Liberty Maven

Economist John R. Lott is a senior research scientist at University of Maryland, College Park with a Ph. D in economics from UCLA who has written well-known books such as Freedomnomics, More Guns, Less Crime, The Bias Against Guns, and Straight Shooting: Firearms, Economics and Public Policy. As such, he is a well-known supporter of our right to own and freely carry firearms.

Also a contributor to the Fox News Forums, he has written another brilliant piece discussing the attacks in Mumbai, New York Giant’s receiver Plaxico Burress, and the ill-advised (and unconstitutional) gun-control legislation that has harmed us as a society:

Banning guns is in the news. India practically bans guns, but that didn’t stop the horrific Muslim terrorist attacks this last week.

A football player concerned for his safety violates New York City’s tough gun control regulations by carrying a concealed handgun, and people call for everything from banning NFL players from carrying guns to demanding that the athlete serve many years in jail.

When police can’t promise to protect law-abiding citizens such Plaxico Burress or the victims in India, why don’t we allow people the right to protect themselves?

Where is the sympathy or debate in either case over letting people defend themselves? Given that the terrorists smuggled their machine guns in with them, would anyone argue that India’s extremely strict gun licensing and artificially high prices for guns helped prevent the terrorist attacks? In fact, the reverse is more likely the case.

Would Plaxico Burress, the New York Giant’s receiver who was arrested yesterday, really have been safer just trusting the police to protect him?

Continue reading the article here.