Wednesday Chronicle

'Gun Free' Zones Are Often Anything But

Jul. 25, 2012

The Foundation

“Laws that forbid the carrying of arms … disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.” –Cesare Beccaria

Editorial Exegesis

“Colorado is a concealed-carry state … but so was Virginia when a college campus there was racked by violence. Like the school, the theater chain was also ‘gun-free.’ In December 2007, two church members were shot to death and three others injured after a gunman opened fire outside the New Life Church in Colorado Springs as Sunday services were wrapping up. That tragedy could have been much worse, but the gunman was shot by a church security officer and was found dead when police arrived at the scene. On April 22 of this year a just-released felon went to the New Destiny Christian Church in Aurora, Colo., and killed the mother of Pastor Delano Strahan before being killed himself by a congregant carrying a gun. Unlike the tragedies at Columbine High School and the movie theatre in Aurora, there was someone at these venues willing and able to shoot back. … The similarities between Aurora and the Virginia Tech massacre are eerie and maddening. In 2006, a Virginia Tech student was disciplined for carrying a gun on campus, despite having a permit. School officials were quick to note their school was a ‘gun-free zone.’ On April 16, 2007, there was no one able to shoot back when Seung-Hui Cho shot 32 people to death on a Virginia Tech campus. … Few Americans are aware that in an October 1997 shooting spree at a Pearl, Miss., high school that left two students dead, assistant principal Joel Myrick retrieved a gun from his car and immobilized the shooter until police arrived, preventing further killings. Or, in another school shooting in January 2002 at the Appalachian School of Law in Virginia, a disgruntled former student killed Law Dean L. Anthony Sutin, associate professor Thomas Blackwell and a student. Two of the three Virginia law students who overpowered the gunman were armed, preventing further deaths. In February 2007, at a Salt Lake City mall, armed off-duty police officer Ken Hammond killed a young Muslim named Sulejman Talovic after he had killed five people, preventing an even larger massacre. Yet liberals will insist the answer to criminal violence is more ‘gun-free’ zones and the disarming of more potential victims.” –Investor’s Business Daily

Upright

“[T]he gun lobby is the majority of the American people. It’s not a lobby that’s stopping all this [gun control legislation]. The reason that the lobby is strong is because it represents overwhelming opinion in the United States. And how do we know that? The president of the United States, who had this tremendous opening if he wanted to push the issue of guns after a tragedy of this magnitude could easily have done it and he has assiduously stayed away from it because he knows it’s a losing political proposition.” –columnist Charles Krauthammer

“[T]he chain that owns the theater where the [Colorado] massacre took place has a no-weapons policy, which oddly enough did not deter the shooter any more than Colorado’s strict laws against murder did.” –Wall Street Journal columnist James Taranto

“When a radio host asked me what I thought of the massacre in Aurora, Colo., I had to ask for clarification. I said: ‘What do you mean? Who could deny it’s an unspeakable tragedy?’ What he was really asking me was to address it in a political context. The problem is that I don’t believe there was any political context to the shooting; not everything is political. But unfortunately, elements of the left seemed determined to graft political implications onto the event, irrespective of the absence of any factual basis for doing so. They seized on it both to demonize grass-roots conservatives and to pump new life into their perennial campaign against the Second Amendment.” –columnist David Limbaugh

“The news media … believe they have a higher calling than reporting news. In order to understand this, I offer this anecdote. A number of years ago, I was asked to moderate a panel of judges that included a former, very liberal, California Supreme Court justice. At one point, the justice said that his role as a judge was to fight inequality, poverty and racism. … People on the left think the way the judge did. The primary purpose of every profession, as they see it, is to increase what they call social justice. … So when [ABC’s] Brian Ross linked the Aurora mass murderer to the Tea Party, in his mind, he was doing the right thing. Is there one person in America who believes that if Ross had discovered a James Holmes in Aurora active in the ACLU, he would have reported it? … [D]efeating the right is more important than moral or factual accuracy.” –columnist Dennis Prager

Dezinformatsia

With extreme prejudice: “There’s a Jim Holmes of Aurora, Colorado, page on the Colorado Tea Party site as well, talking about him joining the Tea Party last year. Now, we don’t know if this is the same Jim Holmes. But it’s Jim Holmes of Aurora, Colorado.” –ABC’s Brian Ross, jumping to conclusions (He later apologized, though not to the innocent man that he unfairly and falsely implied had committed a heinous crime.)

