Unintended consequences...

[Flyboy_451]

During the time that I have been a member here, it seems that the viewpoints and various arguments from both sides of the discussion, seldom change. One side posts a commentary on why more or less restrictions on firearms are appropriate, and then the other side points out various perceived shortcomings of the original idea. These arguments may be well thought out or not so well thought out, but it seems that both sides seldom present any new or fresh ideas to discuss. One subject that I have never seen discussed, as the primary point of a thread, is that of unintended consequences that result from various legislation.

Since there has been recent discussion about legislation proposed to do away with "Gun Free Zones", let's start with that one. While I do agree that personal protection is a an individual human right, and that the handgun is arguably the most effective means of self defense, I also believe that there are places that guns should not be allowed. The question, in my opinion is, are gun free zones, as currently in place, an effective means to this end, or are there unintended consequences that could overshadow the benefits of such policies? In the case of "Gun Free Zones" that are enforced only through signage, I think that the unintended consequences can, and have been seen to be horrific. Columbine, Va. Tech, etc. To be clear, I am not advocating that everyone be armed or any other silly extremist view. I am suggesting that we look at the implementation of such policies and weigh the costs versus the benefits.

Enforcing "Gun Free Zones" by nothing more than signage, does nothing to prevent anyone with ill intentions from entering such premises, while at the same time preventing lawful citizens from carrying a gun for the purpose of self defense, because they are likely to not violate the prohibition and thereby risk their right to own/carry a firearm. In essence, it removes the ability of anyone other than law enforcement or other approved agencies, to respond in a situation similar to Va. Tech or other mass shootings. One thing that all of these situations had in common is the lack of armed resistance to the shooters. So far, the only objections to allowing firearms (by qualified individuals) that I have heard are the blood flowing in the streets type arguments, the assertion that those carrying would open fire willy-nilly and injure an untold number of innocents, or that it probably wouldn't do any good anyway (usually siting the Giffords shooting as an example). In answer to the first two objections, we can easily see that this has not been the case in places such as Utah, where it is legal. In answer to the third objection, it is at least a little more based in reality. The Tuscon shooting was not stopped by an armed citizen, but this single incident does not make a very good argument for saying that it is not a viable possibility to resist during such an event with a firearm. The individual situation will always dictate what resistance is viable and whether or not a gun should or could be used to positive effects.

The real issue is that by disallowing firearms in a place, without actively enforcing the policy through strict security measures, all that has really been accomplished is the removal of an option in bringing a violent situation to a conclusion. While a firearm may or may not be a good option in any given scenario, removing the option is not a solution for those whose lives are in danger at the time. It could well be that such prohibitions have increased the loss of life. A legally armed citizen may have cut such events short, or they may not have, but it can be guaranteed that without legally armed citizens, the ability to resist is dramatically reduced.

Posting a sign is a form of force exerted to disarm occupants of an area or facility, but it is an insufficient amount of force to disarm those with ill intent. If we want to have true "gun Free Zones" I would suggest that strict security be a legal requirement, with the property's controlling entity being held liable for any injury caused by a gun that was not prevented by said security. I have no problem disarming to enter a truly secure environment, but to disarm when no such security exists is only hoping that those with ill intent will do the same. I am not convinced that they will.

JW

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

1. re: ...disarming to enter a truly secure environment...

"...to disarm when no such security exists is only hoping that those with ill intent will do the same. I am not convinced that they will."

I am firmly convinced that they will not disarm. They will use stealth, deception and any manner of circumvention most easily effected to remain armed for their ill intended purposes. By extension, communities that prohibit or unreasonably impede the efforts of the common individual to be armed and prepared for self-defense while not assuming the responsibilities of personal defense for each individual are poor excuses for government in this country.

Such community governments are sources of shame at best along with tyranny and fear.

A quote comes to mind: "I carry a gun because it weighs less than a cop." My apologies if the wording is off a bit.

[DWC]

2. Extremely solid logic.

I have no problem entering a courtroom disarmed where everyone has gone through screening and a viable contingency of armed security is present - just in case.

Under those conditions, gun free zones would be feasible.

Semper Fi,

[spin]

3. If adequate security is available, I have no problem with gun free zones ...

For example, I can not carry a firearm into a college football game, but armed security is present.