The Pros And Cons Of Gun-Free Zones

Many tragedies have occurred recently that have spurred the debate on whether or not we need tighter gun controls. On one side of the debate are the gun control supporters, who claim that the easy access to guns is the primary cause for high rates of crime plaguing the United States. On the other side are people who argue that gun laws will not prevent criminals from obtaining guns, since they will continue to get them illegally. Guns are used for protection when in the hands of people who obey the law. It is crucial to not hinder law-abiding citizen’s ability to possess firearms with stricter gun laws, since gun laws do not lower crime, and guns can keep people safe.

In the current year, many things have changed in the political world with some of them being welcomed by all and others not as much. While this paper is not specifically about the people holding political offices, I feel as though it is important to view their influence in these issues. The policy that I am going to discuss in this paper is gun control as I feel it is a hotly debated issue in the country today, especially after the incidents we have had throughout the recent years.

In the words of Dr. Suzanna Gratia Hupp ¨ A politician stands on the Second Amendment tells you how he or she views you as an individual… as a trustworthy and productive citizen, or as part of an unruly crowd that needs to be lorded over, controlled, supervised, and taken care of¨. Both the pro gun and anti gun movements raise some persuasive and plausible points about their sides. The anti gun movement has a history of an oppressive, racist and totalitarian way of trying to control people's right to bear arms which in no way prevented gun violence. The gun control movement as a whole doesn't care about protecting citizens but it instead wants to give the federal government more control over its citizens.

Some people truly believe a gun free zone is a safe zone. Even if there are more upstanding citizens toting weapons for self defense, some people believe it would just cause shootouts. As Gail Collins stated “In the real world very few people -- including police officers -- are skilled enough to aim accurately during a scary emergency”(Collins, “The Republican Gun Free Zone”). That may be true, because when a person is nervous or in a stressful situation their aim could be slightly off. However, if a criminal is aware of how many people are carrying a firearm they are less likely to commit a crime. Obviously, the threat of being in a room surrounded by weapons would convince most people to behave properly.

Gun free zones do not work like they were designed to. A gun free zone is an area where guns are not allowed, it is a federal law. In 1990, the law was purposed by Joseph Biden and signed into law by the president George H. W. Bush. In 2012 a gunman attacked Sandy Hook Elementary School. The gunman killed twenty children and six teachers. The school was a gun free zone and had no security with no firearms on campus. That same year in Aurora, Colorado, the Cinemark Movie Theater released “The Dark Night Raises” at midnight on July 20th. The killer had twenty-one movie theaters to choose from that were playing this movie. He chose the only one that was a gun free zone. On the July 23, 2015 Chattanooga, Tennessee, a man killed four Marines and a sailor in the Navy. The recruiting office where the men were murdered was a gun free zone. The gunmen knew it was a gun free zine and he wanted to carry out an ISIS terrorist act. Gun free zones do not always prevent crime from happening. Law-abiding citizens die from gun free zones.

Examples of Gun Free Zones are, “bars, professional athletic events, school/college athletic events, casinos/gambling establishments, churches, banks and financial institutions, amusement parks, day car centers, school buildings, school parking lots, school buses, and hospitals and emergency rooms” (Lott 18). Gun Free Zone policies vary from state to state, in “nine states private business” are allowed to “post whether permit holders are allowed to carry their weapons on the premises” (Lott 18). Often times, people who are in favor of stricter gun control are also in favor of an increase in Gun Free Zones. Unfortunately, what we do not consider when we discuss increasing Gun Free Zones is that often times people who are plan on committing mass murder, will not be worrying about whether or not they are allowed to carry a gun in that venue. In fact, a majority, 65%, 26 of 40, of the locations were gun free zones. One of the locations, the Long Island Rail Road commuter train only allows people who are permitted to have a gun to carry one. Therefore, if Colin Ferguson, the offender, did not have a permit to carry a weapon then this would have been a gun free zone for him (MTA). There is much argument over whether or not Gun Free Zones are effective in preventing crimes, based upon the fact that at least 65% of the 40 mass shootings in the United States have happened in a Gun Free Zone; it does not appear that they are achieving their goal of prohibiting firearms from being present in one. A former Sheriff said shootings happen in schools seeing

According to Crime Prevention Research Center “from the 1950’s through July 10th of 2016, 98.4 percent of mass shootings have occurred on gun-free zones, with just 1.6 percent occurring where citizens are allowed to have firearms with them.” This number is extremely alarming and shows the flaws that gun free zones carry with them. Some may put up the argument that only our police should be allowed to carry firearms in gun free zones and as long as they are called quickly the threat should be controlled. However, the average active shooter time is 12.5 minutes while the average response time for the closest police unit in the area is 18 minutes. This seemingly makes the police force useless when the actual shooting is taking place. 12.5 minutes can feel like a lifetime when there is someone threatening to take your life away. I believe that in the case for schools, because 25% of the time this is where mass shootings are conducted, employees of said school should be able to conceal carry after going through proper safety training/handling of a firearm. This will not only help ensure the safety of themselves but also the safety of other students who are too young or unable to protect themselves. The largest portion of mass shootings happen in businesses like the Pulse nightclub accounting for 45.6% of shootings I believe that people who are legally allowed to carry

