Amazon.com Widgets
  • Yes. It has helped in other countries.

    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.

  • Yes, gun-free zones do work.

    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.

  • Criminals will be Criminals

    A criminal intent on committing a crime will not be deterred from a sign that says "Gun Free Zone". Criminals are criminals and won't follow the law anyways. The only people who will obey these laws are the law abiding citizens. Gun Free Zones did not work at Columbine, Virginia Tech or Sandy Hook.

  • Big Government Intrusion

    Gun free-zones are great in theory, sadly though, they are not effective at keeping citizens safe. When a person has the intent of killing people and they can either go to a location that may have concealed weapons being carried or to a location that only police officers can carry weapons, which one do you think they will choose? Surely they will choose the location that they feel will result in the most casualties, and since gun-free zones place the safety of law-abiding citizens solely on the security/police force, then the gunmen will be more likely to attack the gun-free zone. The reason gun-free zones are not effective is because they turn law-abiding citizens into sitting targets, whereas when the citizens are allowed to carry concealed weapons, they will have a much higher chance of preventing/stoping an attack.

  • Big Government Intrusion

    Gun free-zones are great in theory, sadly though, they are not effective at keeping citizens safe. When a person has the intent of killing people and they can either go to a location that may have concealed weapons being carried or to a location that only police officers can carry weapons, which one do you think they will choose? Surely they will choose the location that they feel will result in the most casualties, and since gun-free zones place the safety of law-abiding citizens solely on the security/police force, then the gunmen will be more likely to attack the gun-free zone. The reason gun-free zones are not effective is because they turn law-abiding citizens into sitting targets, whereas when the citizens are allowed to carry concealed weapons, they will have a much higher chance of preventing/stoping an attack.

  • Gun-free zones simply create intervening-citizen-free zones.

    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.

  • Arena of Choice

    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.

  • They have proven ineffective in stopping mass shootings

    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.

  • Doesn't do squat

    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.

  • Submarine with a screen 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."

  • Not at all.

    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.

  • Gun free zones are easy targets

    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.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.