Gun Free Zones: The Ugly Truth

[OptimusPrime]

Yeah, I ain't saying it works, I just think it's the rationale. If we make something another level of trouble, then we can snare more bad guys. "Your tail light is out, can I see your registration? Can I search your car? I found a gun, are you licensed...." and the ratcheting goes on and on.
Oops we caught some dolphins in the tuna nets, oh well, they taste like fish too.

 

[happygeek]

There is a pretty simple answer as to what places should be "gun free". It may not be perfect, but It solves most problems.

It is this: If police are allowed to be armed there, then so should other citizens. This takes care of prisons and most courtrooms. If it is truely dangerous to have guns in a location, then the police should not be allowed to have guns there either.

If the police are also disarmed, then who's enforcing said "gun free" zone?

For the purposes of this thread, and honestly in any discussion of these zones, the important distinction should be made between an enforced weapons free zone (like airports past security, court houses, prisons, etc) and "gun free" zones like schools, bars, etc. I'm not opposed to enforced zones in general, the key there being that they're enforced with a secure perimeter, searches to enter, armed guards, etc.

 

[Blackstone]

JustinJ,
How can you have over 3000 post on this forum and still think that gun free zones are a good thing? Maybe I am misunderstanding what you are saying though and I apologize if so. It is super simple to understand. People with bad intentions do not stop what they plan to do simply because an area is "gun free". They probably prefer those areas because of their high odds of achieving their goal without much resistance. The gun free zones are also called gun slaughter zones for a reason. The idea of leaving people defenseless and thinking bad people will not bother with a zone designated to be gun free is ignorant. There will probably be many more of these sad incidents because bad people are realizing how effective they can be at mass murders when there is no opposition.

He isn't saying they're a good idea. He's saying how to an uneducated person, they make sense on the outset. No guns = less risk is an easy conclusion to arrive at if you don't think too hard about it. He's also saying that because of this, people who ask for GFZs aren't necessarily doing it out of malice and for control.

 

[Dean Weingarten]

For the purposes of this thread, and honestly in any discussion of these zones, the important distinction should be made between an enforced weapons free zone (like airports past security, court houses, prisons, etc) and "gun free" zones like schools, bars, etc. I'm not opposed to enforced zones in general, the key there being that they're enforced with a secure perimeter, searches to enter, armed guards, etc.

This is a good distinction, one that most people can easily understand.

 

[BigBore44]

Well the problem I have is the uneducated person is keeping me from being able to defend myself or my children when I take them to school. What happens if a BG opens up on a school at say 7:45 AM when lots of parents are walking their kids into the school. Maybe he pulls the gun only 20 feet from me. I have a clear shot but instead of pulling my child behind me, clearing and ending it right there, I'm now almost certainly a helpless victim because he is to far to engage by hand.

There is a saying in LE that ignorance is no excuse.

It's supposed to be the individuals right to choose to carry or not carry. But I will also agree that our CCW classes are an absolute joke. You don't even have to prove your proficiency with the firearm. Just shoot a couple rounds into the dirt. Which in itself is dangerous. I spend lots of time at the range. And I have become very proficient with my 45. But others simply took a test and paid some money. That does scare me. I believe anyone who wants to carry should be allowed to carry. But we as armed citizens owe it to ourselves, our neighbors, and the public, to be relied on to safely end a threat should one arise.

 

[JustinJ]

He isn't saying they're a good idea. He's saying how to an uneducated person, they make sense on the outset. No guns = less risk is an easy conclusion to arrive at if you don't think too hard about it. He's also saying that because of this, people who ask for GFZs aren't necessarily doing it out of malice and for control.

Thank you, Blackstone. That is correct. However, i am also saying that i recognize there are valid concerns about allowing legally carried guns in certain areas but that does not mean i agree with gun free zones. In my opinion, the arguments against gun free zones are stronger than the arguments for them. The only real exception i would say is bars. I've spent enough time in bars and night clubs to realize how impractical it would be to allow guns in businesses full of drunk young people. I worked the door for a summer at a bar on 6th street(famous strip of bars and clubs in downtown austin) and I have no doubt that many bloody noses would have easily escelated to gun shot wounds had firearms been in the mix.

Well the problem I have is the uneducated person is keeping me from being able to defend myself or my children when I take them to school.

