Should "Gun Free Zones" be Eliminated

There's a movement afoot that's actually been going on for quite some time now to try and eliminate so-called "Gun Free Zones". In fact, Representative Patrick Neville has introduced legislation at the state level multiple times to do just that without success thus far.

In that vein, I decided to try and conduct a very unscientific poll with one very simple, very straightforward question: "Should Gun Free Zones be Eliminated"? Follow link below if you choose to participate.

I get this is unscientific. I get that it's vague. I get that it doesn't specify anything beyond the actual "elimination" of gun free zones as far as choices go. That's all intentional on my part.

If you choose to participate, please click on the "Yes" or "No" button. That's the only way to actually register your vote. The settings for this poll are "Public", so there should be no problems with accessing it if you have a FB account.

Should "Gun Free Zones" be Eliminated?

Thanks in advance.

They are naïve at best and only the law abiding obey them.

Well, the results are in for the very unscientific poll on "gun free zones" I put out there a few days ago:

643 "Yes" votes for elimination vs 147 "No" votes against elimination.

It looks like some folks simply do not like so-called "gun free zones".

A total of 790 votes were cast.

When the poll began, the "No" votes far outweighed the "Yes" votes. Along about midway through the voting period, however, there seemed to be an onslaught, a tidal wave of sorts, of "Yes" votes. I can only assume the reason was because the poll was shared on a couple of sites where pro-gun advocates hang around, they saw it, and ran with it. In the overall scheme of things, that really wasn't too unexpected.

One big takeaway for me in even doing this poll was the number of men who voted for elimination compared to women who voted for same. It wasn't even close. In fact, of the 643 votes cast to "eliminate" gun free zones, under 30 were women by my count. There may have been a few I missed because the names were more gender "neutral", but that doesn't change the fact the overwhelming majority voting for elimination were men. Should that be a talking point? Should it be the subject of further analysis? Well, perhaps down the road a bit.

And, for the record, I'm pretty neutral on the issue of "gun free zones" either way. I believe they are the "windmill" in an almost Don Quixotesque effort going after something that really isn't the problem some might have us believe.

So, where DO we go from here?

We've all heard the standard talking points of the pro-gun advocacy folks regarding gun free zones as to "why" they feel these zones should be eliminated. We've also heard the standard responses from the anti-gun advocacy groups as to why those talking points allegedly don't hold any water. However, the "why" gun free zones should be eliminated or kept isn't where I'm trying to take this. Rather, the "how" gun free zones should be eliminated is.

For those wanting gun free zones to be eliminated, it's now incumbent on you to figure out "how" that's supposed to happen given existing laws, rules, policies, regulations at all levels of government. The "why" really doesn't matter in this debate simply because, again, that's been pretty much debated to death already. If gun free zones are to be eliminated, what is that supposed to look like? Serious question, folks: what IS that supposed to look like?

I'll just leave it at that for now until I can come up with wording on the next "poll" to reflect HOW gun free zones are to be eliminated if that's the majority's wishes.

BTW, if you want to view the poll results, the link in the OP should still take you there.

Thanks for participating.

...

ZHawkeTed wrote:
If gun free zones are to be eliminated, what is that supposed to look like? Serious question, folks: what IS that supposed to look like?

.

...

It seems to be a local issue and looks like this.

townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2018/...to-be-armed-n2454454

"These are a handful of examples, there are many more. Further, 18 states allow adults with carry permits to be armed on campus so long as they get proper approval from school officials.

-Alabama (which bans possessing a weapon on school grounds only if the carrier has "intent to do bodily harm")
-California (with approval of the superintendent)
-Connecticut (with approval of "school officials")
-Hawaii (no specific law)
-Idaho (with school trustees' approval)
-Iowa (with "authorization")
-Kentucky (with school board approval)
-Massachusetts (with approval of the school board or principal)
-Mississippi (with school board approval)
-Montana (with school trustees' permission)

-New Hampshire (ban applies only to pupils, not adults)
-New Jersey (with approval from the school's "governing officer")
-New York (with the school's approval)
-Oregon (with school board approval)
-Rhode Island (with a state concealed weapons permit)
-Texas (with the school's permission)
-Utah (with approval of the "responsible school administrator")
-Wyoming (as long as it's not concealed)

You've touched on something I would venture to say that very few people truly understand about gun free zone laws, in general....that it seems to be a local issue.

