Gun Free Zones

[Oldscout448]

I attend a big church (2500 or so)according to the people that study such things, that alone makes us a target for the loonies. Here in Maryland CCWs are nearly impossible to get unless your the DAs golfing buddy. So we pay for three or four county police to stand at the doors every Sunday morning. Some in uniform, some not. Nice guys. Some of them have been members of the church for years. And yes they have guns. I wouldn't consider any of them to be morons.

[JoeBob]

From the end of the parent thread:

 

A crazy / evil person has decided that he wants to kill a bunch of people.

 

What penalty for violating a 'Gun Free Zone' will deter the crazy / evil person who is going to kill?

A person who is going to be punished for multiple murders or kill himself anyway will be swayed by what punishment?

 

One penalty.

Anybody?

Come on, one?

[CalicoPenn]

JoeBob's done it - he's made me see the light. Praise be to Jebus (not a mispelling)!

 

The death penalty doesn't deter people from killing other people, and neither do long prison sentences. Fines don't deter people from speeding. Loss of licenses don't deter people from drinking and driving. Jail time doesn't deter people from committing crimes. Financial penalties don't deter people from committing fraud.

 

Heck, the secret is out - penalties just don't work, and since penalties don't work, our laws are worthless, and since laws are worthless, we may as well get rid of all of them.

 

I'm ready Joe Bob - I'm ready to live in a world without rules - bring on the lawlessness - It's time to rob a few banks!

 

(The preceding is sarcasm, it does not represent the actual wishes of CalicoPenn, the BSA, the SCOUTER Forums, or any sane, thinking, rational humans on the platform we call Reality)

[JoeBob]

Ah...

 

Derision.

Sarcasm.

 

You can't answer the argument, huh?

 

 

[Beavah]

Sane? Intersetng choice of word. Are you suggesting anyone who disagrees with you is not sane?

 

Nah, Eagledad, I was suggesting what I actually wrote. That restrictions on firearms in courthouses seems to me to be quite sane. There are lots of approaches to issues that are sane.

 

Your assumption that I'm implyin' anything different comes out of your choices as a reader to try to make things personal, eh? It's certainly not I that is makin' this a black-and-white issue. If yeh were readin' without bias, you'd recognized that I'm arguin' against black and white here, as is my wont.

 

What penalty for violating a 'Gun Free Zone' will deter the crazy / evil person who is going to kill?

 

Wrong question, JoeBob. Da proper question is "What penalty will help law enforcement and da prosecutor respond effectively to crazy / evil persons who are going to kill?" As CalicoPenn points out, the truly crazy aren't deterred by any law. But you have pointed out (or someone has, it's hard to keep track) that a lot of these fellows seem to stop or commit suicide when law enforcement approaches. So a law which makes it clearly illegal to carry near school premises makes it likely that folks will call earlier, when they first see somethin', eh? Rather than just figurin' it's a lawful carrier and ignoring it. When tipped off and a fellow is detained before he does harm, yeh need penalties which are severe enough to keep the fellow incarcerated. Not somethin' that's a jaywalking ticket.

 

And, too, we recognize that of da firearm deaths and injuries, only some are crazy/evil people, eh? Lots are other sorts.

 

I'm curious, though. Of the list I gave (or any others yeh can think of), are there any that yeh feel should be gun-free zones? Someone else's private property? Anything? Or is this a black-and-white issue for yeh?

 

Beavah

 

[JoeBob]

Beavah,

 

I don't follow you argument here:

"So a law which makes it clearly illegal to carry near school premises makes it likely that folks will call earlier, when they first see somethin', eh? Rather than just figurin' it's a lawful carrier and ignoring it."

****

 

No carry zones make good sense where there is an armed presence to enforce them:

Court Houses, Airports, and sporting events.

One or two guards at a metal detector are too easily blown through (bad pun, sorry) to protect a school for long enough to make a difference.

 

I'm of two minds about saloons. If you're not drinking, CCW might be okay. Any alcohol should void your permit. (So why go to a bar if you're not gonna drink?)

 

***

I'm glad the second amendment protects my right to carry; but that's not my focus regarding 'Gun Free Zones'. I look at it completely from the functional aspect: do Gun Free Zones work?

 

[JoeBob]

Here's an example of someone violating the legal Gun Free Zone to positive effect:

 

"Another shooter in a high school in 1997 in Pearl, Miss., was stopped in the midst of a shooting spree when the vice principal ran out to his car, loaded his gun, and held the gunman at bay until police arrived, according to local media reports. The student reportedly wanted to head to another nearby school and kill additional students. He first killed his mother then arrived at Pearl High School and killed two students. No mention of the vice principals actions appeared in stories on the shooting published at the time on CNN and in the New York Times."

 

http://freebeacon.com/protecting-our-kids/

 

I wonder if the AP was charged?

[Beavah]

Ah, OK. I can appreciate the armed presence as a sound and perhaps necessary means of enforcement for an effective gun-free zone.

 

Still wonderin' what yeh think about private property? That's not so much a "does it work" question as it is a "rights of the property owner" question.

 

Da point I was tryin' to make about school zones is that if everyone knows schools are gun-free and they see someone carrying, they're likely to make an immediate call to the police, immediately lock the building, etc. In other words, defensive measures will begin at first sighting by anyone. Absent that, yeh create a lot of ambiguity, and da bystander literature is pretty clear that ambiguity leads bystanders not to respond. Should that guy have a gun? Should he not? It's probably OK...

 

Beavah

 

[Beavah]

I wonder if the AP was charged?

 

Yah, the vice principal in that case was an Army reserve officer who was usin' his service pistol, eh? As close as I can tell from da information, he was not in violation of da gun-free school zone law.

 

It's always interestin' to me how when this stuff comes up, da examples of successful interventions always seem to be by off-duty LEOs and military folks with the necessary training and proficiency to act in such situations. I expect we can all agree that nobody has a problem with highly trained professionals carrying in gun-free zones. So let's do that, eh? As far as I know the law allows for that almost everywhere; let's fix it where it doesn't.

 

Can we also agree that da level of training, supervision, and required proficiency for LEOs and reserve officers is substantially higher than for just gettin' a CCW permit, and that that perhaps we don't want anybody who has just done the $30 class and purchased a pistol to be playin' Rambo in a similar circumstance? Keeping in mind, of course, that those folks right now are allowed to carry in gun-free school zones at least under the federal law.

 

Can we further agree that having unlicensed, possibly untrained and not-background-checked people carrying into schools is probably not a very good idea, and that a law to prevent/respond/punish that is not irrational?

 

Beavah

 

[RememberSchiff]

This thread has baffled me as, there are already laws in nearly all states restricting firearms in schools.

 

States Prohibiting or Restricting (meaning you need further written authorization) Concealed Weapons Permit/License Holders from Carrying on Elementary and Secondary School Property: 41 states and D.C..

 

State with laws for insufficiently licensed or random carry on school grounds 48 states and D.C.

 

http://smartgunlaws.org/guns-in-schools-policy-summary/#footnote_82_5686