Be afraid. Be very afraid: “It turns out this shooter, this alleged shooter in Colorado, had no rap sheet, so he was able to buy his guns in a store legally. But even if he had a violent criminal record he still could have bought them. This morning we’re about to show you how easy it is for anyone, even criminals, to buy assault weapons.” –NBC’s Jeff Rossen

Race bait: “[If the weapons used in the Colorado shooting] had been stockpiled by a person who was more likely to look reasonably offensive – a Muslim or another minority – do you think that the red flag would have gone up sooner than with this seemingly innocent young white man, who under cover and protection of appearing normal, was out to do some heinous deeds?” –MSNBC’s Michael Eric Dyson

The BIG Lie: “Suspected Aurora Shooter Amassed Huge Arsenal Online With No Background Checks” –Huffington Post headline

The BIG Lie II: “Nationally, there have been about 60 multiple shootings in the past 18 months. A recurring theme, say gun-control activists, is the ability of the shooters to obtain high-powered weapons, such as the AR-15 assault rifle and Glock pistols used by alleged Aurora shooter James Holmes. But the powerful National Rifle Association has blocked any move for stricter gun laws, meaning that, for now, beefed-up security and greater vigilance may be the best protection against horrific attacks like the one in Aurora.” –NBC’s Michael Isikoff

Feel-good theology: “Guns provide the illusion of safety and it is an illusion. People who own guns are more likely to die from gun violence than those who do not own guns. … Trust in God means obedience to what God wants for human life; it requires that believers act together with others, including people of other faiths and humanist values, to create a society where guns are regarded as the problem, not the solution. Jesus' teaching on this could not be clearer. … This is Jesus' challenge to Christians: put away the guns.” –Washington Post “On Faith” contributor Susan Brooks Thistlethwaite

Newspulper Headlines:

We Blame George W. Bush: “Accused Child-Foot Licker Blames President Obama” –San Francisco Chronicle website

Shortest Books Ever Written: “Where Obama Shines” –The New York Times

Out on a Limb: “Gay, Bisexual Black Men at High Risk for HIV” –CNN.com

Yeah, Right, That’s What They’re Doing There: “Tulsa Police Seek Doughnut Shop Robber” –Associated Press

News You Can Use: “U.S. Cultural Tip: Don’t Wear a Speedo. Ever.” –Moscow Times

Bottom Story of the Day: “Obama Flouts the Rule of Law” –National Review Online

(Thanks to The Wall Street Journal’s James Taranto)

Village Idiots

See no evil: “Our economy is getting stronger. It may not be going fast enough, but by every measure our economy is getting stronger.” –former DNC Chief Howard Dean

Straw man: “[Lawmakers] have been cowed by a handful of advocates who think that the right to bear arms allows you to go out and kill people at random.” –NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg

Tyranny starts here: “I don’t understand why the police officers across this country don’t stand up collectively and say we’re gonna go on strike, we’re not gonna protect you unless you, the public, through your legislature, do what’s required to keep us safe.” –Bloomberg, who we doubt would go without his armed entourage

Alpha Jackass: “Because of the Aurora, Colorado, tragedy, the American Congress must review its mistaken legislation on guns. It’s doing damage to us all.” –Mexican President Felipe Calderon, continuing to blame the U.S. for his own country’s problems – 55,000 drug- and gang-related deaths during his tenure

The Demo-gogues

That’s kind of creepy: “In 2008, I tried to only make promises that I could keep, or work on keeping. And I told you then I was not a perfect man and I wouldn’t be a perfect president. But I also told you I would always tell you what I thought, I’d always tell you where I stood. And most of all, I would wake up every single day, every single day and spend every waking hour thinking about you. Fighting as hard as I knew how for you. Because I see myself in you.” –Barack Obama

Apologetics: “Just like the 20th century, the 21st is going to be another great American Century. For we are Americans, blessed with the greatest form of government ever devised by man, a democracy dedicated to freedom and committed to the ideals that still light the world. We will never apologize for our way of life; we will never waver in its defense.” –Barack Obama (Meanwhile, here’s a look at Obama’s top ten apologies for America.)

