What Stats Show Is The ONLY Way To Reduce Mass Shooting Deaths

8
1018

Let’s start out by stating what we all agree on: Mass shootings are horrible. They shouldn’t happen, and we should do what can be done to prevent them and decrease the number of deaths from them. We all agree on that.

What we don’t agree with anti-2A zealots about is what will reduce death tolls in those horrible situations.

Anti-2A types have the knee jerk emotional reaction that regulating and banning guns is the solution. Which, obviously, hasn’t stopped massive amounts of gun violence in Chicago and Baltimore, for example, or mass shootings in many other parts of the world with strict gun control.

Advertisement

What evidence shows, though, is that something completely different from gun control correlates to decreased death counts in mass shooting situations. And the data is crystal clear on this (hat tip to here for the lead). The abstract from a paper by Carl Moody gives us a summary of what you need to know (the download link for the paper is here). Moody writes,

The fact that an individual is willing to commit the most serious crime that carries with it the most serious punishment means that that person is unlikely to be deterred by laws with less serious consequences. This situation is compounded by the fact that many multiple victim public shooters are expecting, even planning, to die in the commission of their crimes. Combining newly developed and traditional difference-in-differences methodologies, we analyze several policies that have been suggested as possibly effective in reducing deaths due to mass public shootings. We find that none of the proposed policies significantly reduce such deaths. However, we find evidence that mass public shooting deaths are lower in places that allow the carrying of concealed firearms.

Wait, really? “Public shooting deaths are lower in places that allows the carrying of concealed firearms?”

Yes, really.

And that’s always been (and always will be) the case. Because a person carrying concealed on site can shoot back to stop the active shooter.

Evidence shows that active shooters specifically target areas that they think don’t allow carrying of firearms so that they can be the only one with a gun. If anti-2A zealots really wanted to stop mass shootings, then, they would be pushing for more people to both train with firearms and carry daily.

The fact that they don’t push for that tells you the truth about how little that they really care about death tolls in gun deaths except as an excuse to push their agenda.

Advertisement

8 COMMENTS

  1. Makes sense, only gun higher body count. these anti-2nd. zealots are so afraid of the gun when they should be afraid of the person …

  2. It’s the medication that are fed to the “off center persons.” Every mass shooter has had some kind of anti-depression medication prescribed to them from Doctors who get big bonuses from Big Pharma. These drugs are mind altering, the persons taking them can no longer think “love for one and other”. The answer is, get rid of the Big Pharma mind altering drugs!

  3. Carl Moody states THE TRUTH about places that are GUN FREE as being The TARGETS OF DERANGED , or BRAINWASHED ” USEFUL IDIOTS ” .
    HOWEVER , THE COMMUNIST ELITE , NEW WORLD ORDER CRIMINALS & THE BIASED MEDIA WILL NEVER TELL THE REAL TRUTH AS TO WHY THEY SUPPORT ANTI-2A PLOTS.

  4. Not denying self/home defense or concealed carry, but the main “anti-2A” argument isn’t with that. It’s about trying some common-sense controls like closing background check loopholes, ballistic registration on file before any gun is sold, to help police identify weapons used, and oh, yeah – mandatory training. Hell, I’ve been sailing for 40 years and California (and my insurer) still wants a certificate that says I’m not a fool with too much horsepower and not enough training. I don’t need it but I’ve seen a lot who do. Same with guns. My wife’s ex is a 2-strike felon who has lots of guns, and regularly shoves them in people’s faces.
    One other fallacy is that the “good guy with a gun” [will save the day]. Some step up, some don’t (like Uvalde cops, or the Parkland coward) but don’t forget the CC-licensed black man who stopped a shooter in a mall only to have the cops throw him to the ground and almost shoot him instead.
    Anyhow, some of the knee-jerk reactions to small changes are not logical, they’re about buying into paranoia. Don’t be one of the red-faced screaming people that makes everyone nervous, and ready to vote for red-flag laws that’s when the government really does sneak in.

    • There are no glaring loopholes and those that are evil wouldn’t care if there were 10,000 more laws than the more than 20,000 that we already have on the books. And ballistic registration is an illusion if you have any idea about ballistics you would not have even mentioned it. And your boat registration is not a Constitutionally protected right like the Second Amendment is, that is, it is actually in the Bill of Rights, without which we would not have had a Constitution, but the biggest issue that you seem to be missing in my opinion is that although those rights are spelled out in the Bill of Rights, they are simply an acknowledgement of the natural rights of human beings and God’s blessings. You don’t have to believe in God to believe that there are inherent rights as a human being and that defense of self and others is most assuredly among the most precious of those. Training is something that every firearm owner should pursue, but it is not a requirement to exercise a natural right, it is just something that should be encouraged and potentially offered to those that want to have it, just like COVID vaccinations should be encouraged but not mandated by the totalitarians that think they know it all. As for your wife’s ex, he should be in prison, and the fact that the police authorities and the prosecutorial authorities are failing to do their job is a reflection on the wisdom of voting public! If we were to vote more intelligently we wouldn’t have people like your wife’s ex on the streets with all of his illegally possessed firearms.

      • Terry – thank you for successfully destroying his ‘arguments’ which all went down hill from his ‘appeal’ for “common-sense controls” – his ‘suggestions’ are right out of the gun grabbers playbook.

  5. my Question: if there was Strick enforcement and and punishment. enforced according to the LAWS ALRADY ON THE BOOKS (which they are NOT} THERE WOULD NOT be a problem BUT THEY ARE NOT
    the liberal judges ought to have to pay for the CRIMES THE FELONS COMMIT AFTER A they are turned loose or not tried at commit. need to pay the price for those that commit after et go or with lighter punishments than the LAW REQUIRES
    I WILL BET MY LIFE HAT YOU WOULD SEE A MASS MASS IMPROVEMENT IN THINGS IN A SHORT TIME DEATH SENTENCES ,LONG PRISON NO PAROLE, ECT THAT IS THE PROBLEM NOT NOT MORE LAWS THAT WILL NEVER NEVER BE ENFORCED MY THOUGHTS AND BELIEFS

Comments are closed.