Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

alp227

(32,034 posts)
Sun Dec 16, 2012, 02:37 PM Dec 2012

"Gun-free zones provide false sense of security"?

A friend (who's a left-leaning independent and Obama supporter) posted on Facebook this column by Glenn Harlan Reynolds (University of Tennessee law professor and founder of the Instapundit blog) from this weekend's USA Today (a newspaper that's only worth the complimentary issues you get at hotels):

One of the interesting characteristics of mass shootings is that they generally occur in places where firearms are banned: malls, schools, etc. That was the finding of a famous 1999 study by John Lott of the University of Maryland and William Landes of the University of Chicago, and it appears to have been borne out by experience since then as well.

In a way, this is no surprise. If there's someone present with a gun when a mass shooting begins, the shooter is likely to be shot himself. And, in fact, many mass shootings — from the high school shooting by Luke Woodham in Pearl, Miss., to the New Life Church shooting in Colorado Springs, Colo., where an armed volunteer shot the attacker — have been terminated when someone retrieved a gun from a car or elsewhere and confronted the shooter.


This vulnerability makes some people uncomfortable. I teach at a state university with a campus gun-free policy, and quite a few of my students have permits to carry guns. After the Virginia Tech shooting a few years ago, one of them asked me if we could move class off campus, because she felt unsafe being unarmed. I certainly would have felt perfectly safe having her carry a gun in my presence; she was, and is, a responsible adult. I feel the same way about the other law students I know who have carry permits.

Gun-free zones are premised on a lie: that murderers will follow rules, and that people like my student are a greater danger to those around them than crazed killers. That's an insult to honest people. Sometimes, it's a deadly one. The notion that more guns mean more crime is wrong. In fact, as gun ownership has expanded over the past decade, crime has gone down.

Fortunately, the efforts to punish "the people who didn't do it" are getting less traction these days. The Supreme Court, of course, has recognized that under the Constitution, honest people have a right to defend themselves with firearms, inside and outside the home, something that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit recently acknowledged in striking down Illinois' gun-carry ban. Given that gun-free zones seem to be a magnet for mass shooters, maybe we should be working to shrink or eliminate them, rather than expand them. As they say, if it saves just one life, it's worth it.


The comments section is mostly in agreement with Reynolds. But do you really think it's freedom to live in a vigilante society where everyone is compelled to tote in public in fear of the next violent act?
17 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies

ellisonz

(27,711 posts)
1. They do. The gun nut crowd refuses to take any responsiblity for the violence.
Sun Dec 16, 2012, 02:45 PM
Dec 2012

They wish to blame people like Adam Lanza while denying the fact that their death cult clearly had profound effect on his direction in life.

Death cult scum playing with death spewers without a care in the world.

 

Clames

(2,038 posts)
7. Refuse to let you hang blame in order to soothe your own conscience.
Sun Dec 16, 2012, 03:00 PM
Dec 2012

Understandable when the laws you advocate on guns have proven worthless again and again and again.



ellisonz

(27,711 posts)
8. My conscience is clear...
Sun Dec 16, 2012, 03:02 PM
Dec 2012

...your conscience on the other hand seems to be infested by Ted Nugent.

Bjorn Against

(12,041 posts)
16. Gun laws are very weak in this country, the reason laws are worthless is they are not strong enough
Sun Dec 16, 2012, 04:08 PM
Dec 2012

Our laws have not been in place so they could not have proven worthless, your beloved guns however have continually proven to be deadly weapons that take innocent lives and no amount of spin can change that fact.

bobclark86

(1,415 posts)
14. So it's my fault...
Sun Dec 16, 2012, 03:52 PM
Dec 2012

because I own a firearm locked in a safe states away, that some person killed their mother, stole her guns and shot some children? Riiight. That logic totally makes sense. It's also my fault, as I have a bottle of wine in my house, if a drunk driver hits a school bus then, huh? It's my mother's fault if another smoker gets lung cancer?

 

beevul

(12,194 posts)
17. As a gun owner, I'll start taking responsibility for gun violence...
Sun Dec 16, 2012, 08:09 PM
Dec 2012

As a gun owner, I'll start taking responsibility for gun violence, just as soon as gun control supporters start taking responsibility for gun control failures in gun free zones.


On or about the 12th of never, in other words.

CJCRANE

(18,184 posts)
2. Even on military bases they regulate when and where
Sun Dec 16, 2012, 02:46 PM
Dec 2012

soldiers can carry guns.

On duty guards and military police routinely carry weapons but I assume that off duty soldiers store their weapons and are not in a state of armed readiness all the time.

gejohnston

(17,502 posts)
11. not at all
Sun Dec 16, 2012, 03:28 PM
Dec 2012

I have no problem with US military's policy on personal firearms, with is pretty much the same as Canadian Forces policy.
It seemed that you were making the false equivalence.

intaglio

(8,170 posts)
12. You said that troops had to leave issued weapons in barracks
Sun Dec 16, 2012, 03:37 PM
Dec 2012

Implying that they could still carry PWs.

gejohnston

(17,502 posts)
13. issued weapons are in the armory
Sun Dec 16, 2012, 03:50 PM
Dec 2012

not barracks or housing. Personal weapons may be kept in base housing, as long as they are registered with the military police unit. Those who live in barracks keep their personal weapons in the unit or base armory when not in use.

No, I wasn't implying anything. As for carrying PW, I don't know of any DoD wide policy. It is not something I took the time to research, since I didn't carry then or now. I doubt any base commander would allow it. Since violent crime on bases are close to nonexistent, changing a policy in either direction would be a solution in search of a problem.

gejohnston

(17,502 posts)
3. vigilante isn't the right word, unless
Sun Dec 16, 2012, 02:50 PM
Dec 2012

these guys are going out in search of potential nut cases.
No, being or feeling compelled to tote or not tote isn't freedom.
That said, the snarky and not well thought out "where were the toters" questions deserve only one logical answer: they were respecting the "gun free zone" signs.

sarisataka

(18,672 posts)
9. I heard an interview on radio with an Irish citizen
Sun Dec 16, 2012, 03:06 PM
Dec 2012

who regularly visits the US.

He pointed out the both schools and courthouses are posted as gun free zones. At a school the secretary has to buzz you in. At the courthouse you pass a metal detector and two, or more, armed guards.
His rhetorical question was "What does this say about the courts faith in that no guns sign?"

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Gun Control & RKBA»"Gun-free zones prov...