Gun Free Zones: The Ugly Truth

[Airbrush Artist]

If

If I die in My school Bus or on any of My schools I drive too on their property defined in the Ohio gun free law code at the hands of anyone with a weapon,I have directed My Wife and Sons To File the largest lawsuit they can for the Failure of the schools sytems for posting their Ridiculous signs and violating my right to protect Myself and the children I'm respondsible for..in a Gun free Zone for which they failed at adhere too as Posted

 

[beatledog7]

Geno,

But if local authorities are afraid (with good reason) to exercise the right to decide because they fear repercussion from their bosses (Oh no, what if I make a decision they don't like!?), the fact that they technically have that authority is just cover for the bosses. In effect, if the power to second guess and sanction rests with the central authority, the local authority cowers.

 

[sleepyone]

Thank you,sleepyone. You are much more toned down and diplomatic than I.Much.
We cannot get much further than the original concept of the Second Amendment which simply recognizes and confirms our God given unalienable rights to self defense of ourselves ,our families and our loved ones.

Nothing could be more alien to this concept than Gun Free Zones.

Those that chose to believe that gun control laws,any gun control serves the public good are either sadly deceived or despicable charlatans whose only eventual objective is control and total disarmament of the populace.

The sad history of the 20th Century shows us that clearly with Lenin,Stalin,Hitler,Castro,Amin,Hussein and so many others. Disarmament is numero uno on their target list.

We must resist these incremental chippings away. Look how much has been lost since 1911.1934,1968,1986? We been have trying and succeeding in gaining ground since 1987.

It must continue. The Austin's,Madison's,Berkeley's,Ann Arbor's,Princeton's and Cambridge's are out there with their Marx-Engels Profs and dialogue.

No matter, in the end 100 million + gun owners and 300 million guns will be the winner.
No matter how many trolls and flea bites we have on forums like these,they are doomed to lose. Doomed.

Americans will simply not give up their unalienable freedoms. Firearms,axes,arrows or spears, we are gonna prevail. So help me!

+1 to the whole post, JohnnyDollar! I was only going to quote a line or two or three but the entire post needs repeating.

I think our country is unique in that the populace is so heavily armed that disarmament is probably not feasible at this point; at least not without a huge loss of life on both sides. You also have to include the men and women in the military and law enforcement who would resign their posts rather than turn on fellow Americans.

The politicians and activists have known this all along, which is why they are content to chip away at our freedoms. Oh sure, some may cry for outright and immediate bans of this gun or that magazine, but they are grandstanding and are more than willing to settle for whatever they can get. Slowly but surely, step by step, patient and focused until their subjects wake up one day and say "What happened? How did it happen? When did it happen?"

 

[sleepyone]

Great post, Geno! I currently teach SPED kids and have to overlook a lot of bad behavior because it is supposedly a manifestation of their disability and they can't be punished for being disabled.

Kids know this and play the teachers and the system for all its worth.

 

[JustinJ]

PA as well has no prohibition against carrying in a bar or, indeed, of having a few drinks while carrying.

No blood in the streets. After ?? years of Pennsylvanians being uninhibited in that way, I feel perfectly confident in saying that this functions as a very worthwhile "case study."

Apparently all the worries about the terrible and dangerous things folks will do when allowed to carry -- and even to DRINK while carrying -- are COMPLETELY unfounded.

How 'bout that?

Maybe the difference is that PA doesn't have any college towns...or college bars...or groups of drunk young men in bars...? Huh, so that's not it. So, again, while neither Justin's view nor mine can provide a controlled study to prove their point, I can provide a completely unbounded one -- of a whole state full of bars and college bars and drunk young guys -- that's been running for DECADES now (truly longer than that...) and has NOT proved Justin's point or even made the barest suggestion that it MIGHT be true.

I think "blood running in the streets" is bit of over dramatazing my position. However, i do recall hearing about at least on incident in bar although i don't recall what state. Regardless, i can only guess that the saving grace is that drunken bar goers are probably a demographic with relatively few who conceal carry regularly to begin with. Sort of like the recent college carry dorm for people with carry permits that nobody moved into. If bar goers don't really carry to begin with then i suppose it's a moot point but I see carry in bars as simply a risk with little to no reward. Use of a gun, even if justified, is not going to go well in a crowded bar or dance club. People go to such places to drink. Even the staff of such places are generally consuming alcohol. Sure, there may be the occasional visitor who remains sober but it certainly isn't the norm.

