Media hype about mass shootings in America has fostered a myth that the killings are on the rise and that an assault weapon ban, expanded background checks and greater attention to the mentally ill will curb a rampaging epidemic, according to an authoritative and exhaustive study by a noted criminologist.
Instead, according to James Alan Fox, author and criminology professor at Northeastern University, mass shootings have remained stagnant over 34 years, averaging 20 a year, and few were committed by the type of berserk psychos portrayed by the media.
“Public discourse is grounded in myth and misunderstanding about the nature of the offense and those who perpetrate it,” he writes in the journal “Homicide Studies.” He added: “Without minimizing the pain and suffering of the hundreds of those who have been victimized in recent attacks, the facts clearly say that there has been no increase in mass shootings and certainly no epidemic.”
The study debunks several proposals aired from President Obama, Vice President Joe Biden and Senate Democrats after the December 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting aimed at stopping mass killings. While he said any plan is worth trying, he concluded that short of abolishing the Second Amendment, there is little that can be done.
The above is an excerpt from: Crime study: Handguns, not ‘assault rifles,’ used in most mass shootings | WashingtonExaminer.com.
I couldn’t agree more with the conclusion of the final paragraph posted above than I do. It is my sincere belief that the Left’s end game is the abolishment of the Second Amendment, which would result in an increase (yes increase) in violent crimes being perpetrated against a then disarmed citizenry of law abiders.
When owning a firearm becomes a crime? Only criminals will have them. And if you care about your personal safety and the safety of those you love? You don’t want that.
As a career police officer (retired), I can attest to the fact there is nothing a criminal fears more than the possibility of coming across an armed citizen during the act of committing a crime. And that would be why I encourage everyone I know to be their own first line of defense against crime, at the very least within the boundaries of their own homes.
If you live in an area where you believe a rapid police response will keep you safe, you may be correct. But to think there is no scenario within which a response to your home could be delayed, even in the instance of someone trying to kick your door down, is unwise. On a number of occasions during my law enforcement career there were times when our department was overwhelmed by the volume of calls received versus the number of police officers available to respond to them swiftly. This is a reality and can’t be practically prepared for. Anomalous spikes in calls for service that require rapid response just happen from time to time.
The bottom line? Don’t believe the hype of gun control advocates. We are not in the midst of a statistical spike in firearms-related violence or mass shootings. In my humble opinion, you remain your best first line of defense, at the very least within the boundaries of your own home. If you elect to be your own first line of defense outside your home, it is above prudent that you familiarize yourself with local regulations concerning carrying a concealed or loaded firearm, obtain any licensing or permits necessary to do so, and preferably take a class or classes designed to make you proficient in the handling, storage and proper legal use of your weapon of choice in the event you should have to protect yourself or others.
Be safe everyone.