Monday, January 7, 2013

Fixing the Fallacy of the Gun Free Zone

I am a genius. I've figured out how to fix the broken concept of the "gun-free zone".

The Mrs. and I got into a discussion after getting an e-mail from the National PTA. It's an anti-gun wish list, full of mandatory licenses, waiting periods, and bans. They're Brady jockstrap sniffers of the highest order, and there is no craven depth to which they do not sink. In it was this nugget, though:

National PTA believes that in order to achieve an effective school climate, schools must be completely gun-free.

Ah, yes. That worked so well in Colombine and Newtown, didn't it? The magic gun-free zone force field that are activated by putting up a piece of paper somehow failed in those instances, right? All those women killed by their abusive exs who died with active restraining orders, well, those gun (knife/hand/bat) free zones malfunctioned too, right? While we're wishing for crap that'll never work, I'd like an electric car that can travel 500 miles on a charge and doesn't burst into flames...

Sorry. Whenever I hear "gun-free zone" it sets off a reflexive haterage... 

Anyways, I got to thinking about it. Designating a certain area as a "Gun Free Zone" does what, exactly? It certainly doesn't stop the criminally inclined. It doesn't stop the crazies, either. It only affects the law abiding - I think that's something that everyone can agree on, right? Criminals - by their very definition - do not obey the law. Neither do the insane - they're simply not capable.

So. If only the law-abiding are the ones that the "gun-free zones" are affecting, I have an idea. 

Why not make the crime the *discharging* of a firearm in one of those areas?

Make it a first degree felony like murder, even - provided, of course, that there are provisions for justifiable discharge as there are for homicide. We do the same thing for discharging of a firearm in populated areas - making it illegal is only going to stop those who generally obey the law in the first place. No one cares if there's a firearm in the area; they only care if someone discharges it without a damn good reason.

Let's be honest. The whole "binding signage" is one big plea bargain - it's an extra charge tacked on to a criminal's list of crimes that can be bargained away or used to pile on jail time. The only reason this exists is so that you can charge Billy Bank robber with armed robbery *and* violating the gun-free zone in hopes that he'll plead down to armed criminal mischief for an easy conviction. So make the crime "discharge of a firearm" rather than mere possession and call it a day?

I mean, hell, it can't be any less effective than a "Gun Free Zone" sign, right?

That is all.


skidmark said...

There you go again, using logic and reason to solve an emotional problem. GUNZ R BAD because, regardless if they are owned/used by law-abiding itizens or criminals, they represent the ability to assert individual will over others - and only the State should be able to tell people what to do.

Go read Major Caudill's essay again - you knpow, the one that Marko wrote.

stay safe.

Pam said...

Just another stupid law that criminals will ignore. Most of these nut job a-holes end up dying anyway, so why should they care?

And there is no bargaining with anti-gun nut job a-holes, either.

Anonymous said...

I just read that the Shooter on Christmas Eve who killed the two firefighters (Peace be upon them, the fallen) had convinced his neighbor to purchase the firearms and then give them to him, or some such because he could not legally purchase the same. I sure do not hear any anti-gunners saying we need another law for that incident.

Incidentally, the National PTA article mentions many "new ideas" and "laws" that are actually on the books. Perhaps if they spent more time reading and researching they might learn something. While I am waiting for that to happen; can I get one of those 500-mile electric cars in blue please?

Daniel in Brookline said...

Nah. I'd rather see a gun-friendly establishment make fun of the genre:

"WARNING: only lawful concealed-carriers may carry guns here! It is UNLAWFUL for criminals, miscreants, and Bad Guys to carry guns on the premises. If you're not a Good Guy, you must be unarmed. Really."

or maybe:

"WARNING! Gun Free Zone. No guns of any sort are permitted here. Criminals wishing to ignore this sign: yes, we mean you too! And we're serious! Help us keep this a Gun Free Zone by committing your crimes somewhere else."

Hmm. Maybe next time I go to the range, I'll cut out some paper images of revolvers. Then I can put up a sign reading "GUN FREE ZONE. Getcher free gun here."

Ed said...

OK kids, only you can help Tinkerbell get better. If you truly believe in fairies, clap your hands! Harder!

That has a much basis in reality as the National PTA's position and for those who think that posting "Gun Free Zones" will keep them safe. Wish and dream harder, kids!

Braden Lynch said...

...and the National PTA thinks they should be involved in the education of our kids?


They would first have to pull their heads out of the posterior portion of a magical unicorn. What part of "disconnected from reality" do they not understand?

Gun Free Zones only result in the deaths of innocents. Anyone who advocates them is insane and evil.