Is there any truth to the old statement that the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun?
Every time there’s a mass shooting we’re asked where that good guy was. Ironically, those good guys were busy obeying gun laws set up by liberals that prohibited them from acting.
As criminologist John Lott writes in National Review:
Since at least 1950, all but two public mass shootings in America have taken place where general citizens are banned from carrying guns.
The two instances were the International House of Pancakes restaurant in Carson City, Nevada on September 6, 2011 and the Gabrielle Giffords shooting in Tucson, Arizona on January 8, 2011.
Coincidence? Not by a long shot:
Mass killers have even explicitly talked about their desire to attack gun-free zones. The Charleston, S.C., church shooting in June was instead almost a college shooting. But that killer changed his plans after realizing that the College of Charleston had armed guards.
James Holmes, the movie theater killer, decided not to attack an airport because of what he described in his diary as its ‘substantial security.’ Out of seven theaters showing the Batman movie premiere within 20 minutes of the suspect’s apartment, only one theater banned permitted concealed handguns. That’s the one he attacked.
In America there are nearly as many guns as there are people. Liberals will rhetorically state that if more guns really did make us safer, we would be one of the safest nations in the world, but it’s their own policies preventing that. What good is owning a gun for self-defense if you can’t bring it to the public places where the overwhelming majority of mass shootings occur?
Only one group of people obeys those laws, and it isn’t the criminals.
[Note: This article was authored by The Analytical Economist]