Saturday, December 15, 2012

Rethinking the Practicality of "Gun Free Zones"

My colleague over at Civil Discourse Now, who is so far left, he thinks President Barack Obama is a conservative, has penned a column this morning advocating the elimination of the private ownership of guns. It's a shame to see Mark write the article.  He appeared this year to start to coming to his senses on gun control, but apparently the cold weather has frozen the part of his brain controlling logic.

In Mark's world, the crazies and the criminals will see that it is illegal to have a gun, and, thus, be deterred not to commit a crime.  Apparently they are not only prone to commit violent acts through lunacy or criminal deviancy, they are also really stupid, apparently too dumb to figure out how to obtain a gun illegally.  It is funny how the mind of a liberal works.  Even though we have worked overtime in the War on Drugs, liberals believe that people are still easily able to get access to drugs and thus we should legalize their possession and use.  But when it comes to condoms, or other other birth control, even though perfectly legal, they think teenagers somehow can't figure out how to access them.  As far as guns, liberals believe a law banning their private ownership will magically prevent people from getting access to them.

Here's the real deal.  Drugs, condoms and guns are all easily obtained by whoever wants them and they still will be if you make laws against them.  But back to guns.

Mark notes how the shooter was able to get off 100 rounds of ammunition.  That's not exactly a surprise.  He was in a school, i.e. a "gun free zone."  He walked into that situation armed, breaking the law mind you, knowing teachers and administrators would never be able to defend themselves and the children from the shooter because, guess what, the gun free zone had disarmed them.

I grew up in the country where everyone had a gun in their house.  People were not robbed where I lived. Anyone who would break into a house knew they might get shot if not by a homeowner, by a neighbor who saw the break-in occurring..  Liberals suggest that it is only an actual shooting of a bad guy that acts as the deterrent.  While that has in fact happened here in Indy this year (several robberies of business establishments were thwarted when the robber was shot by an employee), what liberals do not seem to understand is that it is the THREAT someone might be armed that is the major deterrent.

It is important that we recognize that there are two types of "gun free zones."  You have those zones where everyone is searched going into a building or onto an airplane. Rules banning guns in those situations do make sense and for the most part work.

But where gun free zones miserably fail is when we impose those zones in places where there is no search of those entering, where compliance with the law or rule is totally dependent on those entering being willing to voluntarily follow the law.  In those situations, you find that gun free zones only take away weapons from law abiding citizens and make people inside those zones vulnerable to nut jobs like the Connecticut shooter.

We need to rethink gun free zones.  If there is not a confined space where people are being searched upon entering, laws and rules preventing law abiding citizens from possessing weapons in those gun free zones only make people more vulnerable to thinks like what happened in Connecticut.  If that means arming a few teachers and administrators to give the children some protection, I am 100% for it.  We need the bad guys to know that, if they endanger the safety of those children, they might get shot. That type of gun free zone, sans the search, only provides them assurances that they'll be able to shoot innocent children and teachers with no fear of consequences.

14 comments:

Flogger said...

If a school is "Gun Free" or not is not relevant. A person on a suicide mission will carry out the crime.

We should be asking ourselves why do have more murders in Indianapolis than entire countries in Western Europe such as Denmark???

Indy Rob said...

I think people are missing the point. Keeping guns out of everyone's hands is not the same as disarming (rendering harmless) the crazy violent lunatics who carry out these acts. I would like to see Congress explore the things that these crazies have had in common ( James Holmes, Amy Bishop, Eric Harris, Dylan Kleblod, Nidal Hasan,Jared Lee Loughner, and Adam Lanza).

In the cases of the ones who are still alive, I would convict them of terrorism and pull them off somewhere where they would not be legally-protected from psychiatrists. There has to be a common thread or something missing in the reasons that these crazies had for planning a methodical attack and killing a number of people

Bradley said...