There I fixed it: “Because we’re leading around the world, people have a new attitude toward America. There’s more confidence in our leadership. We see it everywhere we go.” –Barack Obama

Pay down debt by “investing”: “I believe the only way to create an economy built to last is to strengthen the middle class. Asking the wealthy to pay a little more so we can pay down our debt in a balanced way. So that we can afford to invest in education, manufacturing, and homegrown American energy for good middle class jobs. Sometimes politics can seem very small. But the choice you face, it couldn’t be bigger.” –Barack Obama

Um, 8.2 percent unemployment: “[W]e tried our plan – and it worked.” –Barack Obama

Distractions: “When I run for president of the United States, you can hold me to that standard [of being required to release my tax returns]. … [Romney] is running for president of the United States. His party is calling on him to release his returns. It’s up to him to take the consequences of not doing it, or doing it, but not to deflect [the issue] to say, ‘Well, if he has to do it, why doesn’t everybody else have to do it?’ Because everybody else isn’t running for president of the United States, and that’s the last thing I’m going to say about it.” –House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi

Insight

“I believe in an America where the free enterprise system flourishes for all other systems to see and admire – where no businessman lacks either competition or credit – and where no monopoly, no racketeer, no government bureaucracy can put him out of business that he built up with his own initiative.” –President John F. Kennedy (1917-1963)

“We have plenty of freedom in this country but not a great deal of independence.” –American journalist John W. Raper (1870-1950)

Short Cuts

“Instead of gun control, has anyone thought about making mass shootings illegal?” –humorist Frank J. Fleming

“Blaming guns for murder is like blaming forks for obesity. Someone misused a gun; therefore no one’s allowed to have one. This is what passes for logic among the left.” –radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh

“President Obama spoke to two thousand people outdoors in Virginia recently. At least twenty people fainted during his speech. They really need to hand out the food stamps at the start of the president’s speeches and not make everybody wait until the end.” –comedian Argus Hamilton

“A new poll shows that 37% of voters say they’re better off now than they were 4 years ago. The other 63% said that no, they don’t work for the government.” –Fred Thompson

“If U.S unemployment remains above 8 percent or, worse yet, ticks up from its current top-line rate of 8.2 percent it will be very difficult for the Obama campaign to blame the economic situation on Romney’s tax returns.” –political analyst Rich Galen

“Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke told a congressional committee the economic recovery is weakening. But the good news is most Americans will not be affected because they had no idea there was a recovery.” –comedian Jay Leno

Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!
Nate Jackson for The Patriot Post Editorial Team

View all comments

472 Comments

Bob Apjok in roanoke, va said:

As a private business, I suppose the theater can have a "no weapons" policy (if you assume that 2nd amendment is a government restriction), but shouldnt that leave them open to lawsuits from patrons who where not protected because of this policy? By having a "no weapons" policy, and not allowing you to protect yourself, are they not then implicitely taking on the responsibility of protecting you and therefore not holding up their end of the deal?

Wednesday, July 25, 2012 at 10:41 AM

Carroll in Eastland, Tx replied:

Are our Second Amendment rights suspended when we enter the very places that are most dangerous? In my opinion, anyone that prevents us from being able to protect ourselves and our family should definitely be held responsible, unless adequate security guards are furnished by the ones that deny us our Second Amendment rights!

Wednesday, July 25, 2012 at 1:05 PM

david marshall in arizona replied:

if i am there then it's not a gun free zone as i carry EVERYWHERE. anything less does not work for me.

Wednesday, July 25, 2012 at 7:28 PM

Bruce in Utah replied:

That is a very good comment Bob. I am going to start doing some homework on that. I never really thought of it like that. I hope you don't mind if I use that.

Wednesday, July 25, 2012 at 1:46 PM

ChuckL in NV replied:

You are correct. Where are the lawyers?

Wednesday, July 25, 2012 at 6:39 PM

Tony in Aiken, SC replied:

In TX I was told that a business was liable for your protection if they had a no guns policy.