That is what i was saying earlier. However, the uneducated person preventing us from being armed is not always just the "anti". Irresponsible gun owners who conceal carry and then make stupid mistakes like leaving guns in shopping carts, escelating minor confrontations or having negligent discharges probably do more to encourage gun free zones than anything else.

 

[rodinal220]

GFZ=Infringement on the 2nd Amendment.

GFZ=death

GFZ=physical harm/injury

 

[sansone]

I mostly agree with Dean, GFZ locations sometimes make sense, such as prisons and courtrooms, but sometimes GFZ locations are just a liberal's statement to ban something they are ignorant of.

FYI: all public schools in my part of the state have a county deputy (armed) on premises at all times. Nobody gives it a second thought.

Only law abiding citizens will obey a GFZ so how does that make a person safe from law breakers?

 

[beatledog7]

If we apply the "if the police can have guns then so can the law-abiding citizen" rule, we'll quickly find that the average on-duty LEO isn't willing to go anywhere unarmed.

Problem solved then.

 

[sleepyone]

Quote:
The ugly truth is that gun free zones are not about irrational dreams of safety. They are about power and control. The irrational spouting about safety is just a way to get emotional support from those who don’t really think about the issue.

What evidence do you have for the above statement? Do you have the ability to magically read people's minds to identify their real motives?

No, but the OP has the ability to learn from history, which apparently some people don't. All you have to do is examine the past 50-70 years of U.S. history and see how the government has incrementally created and grown the welfare state, created and increased federal control of education and healthcare, restricted freedom of speech and religious expression, ignored and even sanctioned illegal immigration, etc... to see that they are doing the exact same thing to the 2nd amendment. You don't need to read minds when you can read history!

 

[JustinJ]

No, but the OP has the ability to learn from history, which apparently some people don't. All you have to do is examine the past 50-70 years of U.S. history and see how the government has incrementally created and grown the welfare state, created and increased federal control of education and healthcare, restricted freedom of speech and religious expression, ignored and even sanctioned illegal immigration, etc... to see that they are doing the exact same thing to the 2nd amendment. You don't need to read minds when you can read history!

Convoluting a bunch of different issues hardly qualifies as reading history. Rights and freedoms have both expanded and shrunk since the establishment of the united states. Overall gun rights have actually grown quite rapidly in recent times. Public areas of my state, as well as many others, were essentially complete gun free zones not to long ago to begin with. The first amendment has actually been expanded and reaffirmed in many instances over the last century. In other ways liberties have been eroded as well with the fourth being probably the most infringed upon. I'm not sure where you got a 50 to 70 year time frame from but the role of government and individual liberties have been debated since before the constitution was even signed and constantly ever since.

 

[sleepyone]

I'm not sure where you got a 50 to 70 year time frame from but the role of government and individual liberties have been debated since before the constitution was even signed and constantly ever since.

the role of federal government changed dramatically with the New Deal in 1933, so I should have said 80 years ago, and it has grown larger and become more intrusive ever since. The next major growth in the federal government was with the The Great Society by LJB in the 60s, and we have taken baby steps ever since in the expansion of federal government.

Convoluting a bunch of different issues hardly qualifies as reading history.

Actually, I believe you are dead wrong. You have to look at things holistically to fully comprehend the extent to which government's role has changed from what the Founding Fathers intended to what we have today as well as understanding that what you call "Convoluting a bunch of different issues" is really all part of one issue we are facing and that is the "socialization" of the U.S.A.

 

[Coyote3855]

I worked the door for a summer at a bar on 6th street(famous strip of bars and clubs in downtown austin) and I have no doubt that many bloody noses would have easily escelated to gun shot wounds had firearms been in the mix..

You are entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts. This is an opinion and is the same "blood in the streets" argument that has been used against permissive concealed carry laws. "Road rage (or fist fights or dirty looks at the coffee shop) will escalate into shootings!" Does it happen, yeah. Is it a reason to stop me from carrying a firearm? Ah, no.

That is what i was saying earlier. However, the uneducated person preventing us from being armed is not always just the "anti". Irresponsible gun owners who conceal carry and then make stupid mistakes like leaving guns in shopping carts, escelating minor confrontations or having negligent discharges probably do more to encourage gun free zones than anything else.

