The idea that only criminals will have guns in gun-free zones is ludicrous, as long as law enforcement is willing to step in. In many other countries these gun-free zones work very, very well. In fact, in Japan officers are so intent on getting rid of the guns that criminals are unwilling to carry guns for fear of getting caught with them.
The argument that advertising a gun-free zone is an invite to bad guys is insane. The solution proposed is to hire and train staff within a gun-free zone and change the signs to reflect such. This is a great idea in theory, the problem is there isn't the money to pay qualified professionals. That is why Ohio is currently voting to give guns to custodians. Really? So now instead of being a stranger in a school, you simply need to apply to be the janitor and they will hand you a gun and teach you how to use it. Then you'll get keys to access the building outside of school hours. It's the dumbest thing I've seen in politics.
A gun-free zone only makes sense if all who enter it are forcibly disarmed (e.G., courthouse, airport). In an unenforced zone, law-abiding citizens will be disarmed, criminals will not. It's hard to argue that disarming the law-abiding citizens will result in reduced violence; there's simply no evidence for that. So, if you haven't reduced violence by disarming upstanding citizens, all you have accomplished is to create an area where the balance of force is tipped in favor of law-breakers. While that doesn't necessarily lead directly to mass-shootings, etc., on-balance, that can only be detrimental.
Only an idiot would argue that gun free zones cause/don't cause mass shootings, and only an idiot that isn't listening would think that is the prevalent objection to them.
Since 1950, all but 2 mass shootings have occurred in gun free-zones, and the gun free zone didn't cause those shootings... It just identified itself as a location where the shooter was least likely to meet armed resistance, and clearly the shooter's have been paying attention.
If you want to declare your home or business a gun free zone, it is your right to do so and I frankly encourage it. In doing so, you help secure me from the mass shooters since you will be providing the arena for their carnage, and I won't be there.
On the other hand, I vehemently object to declaring any public area a gun free zone unless all individuals (other than LEOs) are actively disarmed before entering, such as a courthouse or airport.
The only way to stop a mentally ill person who is bent on committing mass murder is an armed person there to stop them. Just look at the Colorado Church shooting and one in Texas where an armed person stopped the crime. "gun free" zones are just an open door.
If you look at the recent headlines you would understand why. Simply get a AGV with tranq darts and you might find a compromise into the situation at hand. Otherwise go take a hike. It' rather arbitrary when you think about it. FREE ZONE = crazy people will come at your door.
We should have heroin free zones too? Oh, wait. We already do. This is really a simple concept and does not require a lot of thought. Criminals or individuals with the intent to commit a crime or have committed a crime, did not stop at a sign that said "gun free zone" and say "I cant go in there I better turn around."
A gun free zone does not have armed staff or security. The reason that shootings occur at gun free zones is that the law abiding people who work, learn, or shop there are unarmed. These shootings never occur at shooting ranges. There have also been two military base shootings since 1993, when Bill Clinton made it illegal for soldiers not guarding the gate to carry guns.
A gunman will not go shoot up a police station, because they don't want a challenge. However a gun free zone is a zone with no real unseen chance of resistance (ex. A concealed carrier because it is illegal to carry one) so there is an easy target for a gunman to attack.
Statistics speak for themselves in most cases because the majority of these mass shootings occur in Gun Free Zones. The simple fact is that law abiding people will obey the law and the criminals will not. Virtually all Gun Free Zones have ZERO protection to ensure there are no guns. Even in a place where there is security to "ensure" there are no guns people can get guns in when they want to (perfect example the recent shooting at the Los Angeles Airport where one TSA agent was killed and two others injured). I wonder if all you Gun Free Zone advocates would also put a sign in your front yard stating that you have a Gun Free Home?! I doubt it! While I do agree that there should be some common sense regulation for the use of firearms (such as a legal age limit, basic safety training etc.), Gun Free Zones are nothing more than killing fields.
Areas that are gun free zones or have many gun free businesses and areas are shown to have more violent crime or exposure to violent crime with relation to firearms. Chicago, New York, New Orleans, Washington DC and Memphis are examples where the majority of areas are gun free and yet still have the highest rates of gun related crimes. Armed criminals are more likely to commit violent crime if citizens are unable to defend themselves appropriately
Both sides (Pro-gun most especially) can agree that a gun free area will not stop crimes such as mass shootings, murder, and assault with a deadly weapon.
Anti-Gunners state the ensuring no legal firearm (with the exception of LEO and certain Security Personnel) exists in the area will prevent arguments from going sour and escalating to the point where an armed response becomes apparent.
This is working on the thought that people who are carrying guns are prone to violence.
People can be prone to violence and the lack or possession of weapons doesn't not make them any less willing to cause violence if pushed to a point. Anti-gunners state that by removing guns the ability to commit into a grave action is averted.
However based on reality an armed society or an area with high amount of legal firearms doesn't equate into a high violence area. The fact of the matter is, carrying a weapons system in area where they are permitted only becomes a problem if the person carrying knows or assumes they are the only one carrying.
It essentially becomes a situation where the person knows they have the biggest stick in the field where no one else has a stick.
I've lived and operated in areas where firearms were more common than phones and watches, but the rate of violence and crime was either extremely low or non-existent. The two main reasons being the people who owned the arms were normal people and generally normal people didn't decide to just go out and kill people just because they are upset. Most especially because they knew that by doing so they just became a target for a larger armed group.
The possession of arms essentially puts a MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) effect on certain areas preventing the escalation or at the least eliminating and/or containing problems quickly. The offender is aware they have the ability to cause harm but know as well that they will have harm caused to them.
Now anti-gunners here would state that many mass shooters end up killing themselves so the threat of death will not be an issue to them. Yes and No. The threat of death shouldn't be a hinderance to them however fear still prevents from from engaging in areas where they will have to actually fight vs having a bit of free range till the time they decide to kill themselves. Mass shooters aren't suicidal in the sense that they are looking to die, they are maniacs looking to cause major harm before death.
In the end as sad as it seems mass shootings can't be the sole basis for pushing this ideas simply because it is too rare a crime vs the regular crimes which cause the death of many more people.
The saying is true, "The Death of a Few is Tragedy, the death of millions is a statistic."
Build policies on the realities and logic, not emotion and happy thoughts.