Thursday, July 26, 2012 at 11:03 AM

Cynthia in San Francisco replied:

Does that mean that if a terrorist planted a bomb, and it exploded, the private business would be responsible because it had a "no weapons" policy?

Or, what if a theater had a "weapons welcome" policy, and an armed gunman starting shooting, and twenty armed patrons started shooting first at him, but then at each other becuase of the smoke and confusion? Would the theater be responsible for the carnage due to its "weapons welcome" policy?

Thursday, August 2, 2012 at 6:57 AM

Sue in Branson, MO replied:

Actually, Cynthia, we are small business owners and we proudly display our CCW sign--that means conceal-carry people are definitely welcome in our business. Obviously you don't say "weapons welcome" but frankly the more "good guys" I have at my business the safer I feel. People tend to forget that the conceal carry people are on your side, not the side of the criminals. I personally agree with the concept that when a business forbids you to protect yourself, they are totally responsible for your safety. Hope this helps explain it to you. God bless.

Thursday, August 16, 2012 at 8:19 AM

Larry Drummond in Lafayette, Indiana said:

I am a gun owner! I use it for target practice only, however I will use it to protect my family.

Wednesday, July 25, 2012 at 11:10 AM

Pete G. in MS said:

"Gun Free" zones are nothing but a safe killing field for a goblin.

Wednesday, July 25, 2012 at 11:11 AM

LibertyIsUS in Arlington, VA replied:

Let's ask the students at VA Tech.

Wednesday, July 25, 2012 at 11:28 AM

Carl Farina in Hampton, VA replied:

I too have a concealed carry permit for the state of Virginia. I actively practice my 2nd ammendment rights carrying concealed or open. I obey all the state laws in regards to this. It is my policy that, if I see a "GUN FREE" sign on any establishment I do not give them my time or my money. Enough said.

Wednesday, July 25, 2012 at 2:37 PM

Cynthia in San Francisco replied:

It's strange to consider that the U.S. Supreme Court implements a "No Gun Zone" when hearing cases, and the Republican National Convention will have a "No Gun Zone" in its Convention Hall.

Thursday, August 2, 2012 at 7:01 AM

Tom in Clearwater said:

Taking guns away from the citizens makes the world safer for tyrants, not for citizens.

Wednesday, July 25, 2012 at 11:11 AM

Tony in Aiken, SC said:

I have a completely different take on guns. I've had a gun bulletin board for 11 years, and have thought long and hard about gun control. Here is our problem, and it is a no win situation: Whatever weapons we have access to, bad guys will have access to also. How much firepower is enough? I like flintlocks and cowboy guns. If I had access to grenades and RPGs, so would the bad guys. How much firepower are you happy with bad guys being able to obtain? Modern guns and ammunition just get more and more deadly. I have a SKS with 40 round clips. I won't kill people, but a bad guy can buy what I'm buying too. Where is the middle ground that the public will accept, without infringing on 2nd Ammendment rights? I don't have the answer.

Wednesday, July 25, 2012 at 11:15 AM

LibertyIsUS in Arlington, VA replied:

There is no answer when the question is framed within your context; however, if one concealed-carry-trained individual was in the Aurora theater last Thursday night, I can assure you that James Holmes would have been looking for cover rather than shooting other unarmed victims.

Wednesday, July 25, 2012 at 11:35 AM

Carl in Hampton, VA replied:

I agree. Now, how do we convince the Liberal Left? Example: No 2nd ammendment rights in the state of Illinois. Citizens - or in Illinois' case Subjects - cannot carry concealed or open. Yet, Chicago has the most murders than any other city since July 12th. If the people could protect themselves I have a belief that this figure would, in time, decrease.

Wednesday, July 25, 2012 at 2:47 PM

Benevolous in Flyover Country replied:

That's the same question that was asked about the hydrogen bomb. The only answer is deterrence, not unilateral disarmament. Unfortunately, deterrence presumes a rational enemy who prefers to live. When the enemy is a religious extremist who thinks martyrdom is the only sure path to heaven, or a deranged psychopath indifferent to or unaware of the prospect of dying, deterrence can break down. But most of the time, it works. In a fallen world, that's about the best I think we can do.

