• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Do Gun Free Zones actually protect people?

Not according to this bit of research -

Gun group says active killer events quadrupled after Gun Free School Zones Act - National gun rights | Examiner.com

View attachment 67139985

Please note that the author of this piece is ONLY talking about gun free zones which is why workplace shootings and the Giffords shooting are not included.

The only gun-free zones that protect people are those strictly enforced. I would assume that courthouses and the like might get really ugly if guns weren't banned.

Just putting a sign up? They ought to be liable for damages when someone is shot. The only ones obeying those signs are law-abiding citizens. If you put a sign up on a movie theater that says, "Guns Not Allowed," and Batman Jerkoff wanders in and kills a dozen people with one? That movie theater should be civilly liable. (I think I'm turning crabby today.)
 
The only gun-free zones that protect people are those strictly enforced. I would assume that courthouses and the like might get really ugly if guns weren't banned.

Just putting a sign up? They ought to be liable for damages when someone is shot. The only ones obeying those signs are law-abiding citizens. If you put a sign up on a movie theater that says, "Guns Not Allowed," and Batman Jerkoff wanders in and kills a dozen people with one? That movie theater should be civilly liable. (I think I'm turning crabby today.)

I wouldn't go that far. I firmly believe that someone's property rights give them pretty broad leeway in what they may or may not permit on their premises. That being said, if it is reasonable that prohibiting firearms (or anything else) might present a specific danger to patrons then that's a different case.

For all intents and purposes it isn't reasonable (legal definition) to suspect that prohibiting firearms in a movie theater or in a bar is going to create a dangerous situation so I figure that it's well within the property owners rights to prohibit them.
 
I wouldn't go that far. I firmly believe that someone's property rights give them pretty broad leeway in what they may or may not permit on their premises. That being said, if it is reasonable that prohibiting firearms (or anything else) might present a specific danger to patrons then that's a different case.

For all intents and purposes it isn't reasonable (legal definition) to suspect that prohibiting firearms in a movie theater or in a bar is going to create a dangerous situation so I figure that it's well within the property owners rights to prohibit them.

You're probably right. Something called "foreseeable consequences" would seem to apply.
 
Not according to this bit of research -

Gun group says active killer events quadrupled after Gun Free School Zones Act - National gun rights | Examiner.com

View attachment 67139985

Please note that the author of this piece is ONLY talking about gun free zones which is why workplace shootings and the Giffords shooting are not included.




That pretty much tells the tale right there. Criminals and crazies love "gun free zones"... because they read them as "unarmed victims available here!"

And obviously they are NOT gun-free... just free from law-abiding gun carriers, which helps nothing.

But let's not allow more armed citizens to be available to protect schoolkids, heavens no, that would make too much sense and might actually work. Can't have that.
 
Not according to this bit of research -

Gun group says active killer events quadrupled after Gun Free School Zones Act - National gun rights | Examiner.com

View attachment 67139985

Please note that the author of this piece is ONLY talking about gun free zones which is why workplace shootings and the Giffords shooting are not included.

I don't think any of this resides on whether it's a gun free zone or not - it's the people that ****ed it all up by choosing to come in an murder everyone that does it.

I honestly - truly - don't imagine that one or two armed teachers or adults in the vicinity of any sort of school shooting would have made a huge difference. Honestly - consider response time and the swiftness of tragedy to unfold . . . it wouldn't matter that much. Maybe once or twice it would have but otherwise - not at all.
 
I wouldn't go that far. I firmly believe that someone's property rights give them pretty broad leeway in what they may or may not permit on their premises. That being said, if it is reasonable that prohibiting firearms (or anything else) might present a specific danger to patrons then that's a different case.

For all intents and purposes it isn't reasonable (legal definition) to suspect that prohibiting firearms in a movie theater or in a bar is going to create a dangerous situation so I figure that it's well within the property owners rights to prohibit them.


I disagree. If we're talking about your home, fine your house your rules. If we're talking about a business that is normally open to the public, then there ought to have to be a darn good reason for disarming the public on the premises, and the owner ought to be liable for criminal harm to the patrons he willfully disarmed.

A public place is a place open to the public. If you disarm me, by gosh you ought to take responsibility for my safety.
 
Court houses are generally protected by armed police, metal detectors, and society can't afford that at every school - nor should it need to. The simple solution is to
let every would be killer in this country know that schools are not gun free easy targets. Business owners can decide for themselves and live with the ramifications.
Congress, obama should repeal the gun-free school zone act if they truly cared for or were concerned about childrens' safety. They aren't - they are concerned with
controlling people - period.


The only gun-free zones that protect people are those strictly enforced. I would assume that courthouses and the like might get really ugly if guns weren't banned.

Just putting a sign up? They ought to be liable for damages when someone is shot. The only ones obeying those signs are law-abiding citizens. If you put a sign up on a movie theater that says, "Guns Not Allowed," and Batman Jerkoff wanders in and kills a dozen people with one? That movie theater should be civilly liable. (I think I'm turning crabby today.)
 