The sign on the door that says "No Weapons Allowed" has been so effective in keeping bad guys from bringing guns into schools, theaters, bars, sporting events, etc. (That's sarcasm, son.) Your argument does not translate from the specfic to the general. Criminals will ignore the law or the signs, by definition. You are correct that unfortunately, idiots with guns give the rest of us a bad name. Still no reason to restrict the rights of "the rest of us."

 

[JustinJ]

the role of federal government changed dramatically with the New Deal in 1933, so I should have said 80 years ago, and it has grown larger and become more intrusive ever since. The next major growth in the federal government was with the The Great Society by LJB in the 60s, and we have taken baby steps ever since in the expansion of federal government.

Obviously there have been periods of faster change and periods of slower change and associated debates and conflicts. Post civil war legislation dramatically changed the role of the federal government. There have been numerous other acts and amendments that created great controversy all through out our history. A large part of the reason for so much change has simply been a response to the rapid changes of a developing country and the world it exists in.

Actually, I believe you are dead wrong. You have to look at things holistically to fully comprehend the extent to which government's role has changed from what the Founding Fathers intended to what we have today as well as understanding that what you call "Convoluting a bunch of different issues" is really all part of one issue we are facing and that is the "socialization" of the U.S.A.

Holistically, as you call, is essentially tyring to look at an extremely complex system in simplistic way. It doesn't work. You're trying to assign one motive for countless acts that were done by countless different people with countless different reasons in response to countless different situations.

You are entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts. This is an opinion and is the same "blood in the streets" argument that has been used against permissive concealed carry laws. "Road rage (or fist fights or dirty looks at the coffee shop) will escalate into shootings!" Does it happen, yeah. Is it a reason to stop me from carrying a firearm? Ah, no.

Um yeah, accept my post that you quoted did not make a factual statement. What you just said is an opinion. What i said is an opinion with a hypothetical prediction based on experience.

The sign on the door that says "No Weapons Allowed" has been so effective in keeping bad guys from bringing guns into schools, theaters, bars, sporting events, etc. (That's sarcasm, son.) Your argument does not translate from the specfic to the general. Criminals will ignore the law or the signs, by definition. You are correct that unfortunately, idiots with guns give the rest of us a bad name. Still no reason to restrict the rights of "the rest of us."

If you are going to quote me and then type something after it would better if the something you typed actually addressed what you quoted.

 

[sleepyone]

JustinJ,

From one Texan to another, you know what the great thing about Austin is? You can see Texas from there!

I think we will just have to agree to disagree. While I don't buy into conspiracy theories, I do believe that all the "countless acts that were done by countless different people with countless different reasons in response to countless different situations" were all done by people holding the same worldview that is far left and socialist/communist at its core.

The people who advocate the homosexual lifestyle as normal, rich people as evil, criminals as victims, animals and plants having more rights than people, capitalism as oppressive, unborn children and elderly as disposable, and guns as evil by and large drink from the same poisoned well.

 

[JustinJ]

The people who advocate the homosexual lifestyle as normal, rich people as evil, criminals as victims, animals and plants having more rights than people, capitalism as oppressive, unborn children and elderly as disposable, and guns as evil by and large drink from the same poisoned well.

I think the real poison well is the one that tricks people into thinking the above is an accurate representation of non-republicans. The irony is that the above is about as an accurate representation of "groupthink" as one can imagine. Ironic you talk about government control and liberty and then complain about homosexuality. A person who genuinely believes in liberty realizes that his or her opinion about the "normalcy" of homosexuality is irrelevant in a free society.

 

[c4v3man]

If there's a "Gun Free Zone" then the establishment needs to be liable and responsible for my security while I'm there. That means armed guards, metal detectors, the whole nine yards. I believe they also must be required to provide safe, secure means to store your firearm while you are on their premises.

Obviously you are solely responsible to protect yourself since the Police aren't responsible for your protection. If I need to take a bus, walk, take a taxi, ride a bicycle, etc, and thus have no safe, lockable location to store my firearm, does that mean I'm not allowed to have a PO box?

 

[jerkface11]

Ok justin let's rephrase the whole thing. Would a gay free zone be legal?

 

[sleepyone]

I think the real poison well is the one that tricks people into thinking the above is an accurate representation of non-republicans.

Funny, I never said anything about Republicans. Actually, I detest both parties and most all politicians in general.