I have a lot of questions with your reasoning, Paul. I respect the hell out of your thoughts most of the time (even if I disagree), but all I could think was "Wow" when I read your post. Here's some questions I have just from the last paragraph alone:


"We need to rethink gun free zones. If there is not a confined space where people are being searched upon entering, laws and rules preventing law abiding citizens from possessing weapons in those gun free zones only make people more vulnerable to thinks like what happened in Connecticut."

Are we actually more vulnerable from guns in a gun free zone? If guns are that much of a problem, that might lead the gun-control folks to point-out we'd actually be more safe in a gun-free country then.


"If that means arming a few teachers and administrators to give the children some protection, I am 100% for it."

Where would the guns be kept? In a locked place where no student/unauthorized person could get to it? Would they then be able to get to the gun quickly enough to stop the shooter? What kind of guns would be kept there (with enough capability to take-out a heavily-armed, possibly heavily-armored shooter)? Who pays for the guns -- taxpayers? Who trains the teachers and administrators to properly use the guns -- taxpayers? What's the liability if a public employee, like a teacher, accidentally shoots a student, co-worker, or member of the public while trying to protect them?


"We need the bad guys to know that, if they endanger the safety of those children, they might get
shot."

Does the bad guy usually care if they escape with their life? How many of these mass murderers in the last 20 years has lived to escape and never be captured? Am I incorrectly recalling where any one of the situations was where the bad guy A) Was caught quickly or gave themselves up) or B) was killed by authorities or C) blew their own brains out? I don't seem to recall any of the mass murders in this country involving guns the last 20 years where the bad guy actually gave a damn about their own body or actions or whether they lived (probably life imprisonment or death penalty) or were caught.


"That type of gun free zone, sans the search, only provides them assurances that they'll be able to shoot innocent children and teachers with no fear of consequences."

Should every "gun free zone" out there now without the current capability to have a secured checkpoint and "search" capability (such as a mall, school, movie theater, congressional meet-'n-greet, or pretty much any damn place that's public) have to now have a secured checkpoint? Are we going to have to go through security detectors/bag checks/pat-downs/etc. everywhere now? Or else are we going to have a society where everyone carries a gun and hopes the person next to them isn't going to tap the trigger of their Glock first? Neither society seems like a society too many (if any) of the Founders envisioned and neither is a society of which I would much like to be part.


I am not a "let's get rid of all guns" sort of guy, but I also know I don't need an automatic assault rifle to protect myself or to kill Bambi and Thumper. I don't know the answers, but I don't think the answers are here on this blog post.

Cato said...

Not only should guns be illegal, but the element iron which forms every gun barrel should also be made illegal, since iron is ultimately used to kill.

Further, since brass is made of copper and zinc, and since every shell is made of brass, copper and zinc should also be made illegal.

Additionally, since Mathematics and Art are used to design every gun, these disciplines must be banned from schools and their study manuals pulled down from the libraries.

Guns are the sum of many evil parts, all of which must be forbidden if we are to be safe.

Cato said...

Indy Rob, the only common point is that they breathe Oxygen. Finding a level of extrapolation to permit banning is a de facto global ban.

Flogger, something is deeply sick and wrong in America. We have a broken, authoritarian, emasculating culture that causes unnatural and destructive episodes.

Even more social control is not the solution to the problems of our existing heavy social control.

21st Century America is far from being in harmony with human nature.

guy77money said...

'The silicon chip inside his head
Gets switched to overload.
And nobody's gonna go to school today,
He's going to make them stay at home.
And daddy doesn't understand it,
He always said she was as good as gold.
And he can see no reason
'Cause there are no reasons
What reason do you need to be shown?'

Maybe the Boomtown Rat's said it best, they're are no reasons...

Lane Siekman said...

From what we have heard about the event in Connecticut, The shooter shot his way into the school past staff members and a locked door. We do not need guns inside of our schools unless they are possessed by professionals trained to defend against determined assailants. The real question is why do we have to turn our schools into secured locked down zones to protect our children? More guns will not solve this problem... maybe there is no solution.