Wednesday, July 25, 2012 at 11:57 AM

Rudy in Wisconsin replied:

Not really. When deterrence breaks down, that's when we have to resort to violence ourselves and stop the bad guy cold. Gun-free zones prevent the good guys from being able to resort to violence when necessary while failing to restrict bad guys at all.

Wednesday, July 25, 2012 at 2:52 PM

Benevolous in Flyover Country replied:

I agree with you. I was only responding to the original post, which suggested a spiraling arms race and what to do about it.

Wednesday, July 25, 2012 at 4:39 PM

Jeff S in Grand Rapids, MI replied:

Let's put this in the context of the Prohibition Era in the United States. Alcohol was banned yet the "bad guys" were able to obtain it while still being outlawed for the everyday Joe. The "bad guys" access never went away. If guns and ammo are outlawed today, the "bad guys" access will still be there.

Wednesday, July 25, 2012 at 1:06 PM

Jayme Barlow in Greenville, FL replied:

I don't have a problem with everyone having access to the same stuff I do. I don't want to be hamstrung by some dopey politician who isn't going to be around when I need a bullet shield. Do you think Mayor "Gun Ban" Bloomberg would loan me one of his many bodyguards? As far as "Bad Guys" having access to firearms, felons are prohibited from having firearms. That law works as well as the Gun Free zones. The Nut Jobs who have yet to be identified are just as dangerous but, I would rather take my chances being able to protect myself than have regulations that prevent me, a law-abiding citizen from carrying whatever it may be that I desire to carry. That is why they call it Personal Responsibility.

Wednesday, July 25, 2012 at 1:26 PM

Jody in Phoenix,Az. replied:

Jayme i agree with you 99% i am a convicted felon class 2 class A and i have a concealed permit i also have a OVJ for my felony because i jumped threw all the hoops and your last sentence says it best

Wednesday, July 25, 2012 at 2:57 PM

rab in jo,mo replied:

That's some convoluted thinking right there. Criminals have access to whatever weapons they have the motivation to obtain. It has nothing whatsoever with what the law-abiding may own.

Most criminals obtain weapons from three sources: 1) they steal them, 2)they make them (it's not that hard if you have access to metalworking machines), or 3)they buy them on the black market. Don't think that weapons can't be smuggled into the country along with drugs or other contraband.

In no State can someone walk in off the street and legally purchase a fully-automatic weapon without undergoing fingerprinting, background check, and buyoff from the Chief law enforcement officer in that jurisdiction. A class 03 FFL (or 07 SWOT license) requires the same scrutiny. There's also the issue of the $200 tax stamp that must be purchased from the BATFE anytime a full-auto is transferred. Possession of a full-auto without the tax stamp and paperwork will earn you 10yrs in Club Fed and a hefty fine. Do you really think all of this prevents criminals from obtaining a fully-automatic weapon if they so desire?

By the way, while most SKS are clip-fed, I've never encountered ammunition clips holding more than 10 rds that function with an SKS. Now there are aftermarket extended magazines for the SKS that hold 40rds, but no clips.

Wednesday, July 25, 2012 at 4:57 PM

ChuckL in NV replied:

Tony, If you will check out the actual results of these confrontations, you will find that just the presentation of the gun will often send the bad guy running.

Most criminals use the same analysis for their business as successful businessmen. They weigh the disadvantages (costs) against the expected advantages (profits).

That is why every state that has gone to "Shall Issue" on concealed carry permits has had an immediate reduction in ALL violent crime.

Wednesday, July 25, 2012 at 6:51 PM

Cynthia in San Francisco replied:

Chuck, do you have a source for that claim (states' data on concealed carry permits issued per capita versus violent crime per capita over time)? Of course, correlation does not prove causation, but a positive correlation would, at the very least, be a positive correlation, despite the possibility that other factors might be in play. A positive correlation between increased concealed carry permits and decreased violent crime rates would be right up the NRA's alley: have they conducted any social science surveys of such data? Can you link me to the NRA's data on this, or such data from any other reputable source?

In any case, as someone who believes in reasonable gun control (effective background checks to prohibit criminals and people with mental illness from accessing guns legally; guns may be maintained in the home, and used in hunting game, but people should not be entitled to carry them everywhere and anywhere; and no right for every American to build his or her own personal military arsenal), a decided drop in violent crime that coincided with increased concealed carry permits would certainly make an impression.

