Should schools no longer be gun free zones?

2015-10-15T09:24:42-04:00

http://cnsnews.com/blog/craig-bannister/bill-introduced-repeal-gun-free-school-zones-act-because-deadly-mass-shootings

http://dailycaller.com/2015/01/09/u-s-representative-massie-proposes-repeal-of-federal-gun-free-school-zones-act/

I read a statistic that there were only 2 school shootings resulting in mass casualties in the 22 years prior to the 1990 GFSZA. There were 10 in the 22 years following its passage.

Texas has enhanced penalties for committing a crime within 300 Feet of a school zone.

The new law that is being considered would make it so that legally carrying gun owners would need to change their daily routine to avoid being within a school zone lest they be violating federal law.

Bill Introduced To Repeal 'Gun-Free School Zones Act' Because Deadly Mass Shootings Up Five-Fold...

A bill to repeal the "Gun-Free School Zones Act" of 1990 given that mass shootings at schools have increased five-fold since its passage has been introduced in the House.

Response by SGT William Howell made Oct 15 at 2015 9:57 AM

2015-10-15T09:57:33-04:00

I have no problem with Gun Free Zones, but if a place is going to declare it then they have the duty to protect those in that zone. They must hire armed and trained personnel to protect those that are unable to protect themselves.

Response by SGT Michael Glenn made Oct 15 at 2015 10:02 AM

2015-10-15T10:02:15-04:00

So far gun free zones have more than demonstrated that criminals are the only ones who will not adhere to the so called law which is actually unconstitutional. Ive said it many times, arm more citizens in these "Zones" and you would see a decline in attacks, its not rocket science.

Response by Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS made Oct 15 at 2015 10:27 AM

2015-10-15T10:27:19-04:00

There is no "singular" solution. Anyone who claims there is hasn't done research.

That said, there are places where it is not safe to have firearms. Remember a firearms is a machine, and with all machines there is a risk. A risk that is mitigated by education, training, and situational awareness, but a risk nonetheless. The environment can increase risk factors to the point of safety concerns/issues/problems. I'm not saying they should be restricted by the government, but I am saying that it isn't safe to have them. The problem however is that if they are restricted, the organization or person restricting their possession takes on an OBLIGATION for the safety of those they have disarmed. When you disarm people, you don't make them safer. It's counter intuitive.

I don't want to use this analogy, but I think it is the most apt. Sheep, Sheepdogs, Shepherds, and Wolves. These are our Citizens, our Good-guys, our Cops, and our Bad-Guys (et al) respectively. It doesn't take a whole lot of wolves to prey on the sheep. They can tear apart the herd quickly. One a day, and the herd will be gone in a year. America is safe though. We really don't have a whole lot of bad guys. But the ones we do have the potential to cause a lot of damage, and we only have so many shepherds (cops). They can't do it alone. So they have sheepdogs. That's your CHP/CCW folks with their head on a swivel who are just watching things. Lots of former & current military. Lots of regular Americans. Lots of guys like SSgt Stone who just happened to be in the right place at the right time in France.

The problem with a completely unarmed society is that everyone becomes sheep. We all become prey. And sheep are easily taken by wolves. Gun free zones make everyone sheep. Or they turn normally law abiding citizens who refuse to be sheep into sheepdogs in wolf-skins.

But I've gotten a little off track.

We can approach this issue from a couple of ways. We can approach it from a Violence standpoint, or we can approach it from a Rights standpoint.

Let's talk about Violence first. Violence (et al) has been on the decline for 30+ years. "Gun" Violence included. Statistically, we are VERY safe. America is VERY safe. There is a "perception" that it is unsafe. This is generally compounded by reporting of high population density areas (5k/sqmile +) areas, which is primarily a socio-economic phenomenon. As education gets better, violence goes down. As I said, violence has been dropping steadily for 30+ years.

Now, "rampage" or what is more commonly reported as Mass Shootings is a Mental Health issue. These can be lumped in with other Mental Health issues, and Mental Health related deaths like Suicide, which actually account for the VAST majority of firearm related deaths (over half). If we want firearm deaths to go down, we focus on Mental Health. That's a Rights based discussion though.

Now Rights are tricky. Because Rights are quite honestly a Black & White discussion point. There's not a whole lot of middle ground for most folks. I'd like to step away from the 2a for a second though, and focus on the 1a, specifically Freedom of the Press.

