The Irrationality Of The “Gun Free Zone”

gun-free-zoneConsider for a moment what “Gun Free Zone” actually means. Not just the obvious — that a Gun Free Zone is an area or building in which the normal laws governing firearms possession and carry are superseded by a blanket prohibition. But the actual implementation of the restrictions, and how they can be enforced in a rational manner.

I, and I have to assume most of the readers of this blog, are reasonably law-abiding people, and will not knowingly break the law (speed limits and mattress tags excepted), especially when the penalties are significant. As much as I want to carry a concealed weapon, I will not, because in the state of New Jersey, to do so legally is impossible, and to do so illegally risks an insanely disproportionate response from the jack-booted thugs of government.

And were I to live in a state that respects my natural right to self defense, I would still respect the insanity of the “Gun Free Zone,” heretofore known as GFZ, and not carry my weapon into those areas (or just avoid those areas whenever feasible). That is because I am a law-abiding citizen. That’s just how we roll.

But criminals don’t obey the law. That is pretty much the definition of “criminal.” And Mohammedans intent on practicing their religion and killing infidels will also ignore the law and enter GFZs at will, as we saw last week in San Bernardino California.

One way to prevent the entrance of a gun-wielding sociopath, or a sane but evil Muslim on the way to commit atrocities in the name of his deity is to stop and frisk them before they enter the GFZ.

Stop-And-Frisk, the technique that was used to great effect in NYC to minimize crime is based on a 1968 Supreme Court ruling in Terry v. Ohio that there is no violation of our 4th Amendment protections against unreasonable search and seizure when a police officer stops someone on the street and frisks him without probable cause, if the officer has a reasonable suspicion that the person is armed and dangerous, essentially changing “probable cause” to “reasonable suspicion.” There are significant limitations, including one that does not allow searches merely for evidence gathering.

And surprise, surprise, the progressives hate Stop-And-Frisk, and the second their NYC poster boy for Socialism took office as mayor, he ended the practice (That crime and quality of life issues in New York are skyrocketing is George Bush’s fault). They claim that it is profiling (why that is bad, I have no idea. It sounds smart to me), they claim it is racist because cops were disproportionately searching minorities. Hell, I think they claim it causes childhood obesity and Dutch Elm Disease.

But the concept of Stop-And-Frisk is sound; take guns away from criminals before they use them. So the most logical way of enforcing GFZs would be to surround them with police officers who would be charged with frisking all people who satisfy the criteria of a Terry search. Obviously the number of officers available at each GFZ would have to be sufficient to handle an attack such as the one at the Inland Regional Center.

Assuming that there are 10,000 GFZs in America (I have no idea, but let’s start there), and assuming that each facility has only one entrance (silly yes, but humor me), and the tactical requirements to handle even one shooter would be several officers, we arrive at: 10,000 GFZs x 5 officers x 4 shifts (weekends, vacation, etc) = 200,000 additional police officers.

That’s about $10 billion/year. Play with the numbers and you will discover that I am probably low-balling by quite a lot.

Of course the success of this plan is dependent on many things. The tactical awareness of the cops at each of these GFZs has to be perfect, or they will get shot up first, instead of stopping the terrorist attack (or crazy person attack). And the bad guys can’t just change their targets to some other location that is not defended, but is gun free nonetheless. That would be pretty much anywhere in the many states that do not allow, or severely restrict, concealed carry.

Yes….it’s ridiculous. Defending GFZs is impossible. There is one way to mitigate the damage however. That would be the simple and cheap plan of allowing concealed carry in all 50 states, possibly with a federal concealed carry permit. Hell, charge $200 for it and it will be a net gain for the treasury.

Will millions of newly armed Americans be able stop every terrorist or crazy attack? Of course not. But just returning fire will disrupt and slow the plans of all but the best trained of these people, and some will simply give up and either cower or kill themselves. That behavior is seen over and over in these mass shootings. As soon as the cops show up, the lunatic eats his gun.

So the intent of the GFZ, while possibly noble, ignores human nature, the nature of evil, and is risable as a public policy to stop or minimize gun crime and terrorism. But it looks pretty on signs, and as a campaign point it sounds wonderful. The only rational solution — concealed carry in all 50 states — is one that will be rejected out of hand, because the mandarins inside the beltway simply do not trust or believe in the American people.

7 comments to “The Irrationality Of The “Gun Free Zone””
  1. As a supporter of property rights, I have to acquiesce that property owners should have the right to allow or not allow guns into their premises. I would, for example, never bring my new Ruger 10/22 to my friend’s house who’s wife is a raving anti-gun nut, simply because it’s their house and they don’t want it in there.
    Granted I also support the right of property owners to decide if they want to allow smoking in their building or not, and the left took that away from us.

    Having said that, while I think they should have the right to not allow guns, I’m still free to criticize the wisdom of doing so.

  2. And schools, which are an arm of government? Are they too allowed to declare my right to self-defense null and void? And the quasi-private places such as that in San Bernardino? They take government money, like universities and libraries and….

    The thing is….if we accept property rights, then we must accept signs that say “No Muslims Allowed.”

  3. The government and the starry-eyed liberals want to deprive us of the right to self-defense, while their actions make that right more and more necessary.

    Yes, it is wonderful (and, I suppose, Christian) to avoid a fight wherever possible. But when one lives in a society fraught with danger, advertising one’s unwillingness and inability to fight is the height of stupidity.

    I too respect GFZs. I simply don’t enter them. People die in them. That said, I dislike “Stop & Frisk,” even though I would voluntarily submit to a police search when necessary. I simply refuse to support any law or procedure that gives fools an opportunity to go beyond what is written and deprive me of my rights.

  4. I too dislike “Stop And Frisk.” The concept is lovely, but the reality is fraught with abuse. But I absolutely approve of private entities demanding a frisk before entering their facilities.

    I have no right to enter Safeway or Macys or the local movie theater.

    I have every right to walk past their doors and go to Krogers or Lord & Taylor or stay at home with NetFlix.

    My point, which i obscured under too much fluff, is that the 2nd Amendment is clear, and should be the unequivocal law of the land.

    When Americans are armed, Muslim terrorists will die.

  5. True.
    But then I’m weird in that as a matter of freedom and marketplace I’m OK with accepting those signs as a purely legal matter. Whether I choose to enter such a place is another issue entirely.

    As for quasi-arms of the government I confess that gets to be a tad more complicated. There are of course practical security concerns to consider. But that’s true regardless of guns being allowed or not (if you have people simply wandering around your school building you’ve already got big problems.)

    I am of course starting with the low hanging fruit of private property rights. Where I go beyond that is something I’m still considering.

  6. If my employer chooses to keep me from protecting myself at work, then they should be responsible for my security at work and held liable for any potential damages.

  7. I agree. And tort law probably backs you up. But that’s small comfort if you are dead.

    I’ll take my 2nd Amendment rights any day over a large but posthumous settlement with my employer’s insurance company.

Comments are closed.