Thursday, August 2, 2012 at 7:25 AM

Scotch62 in O-town FL replied:

Tony- the problem is your context. Every man should have the Liberty to act in his own enlightened self interest, as long as he doesn't infringe on the rights (health, life, liberty, property) of others. At the time a "bad guy" attempts to infringe upon your life, liberty or property, you should have the right to defend yourself with whatever tool the "bad guy" can acquire. Train, hope for the best, prepare for the worst. Gun free zone = possible killing field because the bad guy doesn't care.

Wednesday, July 25, 2012 at 11:58 PM

Captain Bob in Columbus, Ohio replied:

You are somewhat right but have it backwards. While any "firepower" available to the good guys would be available also to the bad guys, if you disarm the good guys the bad guys will prevail because the gun is the "equalizer." It can give self-defense power to a disabled man, an elderly grandmother, a frail woman. Would you want to give the advanatage to the bad guys by eliminating weapons from all? You will NEVER end violence by bad guys, The best you can do is give the good guys a chance. It's sad but we live in a violent world and it's because of violent bad people, NOT because guns exist.

Thursday, July 26, 2012 at 9:30 PM

Fred in Spring Branch, TX said:

Wish the Aurora theater massacre had occurred down here in Texas. With a full theater, there would have been at least a dozen citizens blowing holes in this monster before he could get the second shot off. Rather than creating gun free zones, issue carry permits to all and these cowards will stop this craziness. Remember, the Japanese did not consider invading the U.S. because they knew our citizens were armed and represented the greatest standing army in the world. Time for the liberal cowards to step aside.

Wednesday, July 25, 2012 at 11:15 AM

LibertyIsUS in Arlington, VA replied:

Admiral Yamato.

Wednesday, July 25, 2012 at 11:36 AM

Ben Hartley in Jaffrey, NH replied:

"Yamato" was a battleship. Yamamoto Isoroku, the Admiral, is credited but with "rifle behind every blade of grass," but he didn't say it.

Wednesday, July 25, 2012 at 2:05 PM

Benevolous in Flyover Country replied:

Neither did the Soviets, according to one general interviewed shortly after the end of the Cold War. Better yet, take the Vermont approach just adopted by Wyoming, make CCW permits optional for law-abiding citizens. Then make landowners (businesses and employers) potentially liable in negligence if they ban weapons in their establishments, and protect them from liability if they allow them.

Wednesday, July 25, 2012 at 12:01 PM

Lisa in MD replied:

I agree with you Fred. I think that if this guy knew there was a chance that anyone in that movie theater has a gun and would use it maybe he wouldn't have done it. Isn't it in Sweden where foks are required to carry a gun at least that is what I have been told and I don't hear about any crime over there.

Wednesday, July 25, 2012 at 12:21 PM

Traveller in Roanoke replied:

SWITZERLAND...Each such individual is required to keep his army-issued personal weapon (the 5.56x45mm Sig 550 rifle for enlisted personnel and/or the 9mm SIG-Sauer P220 semi-automatic pistol for officers, medical and postal personnel) at home.

This is why no one ever invades...Even Hitler had to wait for his conquest of Russia to be complete before taking on the Swiss...

Wednesday, July 25, 2012 at 5:56 PM

Uncle Bill in Pittsburgh, PA replied:

Yeah, and how do you think all those holes get in the Swiss Cheese? (Aren't you Robert E. Lee's horse?)

Wednesday, July 25, 2012 at 10:32 PM

G Dub45 in Lee's Summit, MO replied:

Lisa - I believe that would be Switzerland.
We have a good friend, dual us - Swiss citizenship, who could do a great deal in educating those educatable Liberals as to the soundness of being proficient with a handgun.

Thursday, July 26, 2012 at 5:05 AM

maria malizia in Waco, TX replied:

I love the saying, "You can have my gun when I run out of bullets." I am niot a nut but would kill to protect family or neighbor IF NECESSARY (wouldn't any sane person)!!