Let me also clarify that i don't object to carry in establishments that serve alcohol such as restaurants. My position is that guns in bars and clubs, establishments visited with the primary purpose of becoming intoxicated, should not allow guns.

Gun free zones assume that criminals and the mentally ill that become criminals will follow rules, laws, regulations, etc. This belief, and premise is flawed, irrational, and blatantly wrong. Politicians, and bureaucrats know this, and even often admit that new laws won't helps stop shootings like Newtown.

Maybe those who support gun free zones, to whatever degree, are just willing to accept the reality that all misuses of guns are not premeditated? I hate to say it but "criminals don't follow gun ban signs" is a bit of a straw man argument.

I'm not calling for new studies or citing existing studies. That is what someone steeped in academia loves to do. Just look at the news stories over the past 20 years. public schools, colleges, malls, post offices, movie theaters etc... How many of these places were gun free zones? All of them.

Murder rates among gang members are higher for obvious reasons. Gangs are violent and they enforce their rules and conduct their illegal businesses violently.

New or existing studies is beyond the point. You're implying that my opinion must have some direct study supporting it to be valid which is absurd.

If the threat of being shot dettered crime there would be a lot less gang activity since that is a pretty easy way to get shot. The fact that gangs are violent only supports my point.

You do believe in gun rights; on a limited basis. The 2nd amendment does not have limits. It's pretty straight forward.

You believe in practice the 2nd should have no limits, huh? So then you must also disagree with laws against carrying while drunk? You also believe violent felons should be allowed to carry guns? There should be no age restriction on possession or carry of a gun? How about WMD? There should be no laws that prevent somebody from whipping up some anthrax in the basement? Making a few pounds or chemical weapons, buying radioactive waste for a dirty bomb or a former soviet bloc nuclear weapon? No thanks, i live in the real world, not a fantasy one driven by ideology of reality.

I am sorry to say this, but the tone of your threads really paints you as an elitist who thinks we need to be protected from ourselves instead of other people, and it is the government's job to provide that protection even though we have seen time and time again what happens when our right to protect ourselves and our loved ones is taken away and we are left to depend on our local law enforcement or some other agency for protection. It would not surprise me if you were a professor at UT. The tone of your threads smacks of an air of superiority over the rest of poor, uneducated dopes. I encountered a lot of that when I was in graduate school.

You do realize that i as well can not carry my gun in bars due to the TX law? Calling one "elitist" for having a pereceived intellect or being educated is nothing but pandering to the stupid. Have at it.

 

[Dean Weingarten]

If the threat of being shot dettered crime there would be a lot less gang activity since that is a pretty easy way to get shot. The fact that gangs are violent only supports my point.

I do not think I have read many statements that are more absurd. Gang activity is a pretty complex phenomena, and yes, most criminals are deterred by the thought of getting shot.

There have been several studies to that effect, from interviews of criminals in prison, to John Lotts work on the decrease of crime rates when more people carry concealed weapons, not to mention centuries of practical experience.

 

[Sam1911]

But Dean, that really doesn't refute his point. Folks routinely engage in very risky behavior and for many violent criminals the risks of being shot are simply not compelling enough to get them to stop their behaviors. In fact, gang violence is a LOT more likely to get a gang member shot and/or killed than many years of robbing average citizens ... and yet they persist.

As much as I love John Lott and his work, I don't quite buy the idea that increased rates of lawful concealed carry drives down rates of violent crime. There are simply too many factors involved to make that a legitimate claim. And, too many instances where it does not appear to be true.

Concealed carry protects ME & MINE. I don't believe, or need to believe, that it benefits society as a whole to make it the right choice.

 

[BigBore44]

Sleepyone,
We would most certainly object to moving the Red River to incorporate Austin. It is funny though. As much as Okies hate Texans and vice versa, we are so much alike in our beliefs.

As for the school, or any other establishment having an armed officer posted, that is almost a joke.

ANYONE READING THIS THREAD I HAVE A QUESTION.

If you were going to intitiate a mass shooting at a school, or any other GF establishment, and there was an armed officer outside, who would be your first target?

