Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The last ten days have seen three horrific multiple-victim public shootings: the Atlanta courthouse attack that left four murdered; the Wisconsin church shooting, where seven were murdered, and Monday's high-school shooting in Minnesota, where nine were murdered. What can be learned from these attacks? Some take the attacks as confirmation that guns should be completely banned from even courthouses, let alone schools and churches.
The lessons from the courthouse shooting are likely to be different from the other two attacks in that there were armed sheriff's deputies present. Even if civilian gun possession were banned at the courthouse, the officers still had guns. Not only did they fail to stop the attack, they even facilitated it, because the 200-pound former football linebacker who was facing trial for rape was able to take the gun.
Guns are most useful in stopping criminals at a distance. The threat of using the gun against a criminal can allow one to capture him, or at least can cause the criminal to break off his attack. Police have a much more difficult job than civilians. While civilians can use a gun to maximize the distance between themselves and criminals, police can be satisfied with simply brandishing a gun and watching the criminal run away. Their job requires physical contact, and when that happens, things can go badly wrong.
My own published research on criminals assaulting police shows that the more likely that an assault will be successful, the more likely criminals will be to make it. The major factor determining success is the relative strengths and sizes of the criminal and officer. In particular, when officer strength and size requirements are reduced because of affirmative action, each one-percent increase in the number of female officers increases the number of assaults on police by 15 to 19 percent. The Atlanta-courthouse shooting simply arose from such a case.
Bullypulpit said:The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Avatar4321 said:Good intentions dont create bad laws if people think think through the process before they pass laws. Alot of the liberals wants to pass this law or repeal that law but they dont stop to think why the laws are that way before. They dont think through the process. id say alot of the republicans are just as bad. Lets ask ourselves why did our forefathers establish the laws they did before we decide to change everything?
Kathianne said:I'd say that our forefathers were well grounded in certain philosophies and belief systems. These were well thought out, way before the revolutionary war.
Now we have a GOP congress coming up with a special law for a person, the weekend after a judge orders the feeding tube removed. I fail to see a connection between our current lawmakers and those that drafted the constitution.