Sunday, July 29, 2012 at 5:30 PM

Cynthia in San Francisco replied:

Fred, this monster let off a smoke bomb, and many people could not see him through the haze. If a dozen people had started shooting, one or two close to the front may have gotten off a shot or two, but he was in full body armor. And, when good guy shooters 1 & 2 started shooting, how would good guy shooters 3 & 4 know that 1 & 2 weren't in on it with the gunman? How would guys 5 & 6 & 7 & 8... know that 1 & 2 & 3 & 4 weren't in on it? Then, what happens when the cops arrive, and they find 13 shooters shooting? What do they do? This scenario seems to me very much like a mini-war zone, a little whiff of Somalia right on our doorstep.

If Americans carrying guns everywhere became very popular, I could even imagine "troll" gunmen starting gun fights, and, in the midst of smoke and carnage, provoking anonymous good guy shooters to shoot it out while they slip away. But instead of the internet, where they'd begin a flame war, they'd be using real bullets.

"our citizens were armed and represented the greatest standing army" A standing army is very different than millions of independent and armed Americans, with no military training, discipline or command structure, which describes our current situation. .No-one on the left or the right is going to try to reintroduce conscription in today's political climate.

Besides, the Japanese did not invade Ameica because they were content to take out the Pacific Fleet in Hawaii (not because they feared armed citizens), which threatened their growing Asian empire: they were not interested in attacking the American mainland, at least not at that point.

Thursday, August 2, 2012 at 8:02 AM

TJK in Michigan said:

Well that approach has worked for drugs, no didn't work there either.
Laws don't prevent crime, people prevent crime.

Wednesday, July 25, 2012 at 11:16 AM

Captain Bob in Columbus, Ohio replied:

The only thing that will stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun...

Thursday, July 26, 2012 at 9:32 PM

Johnny C in San Antonio, Texas said:

Wisdom is - safety is an indivdual responsibility. I wonder when will victims start filing large legal suits against "Gun free zones"?

Wednesday, July 25, 2012 at 11:16 AM

Johnny C in San Antonio, Texas said:

Wisdom is - safety is an indivdual responsibility. I wonder when will victims start filing large legal suits against "Gun free zones"?

Wednesday, July 25, 2012 at 11:16 AM

Deejay in Dallas replied:

I believe that whenever there is a "Gun Free Zone" posted, the facility has taken it wholly upon themselves to protect the patrons. And, when something happens, "THEY" are 100% liable for the safety of everyone there.
I wonder what would have happened if just "one" person there had a CCP and stopped the carnage before it got as bad as it did. Remember the Luby's Cafeteria rampage in Texas years ago? That incident spawned the CCP in Texas. You have to take responsibility for you and your family's own safety. There are sheep, and there are sheep dogs. Be a sheep dog.

Thursday, July 26, 2012 at 10:17 AM

Keith Peyton in KP OF NOVA said:

I WOULD MAKE ANYONE WHO DIRECTED OR AUTHORIZED A GUN FREE ZONE TO BE LEGALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR ANYONE'S VIOLENT DEATH ON THE PREMISES REGARDLESS OF THE CAUSE OF DEATH.

Wednesday, July 25, 2012 at 11:17 AM

LibertyIsUS in Arlington, VA replied:

The only problem with your solution is that many of those who vote to pass "Gun Free Zone" laws aren't around when the shooting starts.

Wednesday, July 25, 2012 at 11:38 AM

Cheryl Smith in TN said:

If you want to be a sitting duck, continue to post 'no gun zones' because the folks that perpetrate these hideous acts will continue to look for them. They are the worst type of cowards, and NEVER adher to the law.
I think they should put this guy in CO out in the general population to deal with the criminal rank that he voluntarily put himself in.
I also think that all the politicians should NOT have tax funded protection that carry what...anyone??? HELLO, they carry guns to protect the yutz morons.

Wednesday, July 25, 2012 at 11:17 AM

Frank in Kempner, TX replied:

Some of us don't have a choice as place of employment may be a stateside federal military installation where Section 8 of Article I of the US Constituion overrides the Second Amendment,

Wednesday, July 25, 2012 at 1:39 PM

Patriot in Wisconsin said:

Q.) What do you think about "gun free" zones?

A.) I think that guns should be free to everybody to level the playing field.

Wednesday, July 25, 2012 at 11:18 AM

Rod in USA replied:

Nice.

