Does anybody believe that a "gun free zone" will stop an active shooter situation?

I understand people thinking if more guns are present, more gun accidents are likely, I get that.

But does anybody believe that it would have any effect on something like Virginia Tech or Columbine?

This video explains how you can start your own gun free zone. And you don't have to be a lawyer!

http://www.youtube.com/watch#playnext=1&playnext_from=TL&videos=DL_uhlWC-t8&v=C0vyxgJLJVA

:toast:

Geez... that fixes everything. Great video!

It should say something like. "This is a gun free zone, so obviously you cannot be mugging me right now. So put your gun on the ground."

would disregard this idiotic concept..."I really want to rob that bank and kill everyone inside it, but gosh....it's in a 'Gun Free Zone'. Shucks!"


mark

to make it stay that way. Both he and his father OPPOSED the then-pending concealed carry.

http://www.nytimes.com/1999/06/29/us/shattered-lives-special-report-caring-parents-no-answers-columbine-killers-pasts.html?pagewanted=all

Dylan's father believed in some gun-free fantasy; Dylan himself knew a "good thing" when he saw it.

But even that isn't a guarantee that the gun won't fire.

http://www.ajronline.org/cgi/content/full/178/5/1092

as long as they are inside a "stupid free zone".

Not then. Not in the future. Not in this country.

You can post your idea 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 times and it's still not going to happen.

And if your idea did pass in a parallel universe it wouldn't work.

You have never made a good argument. You only spout out fear mongering.

Why do you feel so strongly against guns when guns are not at fault for violence, violence is a societal problem?

there is a sign on the door of each and every establishment where you better darn sight not carry one.....it says they ban guys here. And if you are suspected they make it known. That's the way it should be. Of course there is no way you can stop any rage engorged person from coming into a place with a gun, but this takes care of a lot of damage.

If the 'rage engorged people' with guns are going to come in anyway, what damage are is prevented by prohibiting normal people from carrying lawfully?

I don't have a problem with private property owners prohibiting weapons on their property, but I don't understand this 'takes care of a lot of damage' bit you referenced.

He/she must think that criminal minded people should be left alone and allowed to go shoot up no gun zones and not be "damaged" by a CHL or other law abiding gun owner in the process.

:shrug:

If they cant see it they will never know so I could carry it if I wanted to. Its like with my weed, it is illegal so I dont carry it in plain view, but I do carry it when I go to friends houses. funny I have only once had a problem, at an illegal road block, so i was found innocent, and I have been smoking for over half of my life. I imagine many many people do the same with tiny 2 or 5 shot pieces.

"No criminals allowed" But they were robbed just a few months ago, maybe they should re-think that sign.

We obviously think it works in courthouses and airplanes. Sometimes it doesn't, but is anyone willing to say we shouldn't try to keep those places "gun free?"

Have police, security personnel and metal detectors at the entrances. The "gun free zone" is actually enforced.

So now we're only talking about *un-enforced* gun-free zones? That's why I asked for the definition.

Seems like kind of a rigged argument. "Gun-free zones don't work because they can't be enforced." But we can and do enforce "gun free zones" which do work.

I might buy that it's unworkable on a large, varied venues without resorting to unacceptable police-state tactics. But not that it's utterly impossible to keep guns out of a proscribed area. We already do it. Doesn't work perfectly, but it works well enough that we'd never stop trying.

for carnage caused by shooters. That way they would have to develop a method for enforcing the gun free rule and post armed security people inside the building to protect unarmed citizens.

If they took these reasonable precautions to insure the safety of the innocent people inside then they should not be held liable.

places that cannot enforce the "gun free" aspect of the gun free zone would drop the restriction on guns because they don't want to be sued out of existence.

an area that is a gun free zone as a side-effect of being a secure area and an area that is a gun free zone because some guy put up a big sign.

Secure areas aren't even really gun free (Security is carrying), you just have a guarantee that the state or security provider maintains a monopoly of force. There's no such guarantee in a "I put up a sign" gun free zone.

As has been pointed out, some places like airports and courthouses, have metal detectors AND armed LEO and security. But shopping Malls? Some security don't even carry guns, and are too few in number. Schools? While most districts have a razor-thin "police" force, they are not on duty at every school. And there are numerous public accomodations which have NO capacity at all to enforce such a state.

I find it difficult to reconcile posting "Gun-free" sites where there is little or no ability to enforce. And there is a distinct possibility that spittle-flying psychopaths and thugs are drawn to such posted sites.

BTW, in my city, one elementary school has a "No guns or weapons allowed" sign in the yard between the street and the school building. Curiously, it is facing back toward the school, and NOT toward the outside where anyone driving by could see it. It has been this way for better than a year, even though it is not district-wide policy to do such. Maybe that school's administrators took "executive action" because they see the danger, too.

In another instance, we have a series of free outdoor concerts during the summer, and just before the act starts, the emcee announces: "Leave your guns at home." Quite a few chuckles are heard from the thousands sitting on beach blankets. (There are perhaps 3 police officers on duty.)

then there would be only two places that are gun free zones: airports and courts because the other locations would not want to pay to enforce them. They are willing to disarm you so that you can't defend yourself and then they are also not responsible for your safety. The deaths at virginia tech and fort hood were thanks to gross negligence on the part of the school or base enforcing the gun free zone but they also don't want to be liable.

This is an issue I never thought of, I think we should start working on suing entities that establish gun free zones without proper enforcement.

"gun free" aircraft still get hijacked. Sometimes with weapons as fearful as .... utility knives/box cutters.

A gun in the right hands (a legal Citizen), could reduce that likelyhood.

"Gun-Free Zones" just mean that criminals have nothing to fear.

We should make anyone who enacts a "gun free zone" liable for any gun violence that occurs in that zone.