Eliminating gun-free zones and increasing the number of legally-armed citizens would reduce the occurrence of mass shootings, according to a paper released by the Crime Prevention Research Council (CPRC).
Carlisle E. Moody, an economics professor at the College of William and Mary and Research Director for the CPRC, wrote the paper titled “Is There a Policy That Reduces Mass Public Shooting Deaths?” It was released on July 21.
The paper states that politicians, gun control advocates, and Second Amendment supporters have proposed many solutions to the problem of mass shootings. These include permit-to-purchase laws, universal background checks, bans on certain guns, and large-capacity magazines.
Mr. Moody writes that none have shown more than a negligible impact on deaths from mass shootings, except for armed resistance.
“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,” the report reads.
Mr. Moody did not respond to emails seeking comment for this story.
One Second Amendment advocate said the paper states what most gun owners have always known.
“There’s no question that reducing gun-free zones would reduce the overall numbers of mass killings. We have loads of evidence from many mass murderers that they explicitly chose a gun-free zone to carry out their heinous crimes to reduce the chance of facing armed resistance,” Aidan Johnston, director of Federal Affairs for Gun Owners of America, wrote in an email to The Epoch Times.
The paper states that laws requiring a permit to purchase a gun, restricting gun sales to people over 21, gun storage laws, large-capacity magazine bans, and so-called assault weapons bans may reduce fatalities in a mass shooting. But according to the paper, the reduction would not be significant.
“Despite the findings in previous studies that permit-to-purchase laws and large capacity magazine bans may be effective, we find that neither of these nor the other policies investigated in this study can be shown to be effective in reducing the number of people killed in mass public shootings,” Mr. Moody wrote.
However, enforcing gun-free zones appears to have a negative impact.
“There is evidence that mass public shootings that occur in those places where ordinary citizens are prohibited from carrying concealed weapons are associated with significantly higher fatalities compared to places that allow such weapons, especially for mass shootings in which six or more people are killed,” the paper reads.
According to other CPRC research, shooters have indicated they chose their targets based on the likelihood that their victims would be unarmed.
Gun control groups take issue with the CPRC.
According to the paper, CPRC defines a mass shooting as “an incident in which four or more victims are fatally shot in a public location within a 24-hour period in the absence of other criminal activity, such as robberies, drug deals, and gang conflict.”
So several gang members shot by a rival gang during a drug deal or robbery in a private house would count as a mass shooting for CAP, but not CPRC.
CPRC researchers used software designed to parse data using a “difference-in-difference” analysis. This methodology attempts to track the change in a subject after a policy or process has been implemented. It is done by comparing the subject with a control not subjected to the policy or procedure.
Unbiased Estimate
“This average effect is an unbiased estimate of the net benefit of the policy being evaluated,” the paper reads.One retired law enforcement officer has read the CPRC paper and appreciates its scholarly approach to potentially emotional issues. Sgt. Betsy Brantner Smith pointed out that the paper is very technical. Still, she said Second Amendment advocates must be willing to consider all aspects of the issue if they hope to defend their rights successfully.
“This study provided some very valid responses on how we can prevent mass shootings,” Ms. Smith told The Epoch Times.
Ms. Smith said gun control stirs powerful emotions on both sides. Data-driven, sober policy proposals are necessary if the problem is going to be addressed, she said, adding that enforcing gun-free zones is an example of emotion trumping common sense.
As a retired police officer, Ms. Smith can carry her firearm in most places, including gun-free zones. Any other woman her age with similar training and firearms experience who had a concealed weapon license but was not a retired police officer would have to disarm herself in a gun-free zone.
“I don’t believe that’s right; I don’t believe that’s Constitutional,” she said.
Lott Is an Economist, Author
Mr. Lott is an economist and the president and founder of CPRC. He is considered an expert on guns and crime. He is the author of 10 books; his most well-known work is “More Guns, Less Crime.”The CPRC paper repeats an assertion Mr. Lott has made many times: “The fact that an individual is willing to commit the most serious crime that carries with it the most serious punishment, life in prison or execution, means that person is unlikely to be deterred by laws with less serious consequences.”
Mr. Lott made this point during a seminar at the National Rifle Association’s Annual Meeting in Indianapolis, Indiana, on April 16. In discussing a murder in Tennessee, he pointed out that the killing occurred in a gun-free zone, and the penalty for carrying a firearm in a gun-free zone in Tennessee is six years in prison.
“What does six more years matter to a murderer? It’s like there’s no penalty for these people,” Mr. Lott said.
Mr. Johnston said his organization appreciates CPRC’s research and will continue to stand for the rights of Americans to defend themselves.
“Gun Owners of America is working with local and national lawmakers to repeal gun-free zones and send a message to would-be criminals: the public will shoot back,” Mr. Johnston said.