Wednesday, July 25, 2012 at 12:37 PM

Spencer Chapin in Loveland, Colorado said:

Gun free zones are nothing but a breeding zone for crime.

Wednesday, July 25, 2012 at 11:18 AM

Cynthia in San Francisco replied:

Except in some places where they're not. Japan comes to mind: very low crime rate, only 0.07 firearm-related deaths (America's is much, much higher)

Thursday, August 2, 2012 at 8:07 AM

Josiah in Boston, MA said:

So, announcing a "gun free zone" tells criminals where it's nice a safe for them to go and rob and shoot people. Yeah, that makes a lot of sense. I think I will still carry mine for protection.

Wednesday, July 25, 2012 at 11:18 AM

Patriot in Wisconsin replied:

Um, they permit you to carry a weapon in the Peoples Republic of Taxachussetts?

Wednesday, July 25, 2012 at 2:30 PM

Riff in MA. replied:

Class A CWP is obtainable in "some" locales in Mass, however, one has to jump through a lot of hoops, and in some places, such as Boston, they will not issue, even though state law has that provision.
Basically it is up to the Chief of Police in whatever town you live in. This flies in the face of the intent of the 2nd Amendment, and is in sharp contrast to states like Arizona, and Vermont.

Wednesday, July 25, 2012 at 3:55 PM

Patriot in Wisconsin replied:

What is it in MA? Is it the water? What's the matter with you people? Oh, joy, our next President is from Massachussetts. Well, won't that be a treat. Another NWO shill. Two steps forward - one step back - now that's PROGRESSIVE

Wednesday, July 25, 2012 at 4:44 PM

Patriot in Wisconsin replied:

Sorry Riff,
Thanks for the accurate answer. I'm in a real bad mood today. Can you tell? I should talk being from Wisconsin where we were the second to last state of the 57 states and I think one more to go to pass Concealed Carry ;-)

Wednesday, July 25, 2012 at 4:55 PM

Captain Bob in Columbus, Ohio replied:

57?

Thursday, July 26, 2012 at 9:36 PM

Patriot in Wisconsin replied:

Yeah, Captain Bob, Osama Obama stated during his 2008 campaign that he had "...been in 57 states with one to go I think..."

Monday, August 6, 2012 at 10:43 AM

Ron in Johnson City said:

Gun Free Zones by the evidence cited are Mass Murder Zones. I have a carry permit, do carry on occasion, and am very concerned when I see the sign designating gun free. I will inform the owner or management that they are subsequently liable for my safety by denying me that right. I have instructed my family to sue the owner of the sign / policy in the event of my death in a gun free zone.

Wednesday, July 25, 2012 at 11:18 AM

Cynthia in San Francisco replied:

Does that mean that a business owner that displayed a "weapons welcome" zone would then not be liable if a gun fight broke out between five armed patrons?

Thursday, August 2, 2012 at 8:10 AM

Cynthia in San Francisco replied:

As a commuter on very crowded, standing-room only buses during rush hour with many unhappy riders, the idea that one, two, five, or fifteen of my fellow disgruntled riders might be armed does not warm the cockles of my heart. A gun goes off, we're packed in like sardines...who fired the shot? We can barely move. People start screaming. Two more people pull out their guns, and one of them shoots. More screaming. And then another, and then another. Ahh, the smell of carnage and mayhem in the morning.

In my mind, people who advocate for the liberty to carry guns anywhere and everywhere, and encourage the presence of guns in more and more places are advocating for more and more war-zone situations just like this. Somalia, here we come.

America has the highest gun ownership rate in the world, and it has one of the highest firearm-related death rates in the world. No surprise. Only countries with recent histories of civil strife, drug overlords, and war (Columbia, South Africa, Mexico, and El Salvador, for instance) have higher. And, if we keep glorifying and romanticizing guns, we'll soon follow in their wake.

Countries with strict gun control laws (England, Scotland, Japan, South Korea -- all countries with political and economic freedom) have far less firearm-related deaths than the United States. Gun control laws work, they don't catch all guns, of course, and very determined, very intelligent mass shooters like Brevik may not be stopped, but a lot of less determined shooters (the majority) will.

Thursday, August 2, 2012 at 8:31 AM