I'll admit, I'm torn on the "Gun Free Zones" issue. That being said, I offer this from a blog written by Jim Wright on what he proposes is a fundamental misunderstanding of the purposes of "Gun Free Zones".
To say that gun free zones have failed shows a profound lack of understanding of what those laws, indeed laws in general, were supposed to do in the first place. Nobody (OK, almost nobody) expected gun free zones to completely prevent gun violence. We expected those laws to give us options and legal recourse in the case of certain events. And they have done exactly that. But nobody (OK, almost nobody) expected them to stop gun violence completely.
Just as the law doesn’t stop crime.
That’s not the law’s primary function.
The primary function of the law is to provide society with legal recourse in the face of antisocial behavior, i.e. behavior that infringes on the rights and property of others or upon the security of the society and its people.
If you don’t have a law that makes a school a gun free zone, then when a kid brings a gun to school with the (maybe) intention of threatening his classmates, even if you catch him before he can use it, law enforcement’s options are limited. The school can (maybe) kick him out for violating a school policy, but the law can’t touch him, not really, unless he violated some local gun ordinance or specifically transmitted a threat. And so he goes home, gets the rest of his mommy’s guns and comes back. But if you have a gun free zone, then by law the cops can arrest him the first time and have him evaluated for potential violence and maybe save your kid’s life. And that has happened hundreds of times since implementation of the Gun Free Zones.
For the full blog post, please visit
http://www.stonekettle.com/2012/12/bang-bang-crazy-part-four.html
.
To be honest, I've heard just about every argument possible, both pro and con on gun free zones. I don't believe for one second they were ever intended to be any more effective than, let's say, a stop sign in "preventing" a lawbreaker from doing what they do best - breaking the law. Following Mr. Wright's logic would seem to me to be a reasonable approach to the issue - legal recourse. Law enforcement, including School Resource Officers (if the school has one) are exempted from the no carry requirement of gun free zones. The National Association of School Resource Officers put out a press release following the tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary saying they do not support arming anyone other than fully trained law enforcement personnel:
Q: Should anyone else, other than a police officer, be armed on school property (e.g. school staff, community volunteers, etc. who are not law enforcement officers)?
A: No. NASRO believes that only a fully-trained law enforcement officer should carry a firearm on school property. In addition, law enforcement officers assigned permanently to schools should receive specialized SRO training as soon as possible.
Link:
http://www.nasro.org/
They aren't the only law enforcement organization coming out against this concept. There are also other law enforcement that support the possibility.
My point is, elimination of gun free zones, while perhaps sounding good on the face of it, may actually open a Pandora's Box of unintended consequences. If we can't get unanimity from law enforcement on this issue, how will we be able to address the potential problems that could occur if CCW and/or open carry are allowed with no forethought about liability issues of such a policy?
I fully support the School Resource Officer Program. I hold no illusions regarding their ability to reduce the probability of a school shooting to an absolute zero. I believe that's impossible, no matter what we try to do. But I do believe an armed SRO in every school would be a viable deterrent.
And, yes, I am painfully aware that an armed security guard at Columbine High School could not prevent or mitigate the tragedy there. My daughter was one of the kids outside the school critically injured in the first volley of gunfire.
