Gun Free Zone - well, not exactly

Let's look at whether a gun free zone is a good gun control law. Let's follow the same structure as we have for the other firearms control measures, even though I'm having a hard time keeping a straight face with this one.

My libertarian logic just doesn't allow me to believe in the power of signs; whether it's a stop sign, yield sign, speed limit sign, no parking sign or indicating a zone that is gun free, they're are all just signs.

Signs have no control over an individual's actions.

If they did, then meter maids and police with radar detectors would be a thing of the past - but they aren't! So how will a gun free zone sign work any differently?

The concept and objectives

The concept is simple - declare an area to be gun free. These are most often schools, but can apply to other public buildings and events like professional sports. Churches and government meetings are also commonly declared as gun free zones.

That means that having a firearm is illegal except under certain circumstances or with special permission. Signs are sometimes posted to let people know they are entering a zone that is supposed to be gun free. Posting signs is optional, but let's assume that this enhances compliance with the law.

Objectives of the law:

• Prevent people from having a gun in the zone declared as gun free.

Effects of the law:

• Puts it on record that guns are prohibited in certain areas.
• Disarms law-abiding people before they enter the gun free zone.
• Makes criminals out of people that want to be in the area with a means to defend themselves.
• Causes us to rely on police for personal protection - something the police are not obligated to do.
• Gives us unrealistic expectations of police being able to quickly respond to our needs in these zones where we are essentially defenseless.
• Makes some people feel safer because they're in an area that is off limits to law-abiding citizens with guns.

Does it prevent or reduce crime?

No. It can increase the likelihood that criminals will be able to safely attack their victims because everyone is supposed to be unarmed. School shootings are an example of gun free zones where shooters felt comfortable that their victims were unable to fight back.

Does it prevent or reduce accidents?

No. There is no evidence to suggest that gun free zones have any effect on gun accidents. Even without the law, guns aren't normally used in schools, churches and sporting events, so accidents are very rare in these locations to begin with.

Does it prevent or reduce suicides?

No. Suicides usually don't happen in schools and churches, unless it's the suicide of the shooter who violated the gun free zone to begin with. Also, we have seen the suicide of a public official in a city council meeting, in direct conflict with common policy that government meetings are gun free zones. He should have known better.

My observations

A gun free zone is very much like a drug free zone. It's symbolism on a sign.

Columbine High School, Virginia Tech, the Westroads Mall in Omaha, and the New Life Church in Colorado Springs were, and still are, gun free zones where you aren't supposed to have a firearm. That is, if you're a law abiding citizen.

That's not the case if you're a criminal maniac with intentions of doing harm to people you don't know and who have never harmed you.

If you're a maniac, it seems our laws don't have much effect. I suppose it's because the laws are on paper, and they simply get summarized as a trite phrase and then posted on a metal sign. The maniacs just proceed with their mission of carnage and ignore any "gun free" symbolism they might encounter, whether on paper or metal.

Gee, who would have thought that?

I wrote a letter to the editor of our local paper soon after the December, 2007 Omaha mall shooting. I encouraged people to carry a gun and learn how to use it so they might help stop the next pyscho who decides he wants to go out in a blaze of glory.

A well intentioned and somewhat confused citizen from Cheyenne responded to my letter by suggesting that if someone had engaged the shooter, that might have angered him, and Omaha could have suffered more loss of life. Yeah, right!

Let me show that with a discussion between two people who are present when all hell breaks loose at the mall as the 19 year old Villain starts his shooting spree.

Victim: Oh my God, what is he doing.

Victor: He's shooting up the place and the people in it. What does it look like?

(At this point, our Victor draws his own gun to stop the pyscho.)

Victim: What are you doing?

Victor: I'm going to stop him.

Victim: Oh no, don't do that!

Victor: Why not?

Victim: You might get him mad. And then he might...well, he could just...I mean he might...

Victor: He might do what?

Victim: Well, he might...he might just start shooting people.

Victor: He's already doing that. What do you want me to do, ask him nicely to stop? Encourage him to seek counseling? Pass him a note? Wait until he's finished?

Victim: Well, I just don't know what to do.

Victor: Well, I do. Stay out of the way. I have to stop this killer.

As usual, police were there in several minutes, when precious seconds counted. It's not the fault of the police. They responded as fast and as best they could. As often happens, folks dialed 911, and then died.

A sign designating a "gun free zone" does just as much good as a sign that says "bury your head here", with an arrow pointing down into the giant box of sand. Burying our head in the sand isn't going to make the problem go away.

We'll need to take action to address the problem, and symbolism isn't action. It's at best an exercise in posturing. You know, get a mean look on your face and growl in hopes of intimidating the pyscho killer. Good luck with that!

Isn't it ironic the only thing that could have helped people at Columbine, Virginia Tech and the Westroads Mall, was the very thing that we prohibit victims from having at those locations?

Perhaps we should be a bit more honest about our posturing. How about we have those signs read: "gun free zone, but not gun crime free". Wouldn't that make it more clear and put people on notice of the law and the potential for lawlessness?

Are we really still convinced that a gun free zone is safer? I'm not.

Have you ever noticed that gun stores, police stations, shooting ranges and military installations aren't targets of violent crime? Do you think it has anything to do with all the armed people there that know how to use a deadly weapon? I do.

If you think a sign that says: "gun free zone" really helps reduce violent crime, then you must also believe that "stop" signs stop cars.

This Libertarian is beyond doubts - he is absolutely certain that a "stop" sign doesn't stop a car, and a sign declaring a gun free zone doesn't stop any person with a gun who is intent on killing others.

Done with Gun Free Zone, take me back to Gun Control