Column: Gun-free zones provide false sense of security

[xRUSTYx]

In wake of Today's tragedy:

 

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2012/12/14/connecticut-school-shooting-gun-control/1770345/

 

 

 

by:  Glenn Harlan Reynolds [Law Professor @ UT]

 

Killers aren't stopped by these policies.

 

"After a shooting spree," author William Burroughs once said, "they always want to take the guns away from the people who didn't do it." Burroughs continued: "I sure as hell wouldn't want to live in a society where the only people allowed guns are the police and the military."

 

Plenty of people — especially among America's political and journalistic classes — feel differently. They'd be much more comfortable seeing ordinary Americans disarmed. And whenever there is a mass shooting, or other gun incident that snags the headlines, they do their best to exploit the tragedy and push for laws that would, well, take the guns away from the people who didn't do it.

 

There are a lot of problems with this approach, but one of the most significant is this one: It doesn't work. 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.

 

Policies making areas "gun free" provide a sense of safety to those who engage in magical thinking, but in practice, of course, killers aren't stopped by gun-free zones. As always, it's the honest people — the very ones you want to be armed — who tend to obey the law.

 

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.

 

Glenn Harlan Reynolds is a professor of law at the University of Tennessee. He blogs at InstaPundit.com.

 

In addition to its own editorials, USA TODAY publishes diverse opinions from outside writers, including our Board of Contributors.

 

 

[TNcitizen22]

Had him for a couple of classes while I was at UT, excellent professor.

[Garufa]

Had him for a couple of classes while I was at UT, excellent professor.

 

Impossible, according to what I read on the internet.  All professors and universities are liberal indoctrinators.  ;)

[TNcitizen22]

lol!  As a matter of fact, a lot of the law guys at UT are pretty smart folk, can't speak for the rest of the University though.  Or the sports staff...

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Since criminals don't care about law, it goes without saying. Gun free zones don't have much reasoning built in.

 

There's an example, Dennis!

 

That's also a good article.

Edited December 15, 2012 by 6.8 AR

[Guest Pineapple Devil]

too much logic for the other side to understand it. they might as well be reading Greek

[xRUSTYx]

In relation to this story, an ex NYPD officer/detective was on Fox News this morning saying the same thing!  I figured, logic from the NYPD would certainly not be pro gun!

 

He was stating teachers need to be armed & trained in all of our schools and we need to do away with gun free zones entirely!

 

I couldn't agree more!

[DaveTN]

In relation to this story, an ex NYPD officer/detective was on Fox News this morning saying the same thing!  I figured, logic from the NYPD would certainly not be pro gun!
 
He was stating teachers need to be armed & trained in all of our schools and we need to do away with gun free zones entirely!
 
I couldn't agree more!

If people get rid of their baseless assumptions about cops and quit listening to the haters on the internet that don’t know any cops other than the ones that arrested them; you will be hard pressed to find many street cops that support gun bans.

Police Chiefs and Sherriff’s aren’t cops; they are Administrators and Politicians with agendas and alliances. The “International Association of Chiefs of Police” is a political organization, what they support has nothing to do with rank and file cops.

What Police Officers believe is as diverse as the public at large. I have been a Police Officer, know a lot of Police Officers both personally and professionally and most do not support gun control. I consider cops to be on our side in this battle and if a gun grab is ever tried in this country it won’t be a Police Officer standing in front of you telling you to give up your weapon.

And finally….. Police Officers don’t make laws. They are just the ones charged with enforcing the laws your legislators pass. If you don’t like the law; hate on legislators, not the cops.

[Guest Razz]

I have been arguing against gun-free zones, seemingly nonstop, for the last 24 hours. Using the very logic in this piece, I have managed to see more than a few light bulbs spark to life, in people's eyes. It's a good feeling to change someone's view of the subject but I still have to live with the fact that my state has so many gun-free areas.

What politician, in TN, do I need to talk to in order
to further the discussion? Is it as easy as speaking with my congressman?

[kieefer]

We can call it anything we want to make the sheeple feel good but the bottom line is the funding....we must have tax increases to solve this problem.  :whistle:

 

http://www.washingtonguardian.com/washingtons-school-security-failure

 

 

Government officials told theWashington Guardian on Friday night that two Justice Department programs that had provided more than $200 million to schools for training, security equipment and police resources over the last decade weren't renewed in 2011 and 2012, and that a separate program that provided $800 million to put police officers inside the schools was ended a few years earlier.

 

[Grand Torino]

Stupid libturds just can't get it into their heads that all this does is give a green light to pick a place the bad guys have an excellent chance of carrying out their deed in relative safety.

[JayC]

We don't need tax dollars at all...  Why doesn't every police department have a reserve officer program to provide volunteers to each school for extra security?  It's not because it would cost too much money that is for sure.

