in any of them. Like I said above, with a quarter million Texans packing heat, why aren’t the streets running with blood like the anti-gun folks said there would be?
But, don’t take my word for it. Here are a couple of posts my Mark Kleiman, a blogger and academic with solid left-wing credentials who has studied the data.
The John Lott Affair
Nothing we discover about Lott can take away the fact that years of experience with liberalized concealed carry have provided little or no evidence of increased firearms-using crime as a result. The Violence Policy Center’s report License to Kill, which details every single recorded crime committed by anyone who obtained a concealed-carry permit in Texas from 1996 to 2001 in an attempt to show that the policy had bad results, in fact demonstrates the contrary. (Someone ought to tell the VPC that it’s not necessary to have a concealed weapon, or even a permit for a concealed weapon, in order to drive drunk, so that the finding that some permit holders were arrested for DUI tells you precisely nothing about the merits of the policy.)
That finding seems to me to be a very strong argument for “shall-issue” laws: they give some people a right they value, at very little apparent cost to anyone else. Not everyone will be convinced by that argument; for example, it’s at least conceivable that concealed-carry laws increase the level of fear without increasing the actual rate of armed assault. If I were writing a law about concealed carry, I’d like to tighten up a little on who gets to have a gun, and I’d like a law against possessing a loaded firearm (concealed or not) while under the influence of alcohol or other intoxicants. Still, the case seems like a strong one even without the Lott claim to back it up.
What is it About Liberals?
Lots of my liberal friends are like me: they may not disapprove of target-shooting, but they really don’t get hunting on an emotional level (I suspect that much hunting is actually a “guy” form of nature-meditation). They (we) think having guns for self-protection is sort of weird and primitive, and regard the “armed citizenry against tyranny” stuff as utterly nuts. Having guns around makes them (us) very uncomfortable. (I’ve asked gun-carrying houseguests to leave their guns in their cars.)
OK, fine. I don’t like having guns around me, and try to arrange my own environment accordingly. The problem is that lots of liberals are willing to write that prejudice into law, using largely spurious claims about crime control as a justification.
Keeping guns out of the hands of criminals—meaning those who have been convicted of crime—is demonstrably valuable in reducing crime. There is no adequate evidence that keeping guns out of the hands—or the shoulder holsters—of non-criminals has any such benefit. And yes, that includes the famous “assault weapons.”
Requiring everyone who wants to have a gun to apply for a discretionary permit, making that person subject to the whim of local legislatures or officials about whether he may have a gun, serves no good purpose that I can see. The same is true of making a national registry of firearms and their owners. Those are just nasty versions of identity politics, making gun-owners jump through hoops just to show how little regard we have for the weapons culture.
The NRA slogan that we need, not more gun laws, but enforcement of the laws we have is substantially correct. We don’t need individual permits for gun ownership. We can, without increasing crime noticeably, allow any individual not disqualified by prior criminal record to obtain a permit to carry concealed weapons. (Forget the silly “More guns, less crime” stuff; as long as “More guns, no more crime” is true, which it is, then there’s no substantial basis for trying to reduce the number of guns in law-abiding hands.)
----------
You can bash Lott all you want. He’s an academic, he’s certainly open for criticism. But claiming that there’s no evidence outside Lott’s study shows a monumental level of ignorance on your part when it comes to this subject.
He was fully prepared to die and probably would’ve welcomed a shoot-out with someone. There is zero deterrent effect.
Zero deterrent effect? A dead bad-guy is a great deterrent. Especially to the dead bad-guy.
The only public place that I believe should be gun free are courtrooms. Armed bailiffs are there specifically to protect the judge and the witnesses, and by extension, the remainder of the courtroom. I’d have no problem checking in a side arm at the door.
Private property owners that prohibit fire arms are advertising that they and their patrons are easy pickin’s.
stogy: Statistically, both the UK and Australia have much higher crime rates than the US. America has a higher *murder* rate, but collected data makes it pretty clear that the vast bulk of those murders are drug and gang related, IE, what amount to organized crime, criminals killing criminals. Frankly, I like it when they do that.
As a law-abiding citizen in the United States who avoids hanging out with drug dealers and gang memebrs, you are far less likely to be mugged, buglarized, or have your car stolen than you are in the UK or Australia. I’ve never attempted to filter and compare international murder statistics to adjust for criminal-on-criminal violence, but I also highly doubt that you are any more likely to be murdered in the United States.
I would also note that in the UK, gun crime did *not* decrease after the handgun ban, and has increased since. It was merely already very, very low, and the lack of gun violence there has nothing to do with the change of laws.
Moving on:
All these concealed carry laws do is change a simple bar-fight that could be settled with fists into a gun battle. Good work.