Answer: the officer of course. He poses the only threat to you accomplishing your goal. And now you have his weapon also.

 

[happygeek]

As for the school, or any other establishment having an armed officer posted, that is almost a joke.

ANYONE READING THIS THREAD I HAVE A QUESTION.

If you were going to intitiate a mass shooting at a school, or any other GF establishment, and there was an armed officer outside, who would be your first target?

Why speculate? There's real life examples out there, this one come to mind immediately: http://www.timesnews.net/article.php?id=9025899

 

[Airbrush Artist]

Concealed carry protects ME & MINE. I don't believe, or need to believe, that it benefits society as a whole to make it the right choice.
PROFOUND SAM...as far as the gangbangers,They are Criminals...and should be treated as such....

 

[sleepyone]

As much as Okies hate Texans and vice versa, we are so much alike in our beliefs.

Yes, we are.

As for the school, or any other establishment having an armed officer posted, that is almost a joke.

Yes, it is.

You believe in practice the 2nd should have no limits, huh? So then you must also disagree with laws against carrying while drunk? You also believe violent felons should be allowed to carry guns? There should be no age restriction on possession or carry of a gun? How about WMD? There should be no laws that prevent somebody from whipping up some anthrax in the basement? Making a few pounds or chemical weapons, buying radioactive waste for a dirty bomb or a former soviet bloc nuclear weapon? No thanks, i live in the real world, not a fantasy one driven by ideology of reality.

Now you are way outside the scope of this discussion, but as far as convicted felons owning firearms. When people commit felonies, they have givien up certain rights that are reserved for those citizens who do respect life and property. Felons are also restricted from voting in many instances, and that is the way it should be. Freedom is the ability to do the right thing; not the ability to do whatever you want. People who fail to understand this basic and scared concept should not be afforded the rights and privileges of people who do respect their fellow citizens and follow the laws of our country.

 

[rodinal220]

The obtuse,irrational,uneducated,corrupt,delusional believe that GFZ will somehow provide them physical protection.

 

[JustinJ]

Now you are way outside the scope of this discussion, but as far as convicted felons owning firearms. When people commit felonies, they have givien up certain rights that are reserved for those citizens who do respect life and property. Felons are also restricted from voting in many instances, and that is the way it should be. Freedom is the ability to do the right thing; not the ability to do whatever you want. People who fail to understand this basic and scared concept should not be afforded the rights and privileges of people who do respect their fellow citizens and follow the laws of our country.

You introduced the position that the second amendment has no limits so it is now within the scope and you're dodging. Regarding felons, i agree with you, but that position is contradictory to an unlimited second amendment.

 

[jerkface11]

If a felon is safe to release how is it not safe for him to own a gun? If it isn't safe for him to own a gun how is he safe to release?

 

[JustinJ]

If a felon is safe to release how is it not safe for him to own a gun? If it isn't safe for him to own a gun how is he safe to release?

Nobody owns a crystal ball. There is never a way to predict with any level of certainty the future actions of any person, felon or not. Are you saying all felons should get life sentences?

 

[jerkface11]

As I said why let them go if they are dangerous. Most felons aren't even violent.

 

[JustinJ]

As I said why let them go if they are dangerous. Most felons aren't even violent.

Yes, I saw that. But how do you know which are dangerous?

 

[c4v3man]

Laws preventing felons from having firearms only stop those who respect the law (which probably varies widely on what felony they originally committed). I believe felons should be allowed to carry a firearm, since there's nothing actually stopping them from doing so now. Maybe if people faced the reality of a violent criminal being armed they wouldn't be so quick to release them into a society in the first place. Which would save alot of lives in and of itself. And regarding prison overpopulation, well that's what you get when you give out insane life-sentences when the death penalty should be in place.

 

[jerkface11]

How do I know which are dangerous? Shouldn't the government decide that before letting them out?

 

[JustinJ]

How do I know which are dangerous? Shouldn't the government decide that before letting them out?

Just like you, they can't say with any degree of certainty that any felon isn't dangerous. That's the point.

Laws preventing felons from having firearms only stop those who respect the law (which probably varies widely on what felony they originally committed). I believe felons should be allowed to carry a firearm, since there's nothing actually stopping them from doing so now.