Now, we enjoy absolute Freedom of the Press in the USA. It's one of the beauties of this Nation. However, let us not forget that they are a profit generating organization, and WE are the product that is sold to their advertisers. Crime stories are about 9~% of news stories (#3 after traffic and weather, which make up about 1/3 to 1/4 each).

"Perhaps" they are glorifying Crime (et al), including Violent Crime, and "Gun Violence" to sell "product" (us). This is one of the few single voter issues that remain, and it causes enough ire that it makes many people follow it through whatever media is available. We read both sides, just to follow the "competition" which doubles their sales.

"Perhaps" if the Press (Media) took an non-glorification stance (voluntarily) we could reduce the perception of this issue, and reduce some of the "rampage" (Mental Health Related) shootings.

Just my overly verbose thoughts.

http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/05/07/gun-homicide-rate-down-49-since-1993-peak-public-unaware/

Response by SFC Dr. Joseph Finck, BS, MA, DSS made Oct 15 at 2015 10:40 AM

2015-10-15T10:40:01-04:00

Enhanced penalty zones makes sense. Persons who are legally armed and who carry concealed can protect others who are not. Best said by another, but there are sheep, sheep dogs, and wolves. I for one am a sheep dog, I will aggressively hunt the wolves in our society.

Response by SGT Jimmy Carpenter made Oct 15 at 2015 12:10 PM

2015-10-15T12:10:57-04:00

As a ccp holder, I believe I should be able to carry almost anywhere I want. The laws here in Florida regarding concealed carry are pretty fair for the most part.

Response by PO3 Steven Sherrill made Oct 15 at 2015 12:29 PM

2015-10-15T12:29:00-04:00

Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS I agree that there is not one coverall that will make the situation better. I agree that it should start with treating Mental Health as seriously as Physical Health. Injuries to the psyche hurt far longer than injuries to the body. I agree that it is not appropriate to carry a firearm everywhere. I will site a courthouse as an example. Not because of the criminal trials, but because there is more emotion, anger, hate, fear, and danger coming from the family courts. That is where the messy divorces, custody battles, estate battles, and other drama is drug out in public. It is usually a smaller venue than a criminal court room, and there are fewer deputies/bailiffs in a family court room. One person loses their cool while carrying in that type of environment, and it is a disaster. It concerns me that the sweeping laws governing "gun Free" zones do not allow for a legally armed commuter who happens to drive down a road with a school on it. I am glad you mentioned the first amendment. I am a firm believer that all of our rights are inter linked. If we are willing to sit idly by and allow one right to be violated, then what is next. It is not a far stretch to say to a disarmed public that any derogatory speech toward the government is sedition and will be dealt with. It is not a far stretch to say now we are going to take away the right to vote from anyone who is not college educated. It is a matter of slowly whittling away liberty until it is gone.

SFC Dr. Joseph Finck, BS, MA, DSS I love the analogy of the sheep, sheepdogs and wolves. I like that Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS expanded it to include the shepherds (cops). It is great because it does have so much truth behind it.

Personally, I don't think that enhanced penalty zones will necessarily prevent crimes on school grounds, but it will allow for the perpetrator to pay more dearly for it while not turning average citizens into criminals because they had a gun in the car when they drove by a school. I live in an area that has five schools within two miles of our house. I would have to drive five miles out of my way to get to work just because of where the schools are located, never mind that I would not be able to drop my daughter off at school. I am a legal gun owner. I want to keep it that way. I don't want some idiot who thinks that making driving past a school with a weapon in the car should be a felony to interfere with my daily routine. Guns are a tool. They are also recreational equipment. They are a great responsibility, but a hammer can kill just as quickly if used improperly. I don't carry right now because I have not gotten my FL CCW yet. Once I do, two things will happen. First I will carry everywhere it is legal for me to do so. Second, nobody will see that I am carrying unless the need arrives to defend myself, my family, or my folk from a predator.

Response by PO1 John Miller made Oct 16 at 2015 8:44 PM

2015-10-16T20:44:47-04:00

Employ private armed security. Yes it will raise taxes so that the schools can afford to pay these armed guards but that is a tax increase I would be for.
BUT, these armed guards MUST be heavily trained. NRA offers some very good tactical weapons courses, as do some colleges even. I may take it a step further and say that these guards should be NRA and/or POST certified, and preferably have some type of military or civilian law enforcement or infantry background, so that they have some type of real world experience and not just training.