The Case for Arming Yourself

[PegLeg45]

It's got a few 'bad' words in the article (Haz)...but considering it's in the NY Times.....

The Case for Arming Yourself

Updated January 12, 2011, 11:39 PM

John R. Lott Jr. is the author of the recently revised third edition of “More Guns, Less Crime.”

One can only hope that Saturday’s horrible attack in Tucson encourages more citizens to carry concealed handguns. Fortunately, one shopper in the Walgreen’s near Representative Giffords’ event was Joseph Zamudio. When he heard the shots he ran toward them because his legally carried 9 mm semiautomatic offered him protection. Joe helped tackle the killer before more harm occurred. Too bad someone like him wasn’t even closer to the crime.

But Joe showed that law-abiding citizens with concealed handguns can exercise excellent judgment in when is the right time to use their guns. When it made more sense for him to tackle the attacker, he did that rather than use his gun. Everything from public school shootings to church shootings has been stopped by citizens with concealed handguns.

-------snip----------

With the "sunset" of the Assault Weapons Ban in 2004, gun control groups predicted murder would soar. The opposite happened. Re-instituting parts of the ban limiting clip size won’t lower crime. No research by criminologists or economists found that the ban or clip size restrictions reduced crime. Clips are easily made small metal boxes. The benefits of not exchanging the clips is true for law-abiding citizens, police and criminals. If only criminals get the larger clips, they have an advantage.

Full story at link:
http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2011/01/11/more-guns-less-crime/the-case-for-arming-yourself

[PegLeg45]

More from John Lott:

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/257026/rounding-guns-interview

Lopez: Does anyone need a nine-millimeter Glock, the gun he used?

Lott: Nine-millimeter semiautomatic pistols are by far the most common handguns sold in the U.S. Handguns are particularly useful for self-defense in enclosed spaces such as inside a house. Indeed, there is a safety reason for using handguns. The bullets fired by handguns travel more slowly than those fired by rifles and are thus less likely to harm people outside of the home.

As to the type of handgun that works best for people — that depends on everything from the size of the person’s hands and strength to how much stopping power he needs.



Lopez: Isn’t that gun made “to kill people,” as I’ve heard on MSNBC?

Lott: Well, guns do make it easier to kill people, but guns also make it easier for people to defend themselves. The defensive argument is especially important for people who are weaker physically — women and the elderly — and for those living in crime-infested neighborhoods, such as poor blacks in urban areas. Criminals are overwhelmingly young males who are physically stronger than their potential victims. Police are extremely important in deterring crime, but they understand that they almost always arrive on the scene after the crime has been committed. Simply telling people to behave passively or to defend themselves in some other way is not very good advice. Having a gun is by far the safest course of action for those left to confront a criminal alone.


Lopez: Why shouldn’t members of Congress be emotionally or politically pressured into supporting it?

Lott: Too often, knee-jerk reactions cause Congress to pass laws that actually make future crimes more likely. Creating gun-free zones is one such example. Banning guns from places such as schools might have seemed like a way of protecting children or college students, but instead it created a magnet for those intent on causing harm. The problem is that instead of gun-free zones making it safe for potential victims, they make it safe for criminals.

Criminals are less likely to run into those who might be able to stop them. Everyone wants to keep guns away from criminals. But the question is, who is more likely to obey the law?

A student expelled for violating a gun-free zone at a college is extremely unlikely ever to be accepted to another college. A faculty member fired for a firearms violation will find it virtually impossible to get another academic position. But even if the killer at Virginia Tech had lived, the notion that the threat of expulsion would have deterred the attacker when he would have already faced 32 death penalties or at least 32 life sentences seems silly.

Letting civilians have permitted concealed handguns limits the damage from attacks. A major factor in determining how many people are harmed by these killers is the amount of time that elapses between when the attack starts and when someone with a gun is able to arrive on the scene.

[Hazcat]

A lot of other anti gunner opinions there (at the link) as well.  Interesting read.

[PegLeg45]

A lot of other anti gunner opinions there (at the link) as well.  Interesting read.

Yeah....there will always be a lopsided balance beam in the media....that was why I was surprised they even printed his opinion.

[ellis4538]

Article in our local rag stating the shooter was carrying an"Automatic" BLAA, BLAA, BLAA.  I called and set them straight and also mentioned about the guy with the CCW and that he didn't shoot since the shooter was already down and being subdued.  I think he should have walked up and put a bullet in his head for the safety of the general public and to help subdue him but that is just me.

Richard

[Sponsor]

[PegLeg45]

Article in our local rag stating the shooter was carrying an"Automatic" BLAA, BLAA, BLAA.  I called and set them straight and also mentioned about the guy with the CCW and that he didn't shoot since the shooter was already down and being subdued.  I think he should have walked up and put a bullet in his head for the safety of the general public and to help subdue him but that is just me.

Richard

A little "Old West Justice" might get things back to where they ought to be.  
(not that I'm advocating vigilantism, or taking the law into one's hands.....but in a case where there is no doubt.....)

[Solus]

A little "Old West Justice" might get things back to where they ought to be.  
(not that I'm advocating vigilantism, or taking the law into one's hands.....but in a case where there is no doubt.....)

You know, while I might not plug the guy in front of so many witnesses, I can't argue much with the thought.   However, the guy did not see the shooting so he had no real proof that the guy did it.  Not only that, he did see a guy with a gun.  Had he assumed that guy did it and shot him, he'd have been very wrong.

[Timothy]

He mentioned in the interview that he almost did consider shooting the bystander holding the assailants firearm.  He thought otherwise when he saw he could subdue the guy.  He then found out the guy holding the Glock was just someone who just picked it up.  That showed some self control for a relatively young man.

[PegLeg45]

You know, while I might not plug the guy in front of so many witnesses, I can't argue much with the thought.   However, the guy did not see the shooting so he had no real proof that the guy did it.  Not only that, he did see a guy with a gun.  Had he assumed that guy did it and shot him, he'd have been very wrong.

Oh I agree 100%.....
I was just lapsing into a bit of wishful thinking. Even when dealing with cut & dried cases such as this, I really wouldn't advocate the general citizenry handling it .........but 150 years ago, had this happened, if he was still alive when the sun went down, he wouldn't be alive by 12:01 PM Saturday.

[ellis4538]

Guess I should have said in my earlier post that he showed great restraint.  I don't know whether he ever thought he would be in that kind of situation but his actions were exemptlery (SP?).

Richard