There may be nothing stopping them that is completely effective but the threat of returning to prison is certainly a detterent for some. Just because something is not completely effective that does mean efforts shouldn't be made. My seatbelt won't gurantee i survive while i driving but i'm still gona wear it.

 

[jerkface11]

If they don't know the guy isn't dangerous why are they setting him free in the first place?

 

[c4v3man]

but the threat of returning to prison is certainly a detterent for some

I would argue that those who are sane enough to not want to go to prison can be trusted with a gun anyways. If they're willing to forego their right to self defense to stay out of prison, wouldn't they likewise not use a gun in a criminal way to stay out as well?

Just because something is not completely effective that does mean efforts shouldn't be made.

I would venture to say that there is a difference between a law not being completely effective vs ineffective in the first place. A law preventing felons from owning guns IS completely innefective at preventing violent felons who seek to commit further crime from obtaining one. There is simply no way around this. The only thing the law does is give the courts the ability to add one more crime to his list if/when he is brought to court.

Obviously you're steadfast in your opinion, and unwilling to look at the law's consequences as it stands. Some fool who gets a DUI under a variety of circumstances is potentially forever sentenced to never be able to properly defend himself or his present/future family. While I believe that obviously actions have consequences, the point of the second amendment is that it is a basic, unalienable right. The human right to self defense shall not be compromised.

 

[Dean Weingarten]

There may be nothing stopping them that is completely effective but the threat of returning to prison is certainly a detterent for some. Just because something is not completely effective that does mean efforts shouldn't be made. My seatbelt won't gurantee i survive while i driving but i'm still gona wear it.

The threat of returning to prison is an effective deterrent, but the threat of getting shot is not? I think you are tying yourself in circles.

 

[JustinJ]

I would argue that those who are sane enough to not want to go to prison can be trusted with a gun anyways. If they're willing to forego their right to self defense to stay out of prison, wouldn't they likewise not use a gun in a criminal way to stay out as well?

All crime is not premeditated. A felon may end up in a situation in which he uses his gun in spite of not originally planning to do so. Also, if a released felon is caught with a gun that he was carrying for illegal purposes he will be sent back before the next time it is used. An episode of Cops demonstrates just how regularly criminals do appear to get caught with guns when searched or arrested for other crimes.

I would venture to say that there is a difference between a law not being completely effective vs ineffective in the first place. A law preventing felons from owning guns IS completely innefective at preventing violent felons who seek to commit further crime from obtaining one. There is simply no way around this. The only thing the law does is give the courts the ability to add one more crime to his list if/when he is brought to court.

You can't say the laws against felons carrying guns are completely ineffective unless you somehow can know that all those who follow the law would otherwise be armed. Sure, the law does not prevent determined felons from getting guns in the first place but that is not the only way for the law to be benefitial.

Obviously you're steadfast in your opinion, and unwilling to look at the law's consequences as it stands. Some fool who gets a DUI under a variety of circumstances is potentially forever sentenced to never be able to properly defend himself or his present/future family. While I believe that obviously actions have consequences, the point of the second amendment is that it is a basic, unalienable right. The human right to self defense shall not be compromised.

Are you willing to look at the consequences of all dangerous felons being able to carry with no threat of repercussions?

In what state is a single DUI a felony? Either way, no, i don't believe a single DUI should disqualify an individual from owning a gun. I don't believe most non-violent criminals should be disqualified either. I also don't believe most non-violent crimes should be felonies to be begin with. I would prefer the classification of many crimes be changed rather than violent felons be allowed to carry guns. However, there are also some non-violent crimes, especially when there are multiple offenses, that can demonstrate an individual possesses either extremely poor judgement or a complete disregard for the welfare of others. They may also demonstrate a criminal lifestyle. In those instances an individual could rightly lose his right to own a firearm, imo.

 

[beatledog7]

We can't keep guns away from people who really want them but have been deemed ineligible to possess them as long as such people are free to walk into places where law-abiding people have guns.

It's a violation of 2A, and generally unfair, to try to accomplish that feat by taking the guns away from law-abiding gun owners so that the ineligible can walk freely among us.

The only effective, rational, and lawful way to keep guns away from ineligible people who really want them--and will commit crimes to get them--is to keep such people away from where the guns are. In other words, take action against those who have demonstrated a reason to be kept gun-free, and leave the rest of us alone.

Duh!