The facts are:

1. The Federal Gun Free School Zones Act has no real "teeth" to speak of when it comes to schools, local communities, or states deciding whether or not to comply. That's neither good nor bad. It just is. The penalties for non-compliance are not directed toward schools unless they wish to receive Federal education funds. Rather, they are directed at those who violate the provisions of the Act, itself, by levying fines and/or jail time. That, too, is neither good nor bad. It just is
2. Some states (like Colorado) have laws on the books that prohibit carrying on school grounds (C.R.S. 18-12-105.5, I believe), but there are no laws specifically that I could find establishing "gun free zones" while using that language. That's not to say they don't exist. Rather, it's just that I couldn't find any.

If Colorado, for example, were to go the route of these other states that already allow some form of carry on school campuses, would that necessarily also require the repeal of C.R.S. 18-12-105.5, or, at the very least, to cherry pick wording about "schools" out of existing law? In other words, would someone be breaking existing and current law simply by saying they're going to allow guns on campus?

I get where you are trying to go with your post, BB. I just want to try and take that view a few steps further. As it is currently with weed laws in this state, it's interesting to me that the Feds are still tap dancing around which level of government takes precedence. Would it, or should it, be the same with gun free zones?

Also, taking it beyond being applicable to schools, the truth is businesses, public venues, places of worship, etal, don't have laws on the books that I'm aware of either allowing or disallowing gun free zones. Should legislation be passed that addresses those venues either way? If legislation is passed allowing carry of any kind in these kinds of venues, does that mean there's a ban or prohibition placed on those venues regarding them wanting their premises to be "gun free zones"?

When someone advocating for elimination of gun free zones goes public with that advocacy (in this case, I'm going to single out Representative Patrick Neville because he's called for elimination of gun free zones without discussing what the potential collateral considerations might be), shouldn't they also consider the potential impacts on those organizations who still want their premises to be gun free zones....ala the recent brouhaha in Colorado over a baker refusing to serve a gay couple and what many consider to be government overreach from a state level forcing the baker to do so?

Just some additional food for thought....

I checked statistics last night and the ones I found say 96.2% of mass shootings occur in Gun-Free Zones. And what do you expect? You hang a sign on the door that says "we are completely defenseless. All of you crazies come on in and do what you will--we will not give you any resistance". INCREDIBLY NAIVE! Take guns from law abiding citizens and what you have are bad guys with guns and no defense. Sorry--I am an Equal Opportunity Survivor. If the bad guys have guns, I'll make sure that I do, also. And I am a woman--

www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2018/05/t...school-shootings.php

"THE SOLUTION TO SCHOOL SHOOTINGS
Yesterday, Matthew Milby, a former student at Dixon High School in Illinois, entered the school and fired several shots near the gymnasium where students had assembled for graduation rehearsal. He was then confronted by Mark Dallas, who has been with the Dixon Police Department for more than a decade and has spent the past few years as school resource officer. (Dixon, by the way, is the boyhood home of Ronald Reagan).

Milby ran away, leaving the school. Dallas chased him. When Milby shot at Dallas, he returned the fire, striking the former student who was then taken into custody.

A few more cases like the one in Dixon should largely end the tragic fad of shooting up schools. The losers who do the shooting want to go succeed and, in some cases, to go out in a blaze of “glory.” They don’t want to chalk up yet another inglorious loss. Thus, if they don’t think they’ll produce carnage, they are unlikely to undertake the mission."...

Blazer Bob, thank you for sharing that commentary.

At the outset, the article appeared to mirror my own perspectives regarding School Resource Officers. I don't have statistics readily available as to how many school shootings have been prevented both prior to or during a school shooting taking place, but here lately there have been quite a few instances of both that have garnered at least a small bit of media attention. I believe the reason might be because actual statistics on the prevention prior to side of things are so very hard, if not actually impossible, to track.

That being said, the author of the blog lost me when he started advocating the mantra of arming school staff. That is a patently bad idea. More to come on that one as soon as I finish writing my own blog post on that issue.

There is a local talking head on AM 710 right now who is advocating metal detectors for ingress to schools. When I was a recruiter almost 30 years ago, some metro Detroit high schools had metal detectors.