This is the rhetoric, not the reality. Not only does it not hold true statistically, it doesn’t even appear to be make sense on the surface.
It is no more logical than the people who argued that Florida abolishing the “duty to retreat” would turn simple arguments into violent confrontations. It’s nonsense, and does not occur in practice.
(I’m prone to argue that it’s because people will not resort to needless violence unless they’re already of a vicious nature. It’s logically impossible that such a law will “make” someone criminal and violent, and if they already are, they will, by definition, not object to violating the laws preventing them from shooting. You can attribute to whatever you like, though.)
He was fully prepared to die and probably would’ve welcomed a shoot-out with someone. There is zero deterrent effect.
You can believe that if you like, although I would happily argue that these people desire to take the innocent with them, and that the expectation of failure is a significant deterrant. These are crimes committed for the experss purpose of getting attention, whether it’s in the Islamist community or the national news, and if you are not likely to get it, you have no purpose in carrying out the killing. (Case in point: The VT shooter made a FUCKING MEDIA KIT AND SENT IT TO NBC! Likewise, Islamist suicide bombers always love to record melodramatic videos of themselves beforehand. It gives meaning to an otherwise assinine and vile existence.)
Regardless, it is an absolute fact that if someone shoots him in the head, he will stop shooting innocent people immediately, which is what really matters.
I would note that for some odd reason, these massacres have a tendency to occur in “gun free zones” and other places where it is impractical to be armed. They do not happen at, for example, gun shows. They happen in schools, offices, *cough* Srebrenica *cough*, places that the killer knows will be defenseless.
You are missing a vital point when concluding that concealed carry will prevent VT-like crimes…
I think you’re the one missing the point: The last university shooting in Virginia *was* stopped by two armed law students, who ran to their cars and retrieved their weapons to apprehend the shooter.
In response to that, a bill was put before the legislature that would override campus policies forbidding the lawful carry of firearms.
The bill died in committee. At that time, a Virginia Tech spokesman commented to the press that he was sure the entire university community could appreciate how much safer faculty, students, and parents would “feel” knowing that no one on campus was armed.
A year later, 33 people are dead, and the only person who was able to take a shot at their murderer *was* the murderer.
Feeling is not reality.
Kick ass, Aaron.
Nothing smacks quite as hard as reality.
Great post Aaron, one slightly off topic minor side note however:
collected data makes it pretty clear that the vast bulk of those murders are drug and gang related, IE, what amount to organized crime, criminals killing criminals. Frankly, I like it when they do that.
If we stopped the drug war and legalized drugs, then these folks could settle their contract disputes in a court of law. I suspect that the US would have exemplary low murder rates if this eventuality were to unfold.
I think you’re the one missing the point: The last university shooting in Virginia *was* stopped by two armed law students, who ran to their cars and retrieved their weapons to apprehend the shooter.
Actually, they were ex-military and off-duty police officers. And I also understand that the killer in this case had run out of ammunition…
It doesn’t quite fit the model, though, does it?
Actually, they were ex-military and off-duty police officers.
I’m not sure how that alters the scenario. Both were there in their capacity as students, and both were violating school policy by retrieving their weapons. (Hence the subsequent attempt to pass a law in Virginia overriding the policies of state schools, which is the point of the example.)
There’s also some question about whether or not the gun was empty: Some reports say he had three rounds. In either case, the students who intervened did not know that.
I cited that incidents because it directly led to Virginia Tech publicly lauding the “safety” of not allowing their students to protect themselves adequately, despite their factually apparent incapacity to provide for the security of their campus.
It is quite indisputable that had someone shot and killed Seung-Hui, he would’ve stopped murdering people immediately. It is also quite clear that Virginia Tech instituted and publicly defended a policy which forbade their students from doing so. That does not mean Virginia Tech did anything wrong, but it is the objective reality, and it’s absurd to watch people try to dance around it by raising hypothetical scenarios about arguments in bars.
There is actually quite a lot of data on armed civilians stopping crimes, and the incidents along those lines tend to exceed police intervention.
Quite frankly, I believe that people who use this argument are just projecting themselves onto others, and that’s understandable, but not fair or valid. I don’t think *everybody* should carry a gun, just everybody who is competent to use one accurately and thoughtfully. I also believe *everyone* should attempt to acquire that skill, the same way we learn to drive, swim and cook our own meals. It doesn’t take a large portion of the population to be armed and trained before criminals don’t know who to trust anymore.
Next entry: Thirty Fucking Seven
Previous entry: Can the Consensus be Wrong?
I wonder if thee places will in the course of time note that they are more likely to be the target of violent crimes.