German and US Masssacres No Reason To Panic

By John R. Lott, Jr.
Author, Freedomnomics
Senior Research Scientist, University of Maryland

Inevitably, the massacres in Germany and Alabama over the last two days have produced more calls for gun control. Already the attack in Alabama is being used to call for a new assault weapons ban, even though there are no published academic studies by economists or criminologists showing that the previous ban reduced violent crime.

The Alabama shooting spree left 11 people murdered, as the killer went from one house to another shooting members of his family and others inside. Three victims were shot from the window of the killer’s moving car.

We all want to take guns away from criminals, but gun control is more likely to disarm potential victims relative to criminals and make crime easier to commit.

At least 9 students and 3 teachers were killed at the public school near Stuttgart, Germany. Three other people were killed at other locations.

Unfortunately, the latest German attack is just another in a string of horrible K - 12 public school shootings in that country. In 2002, 16 people were killed at an attack in Erfurt. There were two other smaller multiple victim public school shootings in 2002 alone. In 2006, 11 students were wounded in Emsdetten. Germany has had the two worst multiple victim K - 12 school shootings in the world.

The last seven years of German school shootings make the United States seem peaceful by comparison: though the US has almost five times as many students as Germany, a total of thirty-seven people were killed during all multiple victim K-12 shootings in the US during the eight years from the Fall of 1997 to the summer of 2005.

Yet, Germany already has some of the strictest gun control laws in Europe and much stricter gun control laws than are being publicly discussed in the United States. It might not get much attention because it doesn’t fit the template of gun violence in the U.S., but during the last seven years, other European countries — including France, Finland, and Switzerland — have experienced multiple-victim shootings. The worst outside of Germany have involved 14 murders, and all these killings have occurred in places where guns were banned.

We all want to take guns away from criminals, but gun control is more likely to disarm potential victims relative to criminals and make crime easier to commit.

Multiple-victim public shootings are terrifying and they drive much of the gun control debate, but they make up just a tiny fraction of one percent of the murders in the United States, Europe, or the rest of the world. The problem is that the gun control laws that come out of these crimes not only make crime go up, they also make multiple victim public shootings more likely.

Research shows that police are the single most important factor for reducing crime, but even the police themselves understand that they virtually always arrive on the crime scene after the crime has occurred. Letting law-abiding citizens defend themselves not only deters some crimes from occurring, but it is the surest way of reducing the carnage when attacks do occur.

Unlike most public shooting scenarios, where citizens are allowed to carry concealed handguns, the Alabama killer presumably knew whether or where his family member victims had guns in their homes.

The few shots that he fired in public were from the open window of his speeding car, but even here privately owned guns potentially could have made a difference. ABC News reports:
McLendon fired several shots at the Bradley TrueValue Hardware store before heading out of town for Geneva, 12 miles away.

“We were just business as normal, and all of a sudden there were bullets flying and glass was everywhere,” owner David Bradley told the Dothan Eagle newspaper. “We realized what it was and grabbed our guns, but then he was gone.”

The crimes that are stopped rarely get much news coverage and surely not the coverage given to the horrific killings.

Europe is rushing to adopt even more gun control laws. Let’s hope the calls for more gun control in the US are given more thought. If not, the “cures” will disarm law-abiding citizens and make the disease of violence even worse.

John Lott is the author of Freedomnomics and a senior research scientist at the University of Maryland. Click here for an archive of Mr. Lott’s previous FOXNews.com columns.

Anti-Gun Amendments to Omnibus Bill

Anti-gun Land Bill Moving Again
Gun control should be stripped from the legislation

Gun Owners of America
E-Mail Alert
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102,
Springfield, VA 22151
Phone: 703-321-8585
FAX: 703-321-8408

http://www.gunowners.org/

An alert last week asked you to urge your representative to oppose a massive land bill scheduled before the full House. The good news is that opposition to the bill grew so loud that the leadership pulled it from the calendar so they would have more time to muster enough votes to pass it.

Well, that also gives you another chance to contact your own representative to tell him to OPPOSE the anti-Second Amendment Omnibus Land Act. The bill, S. 22, will be voted on this week.

[Also see: http://political2.blogspot.com/]

S.22 is comprised of more than 190 separate pieces of legislation and will come to the floor with a rule that will not allow pro-gun representatives to offer amendments. There are serious Second Amendment concerns with this legislation.

