This is actually a good article by The National Review

DAMN! Google the header and it will come up. Can't post the link.

Someone else want to try?

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/425802/gun-free-zones-don't-save-lives-right-to-carry-laws-do

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/425802/gun-free-zones-don't-save-lives-right-to-carry-laws-do



Edit- Dang you Conrad, you beat me to it!

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/425802/gun-free-zones-don't-save-lives-right-to-carry-laws-do
That might work better.


It's not that good of an article.

It implies if there were no "gun free zones" and there were armed guards/people that the shooters would choose not to do anything at all.
"Some have a hard time accepting that criminals can be deterred from committing crimes."

At best the article proves that some people that go on "shooting sprees" premeditate their crime.

"hard to ignore that mass public shooters keep choosing to attack locations where victims can’t defend themselves"

"Mass killers have even explicitly talked about their desire to attack gun-free zones"

"Holmes decided not to attack an airport because of what he described in his diary as its 'substantial security.'"

"only one theater banned permitted concealed handguns. That’s the one he attacked."

"He ruled out various targets because he worried that someone with a gun would stop his killing spree."

There is no proof that having guns in those places would have "deterred from committing crimes."

Only that the shooters thought about what they were doing and the result they wanted.

And this?:
"We studied 13 different types of gun-control laws as well as the impact of law enforcement, but the only law that had a statistically significant impact on mass public shootings was the passage of right-to-carry laws. Right-to-carry laws reduced both the frequency and the severity of mass public shootings"
is just horrible.
It proves nothing, is based on nothing.
Might as well say "we studied 13 different types of Obamacare laws as well as the impact of hospitals, but the only law that had a statistically significant impact on mass health care was the passage of right to choice laws. Right to choice laws reduced both the frequency and the severity of pregnancies, reducing the need for prenatal care."

It's not journalism, it's no different than a forum post.
Not an article, but an opinion.

Professional Pooer?

Hmmm....quite the quandary...who's opinion should I put more stock in? John Lott, the author of the article....

"" studied economics at UCLA, receiving
his B.A. in 1980, M.A. in 1982, and Ph.D.
in 1984. Lott has held positions in law and
economics at several institutions, including
the Yale Law School , Stanford , UCLA, the
Wharton Business School , Texas A&M
University , and Rice University . Lott was the
chief economist at the United States
Sentencing Commission (1988–1989). He
spent five years as a visiting professor
(1994–95) and as a fellow (1995–99) at the
University of Chicago. Lott was a resident
scholar at the American Enterprise Institute
(2001–2006). He left AEI for SUNY
Binghamton . [11] From July 2007 to 2010,
Lott was a senior research scientist at the
University of Maryland Foundation at the
University of Maryland, College Park

Nobel laureate
Milton Friedman said that "John Lott has
few equals as a perceptive analyst of
controversial public policy issues." ""
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Lott


......or a faceless forum poster who tries to micro analyze in every post he makes?

I think Ill go with John Lott....

Don't confuse the poor soul with facts, their mind is already made up

have you studied any gun control laws? what is your academic achievements? does that make your opinion any better?

If one wants to see the facts of a gun's ability to deter crime, most of which does not enter statistics used by anti-gunners, read "The Armed Citizen". Thousands of documented accounts are given.

Example

"When a 70-year-old Anderson, S.C., man used his handgun to foil the theft of his pickup truck, he also took the opportunity to display some compassion. After being alerted by his wife to the fact that someone was trying to steal his truck from their front yard, the gentleman retrieved his revolver and confronted the culprit. The suspect, who had crashed his own vehicle before fleeing the scene and attempting to steal the truck, had successfully hot-wired the automobile and was pulling out of the driveway when he encountered the armed citizen. Frantic at the sight of the firearm aimed at him, the 25-year-old criminal exited the vehicle and got down on his knees. While waiting for the authorities to arrive, the resident took the chance to speak to the would-be thief about “the direction his life was going,” and his wife even brought the suspect a glass of water. (WNCN, Raleigh, NC, 8/8/15)"