Lott: Gun Free Zone puts criminal minds at ease

Suppose a criminal comes upon your home and sees a sign announcing, “Gun Free Zone.” How would he respond? Unless he thinks that the homeowner is playing a joke on him, the sign would put his mind at ease and make him more likely to break in.

In a recent viewpoint, it was argued that such signs make us safer. My October testimony before the state Senate Judiciary Committee was attacked.

Mass public killers want to commit suicide, but they also want to gain media attention by taking people with them. They don’t normally just run outside and start shooting. These are cold, calculating killers who spend a half-year or more planning their attacks, and they often express their desire to attack an area where guns are prohibited.

The Charleston killer’s first choice was the College of Charleston. After realizing the college had armed guards, he opted for a church instead.

Particularly telling is the recently-released diary of James Holmes, the man who killed 24 at a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado. Holmes’s diary considers attacking an airport but rules this out because of “substantial security.” Of seven theaters showing the Batman movie premiere within 20 minutes of the killer’s apartment, only one banned permitted concealed handguns, and that is the one he attacked.

Elliot Rodger, who shot three people to death in Santa Barbara, Calif., explained his own choice. In his 141-page “Manifesto,” Rodger turned down targets because he was concerned that someone would cut short his killing spree.

Justin Bourque gunned down three people in Canada. His Facebook page contained pictures of defenseless victims explaining to killers that they weren’t allowed to have their guns.

Dozens of cases show permit holders stopping what would have been mass public shootings, it is understandable these killers avoid places where they can’t kill a large number of people.

I began my testimony to the state Senate Judiciary Committee by pointing out how incredibly law-abiding permit holders are. The recent viewpoint states that I characterized permit holders as “good [people] who always have the good judgment and skills necessary to successfully and safely defend themselves with guns.”

Permit holders are not perfect, but they are extremely law-abiding compared to any other group in the population, even police. There are now 13 million permit holders nationwide and a half million in Michigan. In Michigan, permit holders lose their permits at a tiny rate, just tenths of one percentage point. It is at an even smaller rate that they lose their permits due to firearms violations – thousandths of a percentage point. College-age permit holders are no different.

People often fear that permit holders who try to stop mass public shootings will either accidentally shoot bystanders or be shot by arriving police. In fact, such cases have never occurred.

Webster is not balanced in his discussion of the research on concealed handgun permits. University of Chicago economist Bill Landes and I studied 13 types of gun control laws and their effects on public mass shootings from 1977 to 1999. Only concealed handgun laws proved effective. Again, attacks occurred in those small areas where victims were not able to protect themselves.

Most peer-reviewed studies find that right-to-carry laws reduce violent crime. By contrast, there is no peer-reviewed, U.S. study by an economist or criminologist that actually finds an increase in rates of murder, rape or robbery.

Criminals see victims in gun-free zones as sitting ducks. Even the most ardent gun control advocate would not put “Gun-Free Zone” signs on their home. Let’s finally stop putting them elsewhere. • Lott is the president of the Crime Prevention Research Center and the author of "More Guns, Less Crime" (University of Chicago Press, 2010).