I don't think any of this resides on whether it's a gun free zone or not - it's the people that ****ed it all up by choosing to come in an murder everyone that does it.

I honestly - truly - don't imagine that one or two armed teachers or adults in the vicinity of any sort of school shooting would have made a huge difference. Honestly - consider response time and the swiftness of tragedy to unfold . . . it wouldn't matter that much. Maybe once or twice it would have but otherwise - not at all.


"Gun Free Zones" are where most of these mass-murders take place... I think you can't call that insignificant.

I think you also can't say whether a few armed persons present would have made the difference... sure it will depend on where they happen to be when the SHTF, and how much opportunity they have to respond, but IMO it is way better than nothing.
 
I don't think any of this resides on whether it's a gun free zone or not - it's the people that ****ed it all up by choosing to come in an murder everyone that does it.

I honestly - truly - don't imagine that one or two armed teachers or adults in the vicinity of any sort of school shooting would have made a huge difference. Honestly - consider response time and the swiftness of tragedy to unfold . . . it wouldn't matter that much. Maybe once or twice it would have but otherwise - not at all.

I understand where you're coming from but the point of the study was that known gun free might well be attracting the kind of people you are talking about.

One or two armed teachers probably wouldn't have been able to prevent the shooting from occurring but they very well may have been able to contain it. I had this conversation in another thread and this kind of ambush shooting is virtually impossible to protect against without extreme measures but in such situations an immediate armed response forces the assailant to focus on something other than continuing his killing spree and thus is likely to limit the damage he can do.
 
I understand where you're coming from but the point of the study was that known gun free might well be attracting the kind of people you are talking about.

One or two armed teachers probably wouldn't have been able to prevent the shooting from occurring but they very well may have been able to contain it. I had this conversation in another thread and this kind of ambush shooting is virtually impossible to protect against without extreme measures but in such situations an immediate armed response forces the assailant to focus on something other than continuing his killing spree and thus is likely to limit the damage he can do.


Most active-shooter situations end with the arrival of armed opposition; in which case the shooter either surrenders, is shot down, or takes his own life.


Be nice if the "armed opposition" was already on-site instead of 10-20 minutes away.
 
I disagree. If we're talking about your home, fine your house your rules. If we're talking about a business that is normally open to the public, then there ought to have to be a darn good reason for disarming the public on the premises, and the owner ought to be liable for criminal harm to the patrons he willfully disarmed.

A public place is a place open to the public. If you disarm me, by gosh you ought to take responsibility for my safety.
I'm in the middle here Goshin. I think "open to the public" gets abused by politicians and activist groups so I am wary of allowing too much regulation of private business under most circumstances. That said I would personaly allow CCW or open carry in any establishment I would own except maybe one that primarily serves alcohol. I don't believe in forcing businesses to comply with "open to the public" arguments but rather let the market decide.

There is plenty of evidence though that criminals and these mass murdering psychopaths choose the path of least resistance, and primarily pick places with gun prohibition. The only places I see prohibition being effective are armed at all times, like court houses, government offices, etc.
 
We do not have gun free school zones in my city. I suppose the school crossing signs might be magical because we have had no school shootings, though I suspect it has more to do with the armed resource officers in the schools......
 
I don't think any of this resides on whether it's a gun free zone or not - it's the people that ****ed it all up by choosing to come in an murder everyone that does it.

I honestly - truly - don't imagine that one or two armed teachers or adults in the vicinity of any sort of school shooting would have made a huge difference. Honestly - consider response time and the swiftness of tragedy to unfold . . . it wouldn't matter that much. Maybe once or twice it would have but otherwise - not at all.

It could have a deterrent factor and it could be a life-saver in a active shooter/hostage situation before swat rolls about and could get on scene and set up. Are there shortcomings? Sure, but how is the current gun free situation working?

A gun free zone is a free crime zone. Period
 
I wouldn't go that far. I firmly believe that someone's property rights give them pretty broad leeway in what they may or may not permit on their premises. That being said, if it is reasonable that prohibiting firearms (or anything else) might present a specific danger to patrons then that's a different case.

For all intents and purposes it isn't reasonable (legal definition) to suspect that prohibiting firearms in a movie theater or in a bar is going to create a dangerous situation so I figure that it's well within the property owners rights to prohibit them.