S. 22 will greatly expand the amount of land controlled by the National Park Service (NPS). Because the rights of lawful gun owners are restricted on NPS land, the bill will create even more "anti-Second Amendment" zones. In contrast to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the U.S. Forest Service, which allow State and local laws to govern firearms possession, NPS land was until recently subject to a complete gun ban.

In the waning days of his administration, President Bush partially reversed the ban, but that half-way measure still leaves a significant portion of the gun prohibition in place. Gun Owners of America has fought for several years to fully repeal the NPS regulations, but those efforts have been hampered by the anti-gun leadership of both the House and Senate.

GOA opposes many parts of the bill that are controversial and have not been debated on their individual merits. Consider just a few provisions of the 1,294-page bill:

* Section 2002 codifies the National Landscape Conservation System, which groups together 26 million acres of federal land and places it under one umbrella agency. The NLCS was created during the Clinton administration and run administratively since that time. S. 22 will make the system permanent, raising concerns for hunters and sportsmen. Much of this land is consolidated from the BLM and the Forest Service, which have always allowed hunting and recreational shooting. It is unclear what rules will be promulgated by the new agency and if gun owners' rights will be protected at all.

* Section 5204 of the bill establishes the Washington-Rochambeau Route as a Historic Trail. This dual trail begins in Rhode Island and travels 650 miles to Yorktown, Va. The trail includes parts of major thoroughfares on the east coast such as Interstate 95 and US Route 1, meaning the gun ban could effect hundreds of thousands of unsuspecting gun owners each day.

* Section 5301 authorizes the federal government to buy private land adjacent to national parks and trails. Such land would be controlled by the NPS, and thus be subject to the agencies' anti-gun regulations.

* Section 7002 makes the birthplace of William Jefferson Clinton a National Historic Site. Well, perhaps it's fitting that the legacy of former President Clinton, who was responsible for so many anti-Second Amendment laws, will include yet another "gun free" zone. In all, the bill designates over 2 million acres of wilderness, establishes three new national parks, a new national monument, three new national conservation areas, and four new national trails. If there are parts of the bill that could stand on their own, they should be brought up separately and dealt with in an open and fair process -- and not used as bargaining chips in exchange for compromises of your Second Amendment rights.

Some people on Capitol Hill contend that all of these bills already passed the House anyway. In fact, they have not. More than 70 of these bills now before the House were only passed by the Senate. The House of Representatives never even held hearings or open debate on these measures.

Representative Rob Bishop (R-UT) has indicated that he wants to at least have the opportunity to offer an amendment to ensure that the Second Amendment rights of all Americans are protected. However, right now it looks as though the anti-gun House leadership will refuse to allow any amendments to the bill, in order to ensure that it goes straight to President Obama's desk.

There is a possibility that an amendment to protect only hunting and recreational shooting on federal land would be allowed. Such an amendment by itself is not sufficient and is clearly designed as a "cover" vote for gun rights compromisers.

Please contact your representative and urge him or her to insist that an amendment be allowed to protect ALL of your Second Amendment rights -- not just hunting and recreational shooting.

Decisions, decisions...

Can we really trust the Supreme Court to do what so many feel is the right thing?

Especially apparent after a recent decision, it appears that the fate of gun owners may still be up in the air.

And You Thought Hillary was Bad

From the NRA
Friday, June 6, 2008

The presidential primary season is finally over, and it is time gun owners took a careful look at just where apparent nominee Barack Obama stands on the Second Amendment. During the primaries, Obama hid behind vague statements of support for “sportsmen” or claimed his general support for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

But his real record, based on votes taken, political associations, and long standing positions, shows that Barack Obama is a serious threat to Second Amendment liberties.

Don’t listen to his campaign rhetoric! Look at what he has said and done during his entire political career:

FACT: Barack Obama voted to allow reckless lawsuits designed to bankrupt the firearms industry.
FACT: Barack Obama has endorsed a complete ban on handgun ownership.
FACT: Barack Obama supports requiring law-abiding gun owners to register their firearms.
FACT: Barack Obama wants to re-impose the failed and discredited Clinton Gun Ban.
FACT: Barack Obama voted to ban almost all rifle ammunition commonly used for hunting and sport shooting.
FACT: Barack Obama supports local gun bans in Chicago, Washington, D.C., and other cities.
FACT: Barack Obama voted to uphold local gun bans and the criminal prosecution of people who use firearms in self-defense.
FACT: Barack Obama refused to sign a friend-of-the-court brief in support of individual Second Amendment rights in the Heller case.
FACT: Barack Obama wants to eliminate your Right to Carry.
FACT: Barack Obama was a member of the Board of Directors of the Joyce Foundation, the leading source of funds for anti-gun organizations and “research.”
FACT: Barack Obama supported a proposal to ban gun stores within five miles of a school or park, which would eliminate almost every gun store in America.
FACT: Barack Obama voted not to notify gun owners when the state of Illinois did records searches on them.
FACT: Barack Obama voted against a measure to lower the Firearms Owners Identification card age minimum from 21 to 18, a measure designed to assist young people in the military.
FACT: Barack Obama favors a ban on standard capacity magazines.
FACT: Barack Obama supports mandatory micro-stamping.
FACT: Barack Obama supports mandatory waiting periods.
FACT: Barack Obama supports repeal of the Tiahrt Amendment, which prohibits information on gun traces collected by the BATFE from being used in reckless lawsuits against firearm dealers and manufacturers.
FACT: Barack Obama supports “one-gun-a-month” sales restrictions.
FACT: Barack Obama supports a ban on inexpensive handguns.
FACT: Barack Obama supports a ban on the resale of police-issued firearms, even if the money is going to police departments for replacement equipment.
FACT: Barack Obama supports mandatory firearm training requirements for all gun owners and a ban on gun ownership for persons under the age of 21.

Giving the Criminal the Edge with Gun Control

Gun Rights vs Conservation

In 1989, John Shuler of rural Dupuyer, Montana, heard grizzly bears outside his house; fearing they would kill his sheep, he grabbed his rifle and ran into the night.

The good news is he survived his encounter with four grizzly bears, as did his sheep. The bad news is his lawyers spent eight years and a quarter of a million dollars to get him acquitted of charges that he violated the Endangered Species Act by killing one of those bears. Early on in that legal battle, the federal government ruled that, although Shuler justifiably feared “death or serious bodily injury”—the test for a self-defense claim—he had no right to arm himself and enter into what the government called “the zone of imminent danger.”

That conclusion conflicted directly with an 1895 opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court, in which, quoting authority, the Court ruled, “Where an attack is made with murderous intent . . . the person attacked is under no duty to flee. He may stand his ground, and, if need be, kill his adversary.” Moreover, the government’s view of Shuler’s right to arm himself and confront danger conflicted with the ethos of the American West, a vast area from the midst of the Great Plains to the Cascades, from Canada to Mexico.

In the West, the virtues of individualism, independence, self-sufficiency, and self-governance yield, not only a strong distrust of government, but also a citizenry that forms the bedrock of America’s gun culture. Their State constitutions go further than does the U.S. Constitution as to their right to “keep and bear arms”; their laws include “make my day,” “castle doctrine,” and “stand your ground” provisions; and their supreme courts interpret broadly the right of self-defense outside the home. Little wonder then, that the story that captivated the Nation last December of a voluntary security guard who saved scores of churchgoers by shooting a heavily armed killer took place in the heart of the West—in Colorado Springs, Colorado. “[I]t was me, the gunman, and God,” she humbly proclaimed.

Washington, D.C. may only be 1,500 miles from Colorado, but it is light years away in the distance that separates the two cultures. In fact, Washington proves the truth of the ubiquitous western bumper sticker, “When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.” For while Washington has had, since 1975, perhaps the Nation’s most stringent gun control laws and boasts more law enforcement officers per capita than any other city, it annually competes for and often wins designation as the Nation’s “Murder Capital.” No wonder that, for decades, law-abiding Washingtonians complained that they may not keep weapons in their homes to provide effectively for their own self defense.

One of those was Dick Anthony Heller, a District of Columbia special police officer permitted to carry a handgun while on duty but barred from keeping a gun in his home for self-defense. When his application to do so was denied, he sued under the Second Amendment. After his lawsuit was dismissed by the district court, the U.S. Court of Appeals reversed in March 2007. Last November, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to decide whether the Constitution protects, as the Court of Appeals ruled, an individual right to keep and bear firearms unrelated to militia operations.

Scores of briefs will be filed and the March arguments watched closely. Nowhere will the Court’s likely June ruling be more anxiously anticipated or closely scrutinized than in the West. For westerners believe what the Founding Fathers believed, that they have the right to keep and bear arms to defend themselves and loved ones from danger and their society from tyranny. While westerners may abide the Court discovering new rights in the shadows of the Constitution (its famous “penumbras”), westerners will not accept the Court destroying a right that has been so clearly in the bright light of the Bill of Rights since 1791.