 

I'm sure if you asked HCP holders and parents to volunteer to provide one volunteer Reserve Deputy/Officer as security for each 250 students, you'd have enough qualified people to provide that security in every county in this state.

 

And the cost to tax payers virtually nothing...  a little bit of paperwork/computer time/desk space to run the program (also by volunteers)...  The cost of a single officer part time  to run the Reserve POST training program for the department...  again, this could be ran by volunteers in most situations.

 

Then instead of having a single 'resource' officer per school, you'd have enough parents and volunteers to provide security not only for the school itself, but all field trips and school activities.

 

These reserve officers don't need uniforms (plain clothes would be best), can provide their own firearms (requiring a standard 40 cal or 9mm to conform to department standards might reduce the # of volunteers but not enough to matter), and you could even ask them to shoulder the cost of badges, and ID card - maybe even ask them to cover the cost of the POST reserve training.

 

How many here who are retired, are a business owner, or otherwise have a flexible schedule would volunteer for such a program one day a week even if you had to buy a department approved weapon, and cover the cost of POST reserve training (say $250-300 per student)?

 

This solution would be very cost effective, and provide better safety than paying for armed security guards in every school.  All without raising taxes.

 

We can call it anything we want to make the sheeple feel good but the bottom line is the funding....we must have tax increases to solve this problem.  :whistle:

 

http://www.washingtonguardian.com/washingtons-school-security-failure

 

 

Government officials told theWashington Guardian on Friday night that two Justice Department programs that had provided more than $200 million to schools for training, security equipment and police resources over the last decade weren't renewed in 2011 and 2012, and that a separate program that provided $800 million to put police officers inside the schools was ended a few years earlier.

 

 

Edited December 16, 2012 by JayC

[kieefer]

I agree, we are taxed too much. My post was intended to be sarcastic.  :shake:

 

Seems that all the schools problems comes down to more funding. The irony of this is BHO cuts this spending but yet has tripled our debt, refuses logical cuts and wants to tax and spend more.

 

Though your ideas seems reasonable but it brings the thought of living in a police state. Sure more armed citizens may help but recognizing mental illness and having the courage to address them would be more beneficial IMO.

 

As usual, the people who knew Adam L. KNEW he had issues. This nutcase could have just as well took his mothers car and mowed down kids on the playground, or in a mall, or busy a city sidewalk. He had plenty of time to think about what he was going to do when driving from his home to the school.

 

Mental illness is the root cause of this evil, resources would be better spent there.

[xRUSTYx]

I'm a small business owner and would volunteer 1 day during the week to provide such a service to our local school district :)  My son will be starting there in about 4 years, but would start ASAP.

 

I know of a couple others that likely would as well. 

[JayC]

I disagree...  Having parents and locals volunteer to protect children isn't a police state at all, it's called being good neighbors...  By making the positions volunteer you remove the profit motive, since they're not out arresting people, they're only providing security they don't have a negative impact on society but a positive one.

 

Not only that, but you can toss in come CERT and other training so you now have extra adults on hand to help deal with tornadoes  and earthquakes...  There are very few downsides to using volunteer officers and deputies to help safe guard the community...

 

Here is the major problem with your thought process on mental illness...  how do you screen out 100% of these guys without creating a police state?  How do you prevent 100% of them from getting a gun, or a knife, or a bomb and attacking a school?  You can't...  The only way to stop the ones which slip through the cracks is by having armed adults on site to respond and stop the threat.

 

There is no substitute for an armed citizen in this situation.

I agree, we are taxed too much. My post was intended to be sarcastic.  :shake:

 

Seems that all the schools problems comes down to more funding. The irony of this is BHO cuts this spending but yet has tripled our debt, refuses logical cuts and wants to tax and spend more.

 

Though your ideas seems reasonable but it brings the thought of living in a police state. Sure more armed citizens may help but recognizing mental illness and having the courage to address them would be more beneficial IMO.

 

As usual, the people who knew Adam L. KNEW he had issues. This nutcase could have just as well took his mothers car and mowed down kids on the playground, or in a mall, or busy a city sidewalk. He had plenty of time to think about what he was going to do when driving from his home to the school.

 

Mental illness is the root cause of this evil, resources would be better spent there.

 

 

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Plus the added benefit of getting a
few more parents involved in their
local school system.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Guest RobThatsMe]

Many factories and large businesses have "Emergency Responders" within their premises made up of employees and staff.

These people are trained in life saving techniques, and weather related early warnings, etc.

I think that each school should have 3 or 4 emergency responders that have their carry permits, trained in armed and self defense, and carry concealed during the school day. 

[kieefer]

Yep you're right, an armed society is a safe society. Just hate to think that it would come to that. We also can't identify 100% of the mentally ill or doing anything about them.

 

No worries though, according to our wonderful leaders, disarming everyone is the answer.