You mention a free society. Free to do what? Whatever you want? That is what you advocate when you condemn me for judging homosexuality as being wrong. Freedom is not the ability to do whatever you want. Freedom is the ability to do the RIGHT thing. This implies there must be wrong things. Which implies that there must be a morality that comes from a higher source than man. Otherwise, every man defines his own truth and everybody is free to do whatever he wants since truth is subjective. In other words, in the true free society that you advocate if nobody is allowed to make a judgment call about what is right or wrong, I could say that sodomizing little boys and girls is perfectly fine because I believe it to be so. It would not matter what you think or believe because we live in a free society where we can all do whatever we want.

Ok justin let's rephrase the whole thing. Would a gay free zone be legal?

LOL!

 

[Vurtle]

Thanks for the clarification JustinJ.

 

[sleepyone]

If there's a "Gun Free Zone" then the establishment needs to be liable and responsible for my security while I'm there. That means armed guards, metal detectors, the whole nine yards. I believe they also must be required to provide safe, secure means to store your firearm while you are on their premises.

Obviously you are solely responsible to protect yourself since the Police aren't responsible for your protection. If I need to take a bus, walk, take a taxi, ride a bicycle, etc, and thus have no safe, lockable location to store my firearm, does that mean I'm not allowed to have a PO box?

My sentiments exactly! I am violating federal law every time I check my PO Box.

 

[sleepyone]

I need to add a disclaimer for those who are not familiar with Austin, TX. It IS the liberal hotbed of the state and if it was not in the dead center of Texas and instead near... say the Red River, most Texans would vote to move the border south until Austin was a part of Oklahoma, but even the Okies would object to that! Right, JJ?

 

[JustinJ]

Ok justin let's rephrase the whole thing. Would a gay free zone be legal?

That's about as absurd an argument as i've ever heard. We're definitely not in a nonsense free zone right now. And if you are trying to imply something, no i'm not gay. I just can't stand hypocricy.

Funny, I never said anything about Republicans. Actually, I detest both parties and most all politicians in general.

You're right, my mistake. Just because you parrot Rush Limbaugh i guess i shouldn't assume.

You mention a free society. Free to do what? Whatever you want? That is what you advocate when you condemn me for judging homosexuality as being wrong. Freedom is not the ability to do whatever you want. Freedom is the ability to do the RIGHT thing. This implies there must be wrong things. Which implies that there must be a morality that comes from a higher source than man. Otherwise, every man defines his own truth and everybody is free to do whatever he wants since truth is subjective. In other words, in the true free society that you advocate if nobody is allowed to make a judgment call about what is right or wrong, I could say that sodomizing little boys and girls is perfectly fine because I believe it to be so. It would not matter what you think or believe because we live in a free society where we can all do whatever we want.

I didn't condemn for making a judgement call. I condemned you for acting like your judgement concerning the actions of other people that hurt nobody else is somehow your business. In a free society, people are allowed to do as they wish so long as it hurts nobody else.

I need to add a disclaimer for those who are not familiar with Austin, TX. It IS the liberal hotbed of the state and if it was not in the dead center of Texas and instead near... say the red river, most Texans would vote to move the border south until Austin was a part of Oklahoma, but even the Okies would object to that! Right, JJ?

No, but i will add to your disclaimer. Austin is a college town with a higher than average population of people with advanced educations therefor expect independent thought as often happens when people actually learn about the world they live in.

 

[jerkface11]

I wasn't implying anything. Banning people from defending themselves is every bit as absurd as banning gays.

 

[JustinJ]

I wasn't implying anything. Banning people from defending themselves is every bit as absurd as banning gays.

Look, i agree with that sentiment however ideology is not a substitute for practicallity. In principle i agree one should always be allowed the means to defend themself however i realize that in the world there are in fact situations in which adding guns will create far more problems than it will ever solve. As i mentioned earlier, sixth st fills with extremely drunk 20 something men who are running on nothing but testosterone and booze. Fights are the norm and more often than not there are multiple comabtants with often one being jumped by several. In the vast majority of such incidents nothing gets seriously hurt except egos. It is almost guranteed that in such situations adding guns would result in unnecessary deaths and all the associated media and political fall out. All the anti's would be screaming "we told you so" and the next thing we know a whole bunch of new and unrelated restrictions are imposed on CHL holders in TX. No thank you.