Gun Free Zone
In “A Look at the Facts on Gun-Free Zones,” John Lott argues and defends that the increase of criminal attacks in Gun Free Zones is a cause of concern for college students. Because Lott is an American economist, political commentator, gun rights advocate, and the president of the Crime Prevention Research Center, he feels involved in the gun control debate as he is concerned for the safety of the students (1). However, Lott is not the only stakeholder; students hoping to attend college, professors, parents and anyone with a concern for college safety are also invested. Lott begins with a brief presentation of facts showing that “criminals can be deterred from committing crimes, potential mass shooters have second thoughts when faced with the
…show more content…
He states that “Mass killers have [even] explicitly talked about the desire to attack gun-free zones. The Charleston, S.C., church shooting in June was instead almost a college shooting. But the killer changed his plans after realizing that the college of Charleston had armed guards,” (1), meaning if the college allowed the students to carry guns the shooter would have never thought of attacking the college. Lott mentions that “Oregon laws [allows] permitted concealed handguns on university property, but public educators have undermined the law by putting bans in faculty and student handbooks. For students and faculty, the threat of expulsion or termination is surely threat enough. Faculty members may lose not only their jobs but also their career,” (2-3), meaning that the students and faculty cannot be seen with a gun or they would have to face long term consequences that would impact them significantly.
Lott concludes with “Right-to-carry laws reduced the frequency and the severity of mass public shooting; and to the extent to which mass shootings still occur, they took place in those areas in the state where permitted concealed handguns are not allowed,” (2), so carrying guns reduced the amount of attacks on people while in other places that do not allow guns are still being attacked. It is the necessity of allowing students to carry guns for their safety to reduce the risk of being
He states that “Mass killers have [even] explicitly talked about the desire to attack gun-free zones. The Charleston, S.C., church shooting in June was instead almost a college shooting. But the killer changed his plans after realizing that the college of Charleston had armed guards,” (1), meaning if the college allowed the students to carry guns the shooter would have never thought of attacking the college. Lott mentions that “Oregon laws [allows] permitted concealed handguns on university property, but public educators have undermined the law by putting bans in faculty and student handbooks. For students and faculty, the threat of expulsion or termination is surely threat enough. Faculty members may lose not only their jobs but also their career,” (2-3), meaning that the students and faculty cannot be seen with a gun or they would have to face long term consequences that would impact them significantly.
Lott concludes with “Right-to-carry laws reduced the frequency and the severity of mass public shooting; and to the extent to which mass shootings still occur, they took place in those areas in the state where permitted concealed handguns are not allowed,” (2), so carrying guns reduced the amount of attacks on people while in other places that do not allow guns are still being attacked. It is the necessity of allowing students to carry guns for their safety to reduce the risk of being