I feel the Gun Free Zones takes that option away from them. Handguns bans do not stop criminals from getting guns, but they do prevent a good law-abiding citizen from buying a gun for self defense. If someone wants to buy a gun, the Internet has thousands of results that do not require background checks. I feel that each person who owns a gun is responsible for the way the gun is used. Gun permit holders have 1% firearm violations, and there are more than 8.5 million Americans, that can legally carry concealed handguns. Violence rates decrease when private citizens are armed and trained. I feel if you are a law-abiding citizen you should be able to buy a gun. If you have mental health issuers, I feel your doctor should report that to the government and be on the ban list like felons and illegal immigrants. They should not be allowed to purchase a gun of until they are received the proper treatment and fully released from care. I also feel our civil rights have been violated by our president . Obama forcing the American people to purchase healthcare, weather they

“Are gun free zones worth having in American schools?” Through the recent struggles in policy related to mass school shootings in gun free zones, I believe that we should evaluate current policies and if need be, propose new policies, to limit or eliminate mass shootings in schools, which can and should be prevented. A common misconception when talking about ‘gun free zones’ is that Gun free zones can easily be misunderstood as meaning zero guns, but rather (usually) means that an unauthorized person cannot carry in that area (which may vary from state to state). But the issue isn’t with the misconception, but more so with the lack of safety that schools have or so we think.

Research shows that ninety-eight percent of mass shooting occur on gun-free zones (Morse [1]). Also, mass shooting have increased since gun-free school zones were implemented in 1995 (Nedzel 2). This legislation only makes matters worse. "Gun-free zones offer a safe haven for mass murderers" (O'Brien and Stanton [1]). Criminals know that honest citizens are not carrying concealed weapons in gun-free zones, so they know that if they attack one of these zones, no one will stop them quickly. For this reason, cities that have enacted gun-free zones have higher crime rates. An example of this would be the city of Chicago. Chicago has some of the strictest gun laws in the nation, but they have one of the highest homicide rates. They have disarmed the honest people and “empowered criminals” (Owens [1]). These gun-free zones only cause more

Should there be federal gun control laws? This question has been debated for centuries in America, especially after the recent tragic shootings in Las Vegas and Texas. Our country has been devastated by 52,900 incidents in 2017 that involved a firearm alone (GVA). I feel that the U.S should tighten our gun control laws due to the following reasons: significantly lowering suicide rates, reduction in violent gun-related crime, and it has been proven successful in numerous other countries.

Across the United States there have been many shootings and attacks. The most recent being in San Bernardino California where 14 innocent lives were taken. Most of these shootings are in schools, state buildings, movie theatres etc. Every public mass shooting in the USA since 1950 has taken place where citizens are banned from carrying guns. There are ways to end these people going on killing sprees once and for all. Many law abiding citizens are experienced and comfortable with a firearm. Imagine these people being able to take their concealed weapons into places that are now “no gun zones”. This would act as a deterrent against the people who go on killing sprees. At the least, law abiding citizens

98% percent of robberies and murders happen in gun free-zones. The LA school shooting that happened on February first, this was stopped because the shooter was overheard by a security guard and he notified the school and police. The shooter came to school one day he had injured 4 people and the security guard had then shot the shooter before any more people were injured.(The Simple Truth) This shows that if schools had a security guard or if the teachers were are armed it would be less likely for the attacker to succeed. (The School Safety Bill) If the parkland shooting would have looked at the signs and had an armed security guard, I believe it wouldn’t have happened or been near as severe. Another example of people bearing arms and it showing the crime and Murder rate will go down, is that Switzerland has no gun free zones and allows people to bear arms after they take a course. They have the lowest murder rate in the world. There was only one gun related death last year, and only 47 people were injured from them. (The Simple Truth) An example of how if we ban guns it won’t help anything is in Australia. Their government banned guns and the crime and murder rate has gone up by almost 30% and the crime rate with knives and other weapons has gone over 60% percent of the crimes, which means that 40% of the other crimes are still committed with guns. (The Simple

Gun control laws should be strictly enforced because individuals can take advantage of the relaxed enforcement and harm others.

Some people believe that extremely tight gun control laws will eliminate crime, but gun control laws only prevent the 'good guys' from obtaining firearms. Criminals will always have ways of getting weapons, whether it be from the black market, cross borders, or illegal street sales. New gun control laws will not stop them. Since the shootings of Columbine High School, Virginia Tech, and Sandy Hook, the frequency of mass shootings has increased greatly. Gun control is not effective as it has not been shown to actually reduce the number of gun-related crimes. Instead of considering a ban of private firearm possession, and violating individual ownership rights, it may be more practical to consider the option of partially restricting firearm