Think before you drink, even Koolaid. True gun free zones have enforcement, like at courthouses and correctional facilities. Simply slapping up a sign stops nothing, in case you missed the point of the OP. It is like slapping up a sign saying "work zone" and that traffic fines double when workers are present; it makes no difference at all unless a cop is present and issues a ticket. Laws and signs simply advertise the penalties for actions iff caught and convicted, they otherwise don't make things change at all. Like the moron that wrote in to the newspaper suggesting that deer crossing signs no longer be placed on curves, since it is harder to avoid hitting deer there. :doh
 
tumblr_m5hs5zIfsh1ry73t9o1_400.jpg
 
Think before you drink, even Koolaid. True gun free zones have enforcement, like at courthouses and correctional facilities. Simply slapping up a sign stops nothing, in case you missed the point of the OP. It is like slapping up a sign saying "work zone" and that traffic fines double when workers are present; it makes no difference at all unless a cop is present and issues a ticket. Laws and signs simply advertise the penalties for actions iff caught and convicted, they otherwise don't make things change at all. Like the moron that wrote in to the newspaper suggesting that deer crossing signs no longer be placed on curves, since it is harder to avoid hitting deer there. :doh

I totally understand where you're coming from and, like I said in another thread, I tend to be more wary in posted facilities than I am in ones that are not posted but the issue for the property owner is one of reasonableness (legal definition) and because the overall likelihood of anyone busting in anywhere - posted or not - and shooting up the place is minimal which means that it would be unreasonable to force the property owner to provide security if they choose to prohibit firearms on their premises.

The onus for personal safety is always on the individual and if you feel that someone is compromising your safety by prohibiting firearms in their building then it's up to you to choose whether or not to patronize that business.

Public facilities are a different story (as far as I'm concerned) because you may not have the option of not going into the building.
 
I totally understand where you're coming from and, like I said in another thread, I tend to be more wary in posted facilities than I am in ones that are not posted but the issue for the property owner is one of reasonableness (legal definition) and because the overall likelihood of anyone busting in anywhere - posted or not - and shooting up the place is minimal which means that it would be unreasonable to force the property owner to provide security if they choose to prohibit firearms on their premises.

The onus for personal safety is always on the individual and if you feel that someone is compromising your safety by prohibiting firearms in their building then it's up to you to choose whether or not to patronize that business.

Public facilities are a different story (as far as I'm concerned) because you may not have the option of not going into the building.

So many words yet so little said. So, basically, you think private free crime zones are OK w/o security (enter at your own risk?), but public gun free zones must have security to enforce them. Is that it?
 
So many words yet so little said. So, basically, you think private free crime zones are OK w/o security (enter at your own risk?), but public gun free zones must have security to enforce them. Is that it?

It's simply a matter of choice. If a store I want to shop at is posted then I can choose to go to another store. If the city or state building that I HAVE to go to is posted then I don't have the option of going elsewhere.
 
It's simply a matter of choice. If a store I want to shop at is posted then I can choose to go to another store. If the city or state building that I HAVE to go to is posted then I don't have the option of going elsewhere.

That is it? The gov't has no duty to provide security, yet may outlaw you from providing your own? That defies logic.
 
That is it? The gov't has no duty to provide security, yet may outlaw you from providing your own? That defies logic.

Uh...yeah...since when have we had any reasonable expectation of government being logical?:lamo

We actually had a bill down here last year to mandate secure weapons storage in all government buildings and armed security if they weren't going to allow people to carry. The bill passed but the gov vetoed it.

I HATE to leave my carry piece in the car because as long as it's on me I know that nobody is messing with it but I also don't want to get busted. Whenever possible I do all of my government business on line to avoid the situation but sometimes things have to be taken care of in person so I play by the rules. That's my story and I'm sticking to it.
 
Uh...yeah...since when have we had any reasonable expectation of government being logical?:lamo

We actually had a bill down here last year to mandate secure weapons storage in all government buildings and armed security if they weren't going to allow people to carry. The bill passed but the gov vetoed it.

I HATE to leave my carry piece in the car because as long as it's on me I know that nobody is messing with it but I also don't want to get busted. Whenever possible I do all of my government business on line to avoid the situation but sometimes things have to be taken care of in person so I play by the rules. That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

So we seem to agree that signs mean nothing without enforcement to back them up. May as well put up a sign stating "Warning: this premises protected by 400 lb. man-eating frog" and hope that deters crime. ;)
 
It's simply a matter of choice. If a store I want to shop at is posted then I can choose to go to another store. If the city or state building that I HAVE to go to is posted then I don't have the option of going elsewhere.


When SC first enacted shall-issue CWP, a lot of places were posted no-carry.

Over the years that has declined a lot; now you rarely see any stores or restaurants posted against carry, other than the national-franchise-owned malls... where I wouldn't shop if you gave me a gift card anyway...
 
When SC first enacted shall-issue CWP, a lot of places were posted no-carry.

Over the years that has declined a lot; now you rarely see any stores or restaurants posted against carry, other than the national-franchise-owned malls... where I wouldn't shop if you gave me a gift card anyway...

That's the way it is here. Even most bars aren't posted if they have a decent food business. I can't think of a bank or grocery store that's posted.

I was at a popular casual dining place the other day and noticed that they were posted but the idiots had the sign up on the wall behind the counter. You had to be 20 feet into the place before you might have seen the sign. Fortunately, the way the law is if the sign isn't evident you can't get in trouble unless you have already been notified (someone with an agenda).
 
Back
Top Bottom