On Guns, Signs and Common Sense

Here in Oregon yesterday, a man entered a shopping mall killed two people, severely injured another before taking his own life.  He used what has been described as an assault rifle.  The shopping mall - Clackamas Town Center mall - is reported to be a self-proclaimed "Gun Free Zone."  According to reports (we rarely visit the center), there are signs posted at the entrances to this effect.  

Oregon shooting victims Steven Forsyth and Cindy Yuille

How effective was the mall's "Gun Free Zone" policy?  Absent the remote possibility that the gunman was illiterate, neither the policy nor the signs were much of a deterrent.  Why on earth would the mall's owners, manager or tenants expect them to be?  Someone deranged enough to want to kill - randomly kill, in this case - is not going to stop short and rethink his game plan because there are signs telling him  not to bring his gun into the mall.  

Of course, Liberals are jumping all over this incident with demands that guns be outlawed entirely.  That makes as much sense as the mall's policy and signs: prohibiting guns will have no effect on those determine to have them and use them to commit mayhem or crime.  By the same logic we should ban automobiles because cars kill.

The real effect of the mall's no gun policy was to prevent law abiding, gun-carrying citizens from entering the premises.  Had someone with a concealed carry license been in the vicinity when the shooter attacked, the outcome may - repeat may - have been different.  Acting lawfully, one armed citizen may have deterred or perhaps even prevented this horror.  Steven Forsyth and Cindy Yuille may have lived.

The Cato Institute published a white paper last February entitled Tough Targets: When Criminals Face Armed Resistance from Citizens (you can read the white paper at the link or download it in PDF format).  The paper uses a collection of news reports of self-defense with guns over an eight-year period to survey the circumstances and outcomes of defensive gun uses in America.  Among its observations:

Outside of criminology circles, relatively few people can reasonably estimate how often people use guns to fend off criminal attacks. If policymakers are truly interested in harm reduction, they should pause to consider how many crimes — murders, rapes, assaults, robberies — are thwarted each year by ordinary persons with guns. The estimates of defensive gun use range between the tens of thousands to as high as two million each year. [Emphasis added.]

Cato provides an interactive, state-by-state interactive map showing defense gun use across a wide range of categories.  The paper's authors observe:

...opposition [to gun ownership] is typically based on assumptions that the average citizen is incapable of successfully employing a gun in self-defense or that possession of a gun in public will tempt people to violence in "road rage" or other contentious situations. Those assumptions are false. The vast majority of gun owners are ethical and competent. That means tens of thousands of crimes are prevented each year by ordinary citizens with guns.

Oregon is a "right to carry" state, including licensed concealed carry.  The signs at the Clackamas Town Center mall didn't stop an evil man; they stopped good men, and women, who carry guns.  Too many signs.  Too few guns.  Too little sense.  Two innocent people dead.

Investigate the laws of your state.  Apply for a concealed carry license.  Get a gun.  Learn how to use it correctly and safely.  Pray that you will keep it always in its holster.