Indy Rob said...

Kato,

These gun-crazies (the ones who carry out mass shooting) have much more in common than just breathing oxygen. From the different news reports, all of them seemed to be anti-social. This is just one element that could identify a potential killer.

We live in a world where Target can data mine shopping habits and determine if a woman is likely to be pregnant.

We might not be able to identify every potential killer, but using the same sort of data mining techniques applied to this problem, it is probable that specific individuals could be identified as being at higher risk.

I am not sure what is the best thing to do once we reach the point where individuals are rated by risk, but this is better than taking guns away from everyone leaving everyone at risk from anyone willing to violate gun-control laws.

Flogger said...

I think in a way we need to separate out the different types of Homicides.

First, we have these spree killers, like in Connecticut. They are on suicide missions.

Second, we have Organized Crime, here I am thinking about the Mafia. Their violence with some possible exceptions is among themselves. Violence against "Non-Members" here I am thinking about James Hoffa is directed and precise.

Third, we have Street Gangs, with their constant turf wars. The level of violence is far greater than the Mafia.

Fourth, we have the domestic disputes or personality disputes, or when the Murderer and victim know each other. The second and third categories above may involve people who know each other but the reasons to commit homicide are different.

It never seems like the Police, Political Leaders or Media try to provide us with information and analysis. Sociologists might be used to look at the Society as a whole.

Why are we a far more Violent Society than Western Europe??

Cato said...

"From the different news reports, all of them seemed to be anti-social. This is just one element that could identify a potential killer."

Any decent person is anti-social. All normal men are anti-social. What the f--- is the benefit of socialization? People want space and to be left alone. Too much socialization causes these problems.

If a person isn't a potential killer, they don't have much use for a gun outside a target range. The entire idea of the Second Amendment is that all free men are potential killers and will kill those who infringe on Liberty.

We're an eyes-front predator, like a Tiger or Wolf. Before we had coffee shops, pilates studios and public schools, we hunted to survive. Our unalterable instincts make every man a "potential killer."

If we keep warping human nature, our problems will continue to get worse.

guy77money said...

The following happened back in 1979 by a 16 year old girl. Bob Geldof wrote the song "I Don't like Monday's and performed it with the his band the Boom Town Rat's after reading it on the telex at a radio station. I suspect it doesn't help that the media reports go on for days and puts bad thoughts into mentally imbalanced individuals. Lets face it if somebody wants to go nuts and kill people there are ample opportunities. Can you guard every playground, kids walking home from school,the list is endless. There are probably many reasons a person snaps and the question is do we give away one of our rights to protect us against these mentally imbalanced people.

Here's what Wikepedia said about the shootings.

The shooting spree of 16-year-old Brenda Ann Spencer, who fired at children in a school playground at Grover Cleveland Elementary School in San Diego, California on 29 January 1979, killing two adults and injuring eight children and one police officer. Spencer showed no remorse for her crime and her full explanation for her actions was "I don't like Mondays. This livens up the day".

RhondaLeeBaby69 said...

So you would prefer that students be allowed to bring guns to school like that 11-year old kid in Utah whose parents tol- him to bring a gun to school for protection. He then proceeds to hold up to another kid's head and says "I'm going to kill you". In your perfect world, the other kid would pull out his concealed piece and blow him away. Even though the 1st kid's gun was unloaded.

This is a window into the world you want to live in.

RhondaLeeBaby69 said...

So you would prefer that students be allowed to bring guns to school like that 11-year old kid in Utah whose parents tol- him to bring a gun to school for protection. He then proceeds to hold up to another kid's head and says "I'm going to kill you". In your perfect world, the other kid would pull out his concealed piece and blow him away. Even though the 1st kid's gun was unloaded.

This is a window into the world you want to live in.

Citizen Kane said...

We have a sick society - that is the problem, not guns. We better have weapons to protect us from our sick government - who knows what they'll do next.