1950 to 2010: Not One Mass Public Shooting Where Citizens Could Be Armed

From: breitbart.com,  by AWR Hawkins,  on Sep 7, 2016,  see the article HERE.


In his latest book, The War on Guns: Arming Yourself Against Gun Control Lies, John R. Lott Jr. points to the fact that from 1950 to 2010, not one mass public shooting took place in an area where citizens could arm themselves in self-defense.

In other words, gun-free zones or gun-restricted zones were the targets of choice.

This flies in the face of the 21st century gun control movement’s claims that gun-free zones do not endanger innocents. It exposes the fallacy of arguments that present attackers as uninterested parties who choose a target by chance, never taking into account whether that target contains people who can shoot back.

According to Lott: “From 1950 to 2010, not a single mass public shooting occurred in an area where general civilians are allowed to carry guns. Over the entire period from 1950 through February 2016, just over one percent of mass public shootings occurred in such places.” Think about it—from 1950 through February of this year, “just over one percent of mass public shootings” occurred outside a gun-free zone.

And for those who think Lott is just making this stuff up as he goes along, he makes sure to provide documentation—where possible—of the decision-making process that guided many of the most high-profile attackers in choosing their targets. Those decisions prove to include avoiding would-be victims who will be able to shoot back.

For example, a February 2016 wiretap of Khalil Abu-Rayyan, a would-be attacker in Detroit, caught him admitting that he wanted to attack a church because “people are not allowed to carry guns in church.” Dylann Roof, the alleged gunman behind the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church attack, first planned to attack the College of Charleston but switched plans and attacked the church after realizing the college “had armed guards.” Aurora movie theater gunman James Holmes used his diary to explain that he did not choose the closet theater or the biggest theater for his attack. Rather, he chose the gun-free theater. Lott writes: “He… selected the only theater within twenty minutes of his apartment that banned permitted concealed handguns.”

Consider John Russell Houser, the alleged gunman behind the July 23, 2015, Lafayette theater attack. Lott observes that Houser allegedly “attacked one of only two movie theaters in his area that banned permitted concealed handguns.”

Attacking in a gun-free zone gives the aggressor the one thing that is key to bloodshed and terror—and that one thing is time. With enough time, the attacker can kill large numbers of people regardless of the kind of gun(s) he uses, and regardless of whether his magazines are “high capacity” or not. Lott illustrates this by pointing out that Nidal Hasan, the November 5, 2009, Fort Hood attacker, was armed with just a pistol and a revolver, but was able to fire “220 shots” because those at whom he shot were not armed with anything.

Lott’s main point in this section of The War Against Guns is simple: “Mass public shooters avoid places where victims can defend themselves.” They prey on the unarmed as a wild beast preys on weaker creatures, killing as many as possible in order to increase “the publicity” the attack will receive.

AWR Hawkins is the Second Amendment columnist for Breitbart News and political analyst for Armed American Radio.


C’mon people, anyone with a lick of sense can see why a criminal bent on killing as many innocents as possible would choose a gun free zone. It’s where law-abiding people would be unarmed and defenseless.

But wait!

If it’s a “gun free” zone, wouldn’t that prevent the criminal from bringing a gun into the area?

Anyone who believes that someone bent on murder and mayhem is going to obey a sign should go elsewhere – you don’t possess the cognitive abilities to understand the facts and logic you’ll find on Pesky Truth.

The Gun Control people understand my statement and the question and they know the answers, but it’s not in their interest to allow truth and facts to invalidate their message. They simply want to take away guns from ordinary citizens and lies and obfuscations are the tools of their trade. They know that gun-free zones don’t work when an evil-doer is bent on massacre. It’s that same Utopian thinking that we’re used to seeing from liberals. They “fix” the problem by posting a sign – there, problem solved. Next, take guns away from those who will abide by the laws – again, problem solved. All without the difficult and nasty job of trying to take guns away from criminals.

If only the real world were so simple.

To them, intentions are more important than actions, so they blame those evil guns more than they blame the poor, misguided and misunderstood mass murderer. 



Categories: General


4 replies

  1. Once established, gun-free zones rarely ever go away, so they should have a target painted on them so the people entering know they could be in danger.

    Most of the examples the author cited are recent ones, but one older example was in 1966 when that nutjob went up into the clock tower at the University of Texas and killed more than a dozen people and wounded many more. UT was gun-free then so he had ample time to pick off innocent victims. People from all over town ran to get their guns and go to the campus to help the cops put a stop to the rampage. It took an armed citizen and an officer who stormed the tower to finally put a stop to it.

    Those efforts took time to respond and during that period shots continued from the tower, because nobody on campus was armed. Nobody was prepared. Yet even after that horrible day, it took Texas 50 years to allow carry on campus, when it should have only taken about 50 minutes to draw up a bill allowing people to defend themselves.

    You’d think the solution to this situation should be obvious, even to liberals.


    • You’d think so, but we know better don’t we? I think it’s their blind hatred for anything that conservatives believe in – if it’s a conservative position, it MUST be wrong. It’s as simple as that. We are all ignorant knuckle-draggers and can’t possibly understand the subtle nuances of liberal thought, but I think that it’s just that simple: if it’s conservative dogma, it MUST be wrong, and therefore they will be right if they take an opposing position.


  2. That certainly is a pesky truth, Garnet. How are liberals supposed to satisfy their need to feel heroic and superior when you keep injecting reality into the discussion?


    • I was going to quote Teddy Roosevelt as saying, “To anger a conservative, lie to him.To anger a liberal, tell him the truth.” Though it’s still a great truism, apparently no one can definitely attribute it to Roosevelt – what a disappointment!

      Nevertheless, the words still ring true.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: