Once again the country is reeling from the horror of yet another school shooting. This time on a university in Oregon where ten were killed and seven more wounded in a killing spree by Chris Harper-Mercer at the Umpqua Community College in Roseburg, Oregon. This despicable and cowardly act took place in a class room at the college. The classroom was on a college campus that had deemed itself to be a gun free zone. So, one may ask, how was it possible that at least three guns were brought into the class room by Mercer? Simple answer, gun free zones do not work. In this case, the gun-free zone was a policy of the College.
To declare an area as gun free is pointless if no measures are put in place to make sure that no guns are transported into the zone. In order to make an entire college campus a gun free zone, barriers would have to be erected and all entrances and exits would have to be guarded and equipped with technology to detect a gun being brought on the premise. This of course, would never work as it would be very expensive to make happen and the task of screening thousands of staff, instructors, students, and visitors accessing the campus would be daunting to say the least. So someone in their infinite wisdom decided the zone would simply be declared as gun free with the hopes that everyone would respect the restriction and leave their gun at home. Unfortunately, all did respect the restriction, all that is except one. When Mercer pulled out his guns and began the killing, no one in the class room was able to produce a defensive firearm and quickly end the threat because they were in a gun free zone and they left their guns at home.
I can’t help but wonder if there were people in the classroom, law-abiding citizens, who were legally permitted to carry a concealed weapon, if they had not been in a gun free zone. Gun free zones make about as much sense as proposals that try to outlaw gun ownership. The only people who will surrender their guns in such an environment are law-abiding citizens who feel it is more important to obey the law then it is to own a gun. Likewise, the only people who will respect a gun free zone are those who feel the need to obey the restriction then to carry their gun. A law that is designed to protect and is effective is a good law. If a law is designed to protect but the outcome is the opposite of protection, then that law must be struck down.
Stupid free zones sounds like a good idea to me. These zones would not only restrict stupid people but would also restrict intelligent people with stupid ideas, such as the idea of a gun free zone. We truly do need effective legislation when it comes to gun control. Effective being the key word here. It should not be easier to legally own a gun then it is to legally drive an automobile. All the loopholes that make it easy to transfer possession of a gun from one individual to another without a paper trail need to be closed. Gun ownership should be licensed and registered and an individual who transfers a licensed gun to another without a paper trail showing the transfer should be equally prosecuted if that gun is used in the commission of a crime. If a gun is lost or stolen it must be reported and failure to do so would be subject to a criminal penalty. Law enforcement should be able to check owner ship of a gun as easily as they can check ownership of an automobile. These ideas are only the beginning of what is probably a long list of ideas on how to limit gun ownership to responsible people. It probably will not keep guns out of the hands of criminals, but it may make it harder for them to obtain one and would be a step in the right direction.
Stupid free zones, of course, will not work. They will be as hard to enforce as gun free zones and drug free zones. But maybe, and I am just spit balling here, if the stupid free zones were extended to cover all the legislative bodies in the country the resounding echos of emptiness would be so loud that people would have to take notice and put people into those places to fill the void. People. that is, who could pass into the stupid free zone with impunity.
Those are my thoughts, what are yours?
Feel free to comment, like, share, agree or disagree with this post. Please consider a free subscription. Options to like and subscribe are found elsewhere on the page. Thank you for reading the Townehouse Blog.
This material may be published, broadcast, or redistributed. In fact, I encourage it.
I dissagree with almosall of your thoughs on this matter I think Driving and owning any kind of personal property is a right not a privelege. All of these issues should be transparent to the law IE no laws regarding the property. Only what is needed to enforce contracts. We have more than enough consequences, usually death at the scene, for people who commit these acts.
I agree, a person has the right to own property, including automobiles and guns. But, if the representatives, chosen by the people, enact laws that restrict the use of this property when said use may have a detrimental impact on others, then the laws must be enacted to protect those people impacted. This is why you can drive on your own property all day long without breaking a law (except drunk driving) but as soon as you move off your property you are under the laws of the municipality, state, or Federal government. Laws designed to protect the people also using that common property. Likewise with a gun. If you choose to own and keep the gun on your own property you should be able to do so without restriction, however, as soon as you transport that gun into any public place, the laws designed to protect others apply. A Libertarian philosophy is not always a practical philosophy.