The False Hope of Gun-Free Zones

Cybercast News Service ^ | December 16, 2004 | Gerard Valentino

[neverdem]

Few people remember the school shooting in Pearl, Mississippi that took place in October 1997. Fewer people remember how it ended.

This episode came to a close when Pearl High School Assistant Principal Joel Myrick sprinted a quarter mile to retrieve a personal handgun from his car and confronted the shooter who was unwilling to continue the attack against an armed victim.

Myrick parked so far away from the school to keep from violating federal gun free zone statutes. By the time the shooting spree ended, two students lay dead and seven others were wounded. Myrick's heroic defense of the children at his school was sparsely reported, going mostly unnoticed by the establishment media who were unwilling to report that he used a gun to end the mayhem and murder.

They were also unwilling to ask the hard question - how many children died while Myrick sprinted to his car?

Compare the carnage at Pearl High School with that of the Luby's cafeteria in Killeen, Texas, where a gunman murdered 22 people and wounded 18 others before turning the gun on himself. Among those at Luby's on October 16, 1991 was a woman who was proficient with handguns, but obeyed the law by leaving her legal handgun in her vehicle because.

At times she was within feet of the killer and instinctively reached for her gun which wasn't there. By the time it was over, her mother and father were among the dead.

Once again, the media never asked how many people were killed because the license holder was disarmed.

Past instances of mass shootings, and common sense, teach us that when a victim resists with a firearm the violence ends quickly. Arguments claiming armed intervention by citizens leads to higher death tolls do not stand up to scrutiny. Death tolls are demonstrably higher when victims are unable to fight back as compared to cases where an armed victim resists.

It's time to ask how many more people must needlessly die before gun control activists and legislators realize that disarming law-abiding citizens leaves them easy prey to criminals. The recent massacre at a Columbus, Ohio nightclub proves yet again that so-called gun free zones only benefit criminals.

The Ohio legislature and Ohio Governor Bob Taft left everyone in that nightclub without a chance to fight for their lives because under Ohio's concealed carry law, license holders are banned from carrying in any establishment that serves alcohol - even if the licensee does not drink.

At first it sounds like good public policy to ban firearms in establishments that serve liquor. Further scrutiny however reveals that any gun free zone, including schools, restaurants, bars and government buildings offer criminals the freedom to kill with impunity.

The Columbus nightclub shooter was stopped by a city police officer who happened to be in the area and responded quickly to calls for help. However, we also know that a concealed handgun license holder was in the crowd that night, but was un-armed in accordance with the law. At times, he was less than five feet from the gunman but could do nothing.

A similar scenario unfolds in nearly every massacre committed with a firearm across the United States. Most take place in what gun-rights activists call victims-zones; areas deemed too dangerous, either by government or a private business, to allow legal firearms.

What gun-control advocates fail to grasp is criminals, by definition, do not follow the law and therefore any attempt to keep them from carrying a gun into a given establishment will fail, often with tragic results.

The goal of legislators nationwide shouldn't be to keep armed law-abiding citizens from bearing arms in restaurants, bars, schools and so forth. It should be to keep criminals with guns from entering such locations.

Posting signs designating an area as "gun free" does not keep criminals from entering with a gun; they invite criminals who know nobody can stop them.

And that is exactly what they want.

[KitJ]

bumpity bump

[Spok]

"Posting signs designating an area as "gun free"

This will assure criminals that no lawful CCW carrier will be armed, although I've heard, without naming names, that some lawful CCW carriers ignore those signs as well, on the theory that they (the good guys) would rather face the consequences of violating the gun law that to have to stand by helplessly and watch children being murdered. Go figure.

[2harddrive]

Yes - it's time to put the 2nd Amendment FIRST!!!

[Old Student]

My two cents worth? Everyone should carry, openly.

[RockinRight]

How about we designate some "liberal-free zones?"

[Old Student]

Start at the far top-right corner of Maine, and go south to the bottom of the Keys, then west? Among other places?

sounds good to me...

[mbynack]

We need to post signs for "crime free zones." I'm surprised no one has thought of that before. If criminals obey "gun free zone" signs, they should obey "crime free zone" signs.

Now I'll act like John Kerry and put myself in for a Nobel Peace Prize.

[GovernmentShrinker]

I'm with you on the "everyone should carry", but "openly" is not a good idea for most people most of the time. Open carry is appropriate for security and law enforcement personnel, who are presumably focused on their duties, and thus maintaining constant awareness of their firearms. However, for example, a parent going back-to-school shopping with 2 or more children in tow, is going to be focused primarily on other things, and that gives too much opportunity to the criminals to see where the gun is and then look for an opportunity to grab it when the carrier is distracted. Same for people attending a social gathering or a spectator event. I really wouldn't be impressed by seeing an open-carrying mom in a shopping center parking lot, as she fiddles with the toddler's carseat, while imploring the older kids to quit hitting each other. That's just an invitation to a criminal, and the mom would be just as well protected by carrying concealed in an easy-to-access way.

