Gun-free-zone prohibitions are feel-good laws. They make about as much sense as having the U.N. declare Afghanistan a war-and-Sharia-free zone or the Congo a rape-and-child-soldier-free zone and thinking weve accomplished something.
If theres anything the Newtown massacre has proven its that school zones billed as gun-free" cannot be guaranteed to thus be.
Theyre only virtually certain to be good-guy-gun-free.
And its time for this symbolism-over-substance policy to end.
The fact is that were making the good easy prey for the wicked and this has been acknowledged by some current and former law-enforcement officials. As Vice President and Public Information Officer of the National Association of Chiefs of Police Jim Kouri writes:
Former police detective Mike Snopes believes that gun free zones invite killers.
The killer in Newtown came armed for bear and couldnt care less about some gun law. The schools anti-gun law prevented any adults working at the school from having access to a firearm. If the schools principal had been armed and trained she might have saved many lives. Had several people been armed at that school the shooter suspect Adam Lanza would have possibly been stopped at the front door by a hale sic of bullets said the former NYPD detective.
…According to former Arizona Sheriff Richard Mack The Newtown suspect goes to the principals office while the announcements are playing over the PA to the whole school. Everyone in the school hears shots being fired. Had teachers or school employees been armed instead of fleeing and allowing the killer to walk around the facility unimpeded the school staff could have surrounded the madman and ended the attack....
Adding to the case against gun-free zones is NYPD Detective John Baeza who noted that the location of the Colorado movie theater shootings occurred at a large shopping mall that was a gun free zone" writes Kouri.
Of course as is the case with any individual incident theres no way to know precisely what would have transpired in Connecticut had the good guys not been declawed. Maybe Adam Lanza would have been stopped; maybe not. But it doesnt matter because good policy isnt based on individual incidents but on what makes sense considering the full scope of an issue.
And answer me this: how can gun-free" zones have any positive effect at all on average? People planning mass murder wont care about a law prohibiting firearm possession in their target area. Outlawing guns in schools guarantees that only outlaws will have guns in schools.
Having gun-free zones is foolish and to me frankly irritating. Why? Because theyre a prime example of the liberal tendency to subordinate substance to symbolism. Gun-free-zone prohibitions are feel-good laws. They make about as much sense as having the U.N. declare Afghanistan a war-and-Sharia-free zone or the Congo a rape-and-child-soldier-free zone and thinking weve accomplished something. And for this reason they arent just wrong-headed but morally wrong. For there is nothing virtuous about harming society with bad policy simply because it makes you feel better about yourself.
Of course rescinding gun-free-zone laws wouldnt be a panacea but it would be a move in the right direction. And advocating such helps to counter the activism of people such as Little Big Gulp (a.k.a. Mayor Michael Bloomberg) who are using the Newtown tragedy to move us in the wrong direction and further curtail Second Amendment rights. Remember that the best defense is a good offense.
Whatever we do however its seldom wise to make policy in an emotionally charged atmosphere. When passions have been stoked its prudent to abide by that age-old advice to take a deep breath and count to 10 before acting. For if something truly is a good idea today it was also a good idea six months ago and will be six months from now.