[Gritty]

Question: It's time to ask how many more people must needlessly die before gun control activists and legislators realize that disarming law-abiding citizens leaves them easy prey to criminals.

Answer: All of them.

[Chode]

it started raining one day so i told our oldest i'd give her a ride back to school(she was home for lunch) but to still bring her coat.
we got to the school parking lot entrance and i pulled over so she could get out, she wasn't too happy when she had to walk in the rain the last 100 yards because i wouldn't go onto school property with a hand gun.

the last thing she said was, it was a stupid law because "I" wasn't going to shoot anybody and nobody would know if i dropped her off.

i told her I would know and SHE would know, and "yes it IS a stooopid law" but as long as it is the law, i'll abide by it

i can only hope it was a learning experience

[ExSoldier]

"everyone should carry", but "openly" is not a good idea for most people most of the time.

I agree 100%. Further the purpose of concealed carry is to keep the bad guys in the dark as to just who is armed. This fear of the unknown thereby allows one armed citizen to "protect" hundreds of others by proxy so to speak.

I used to be a State Probation and Parole Officer, here on the mean streets of Miami FL. I used to ask my guys what the effect of armed citizens had on their "trade." Their reply was almost universal: Heck, a cop's job is to arrest you and that is just a cost of doin' business. But a citizen, afraid for his life? Or the lives of his family? That guy will kill you dead and ain't NONE of us in this business to get killed! If I even think my target is packing, I'll go somewhere else.

Once I was with my wife at a downtown social event (fund raiser for charity she helped to organize) and it was held in a building with a huge dark parking garage and it was near midnight when dinner was finally served. I was wearing a tux with a yaqui slide holster and an Colt Officer's model .45. I was sitting into my chair when the arm of the chair pushed against the barrel and the whole gun hit the wood floor with a thunk! I have NEVER again used that holster! So the gun hit the floor and everybody turned and just stared. The chief of police was there and the mayor and lots of other folks. I calmly retrieved the weapon and reholstered without so much as a word. The whole room was dead silent and then everybody dug into the food. But when we got ready to leave about a third of the folks at the party wanted me to "escort" them to their cars. I spent almost 90 min doing this. Still I handed out a ton of my business cards and got a ton of CCW classes out of it, so I guess it was worth the wear on my feet.

[ServesURight]

My home has a huge sign on the lawn that says:

GUN-FREE HOME - PLEASE ROB AND PILLAGE AT YOUR CONVENIENCE

[ThanhPhero]

many more people must needlessly die before gun control activists and legislators realize

They already know, but it is an irrelevant datum to them. Individual deaths are of no significance-mass deaths mean nothing. Power and who will decide your life is everything.

[ThanhPhero]

It should be to keep criminals with guns from entering such locations.

That is not realistic. It should be to allow a situation where the criminals know there is an excellent chance he will meet armed opposition.

[MarkL]

My two cents worth? Everyone should carry, openly.

I had a discussion over this topic with a friend a long time ago, and I feel that open carry is a bad idea. It can make you a target, and it also lets the "bad guy" know who the "good guys" are. I'd much rather keep them guessing.

Mark

[Billthedrill]

The alternative to a "gun-free" (except for the bad guys) zone isn't that everyone carries; it's that everyone might be carrying and an unknown number of people, possibly none, possibly many, will be. That is a criminal deterrent. It's also a perfectly normal situation in much of this country much of the time.

One thing that criminals, both professional and amateur, always do is risk assessment. Knowing that an area will be devoid of firearms is, for certain types of crime, a big, fat sign saying "victims here!" It was for Kliebold and Harris. You don't have to arm everyone, or even many, for this to be no longer true; you just have to create an environment of uncertainty that drives that risk up to unacceptable levels. Let those who are willing to put the effort into doing so properly, carry. Don't tell anyone who they are. It really is an optimal strategy.

[groanup]

All of the research by Lott, Fleck, etc. is regarding concealed carry. There is no research on the deterrent effect of open carry. We DO know that concealed carry deters crime.

[neverdem]

I believe open carry is problematic unless you're on your own property, hunting or at a range. The wearer would have to be hypervigilant, always worried that someone might try to steal the weapon. Concealed carry makes more sense.

[LibertarianInExile]

Are cops like this, then? Small wonder most are less than eager to do foot patrols.

I do think concealed carry is better for purposes of deterrence, but I think either would be a step in the right direction.