Once we make guns illegal, criminals will give them up. Makes perfect sense.

So, it's really about what an area is labeled more than anything else. I propose:

Crossfire Awareness Zone

Lead Enriched Zone

or simply

Wedge Issue Zone

The facts are not quite right here concerning the city hall shooting. The killer first shot and killed an armed on duty police officer outside and next door to the city hall. Taking the officers gun the killer then entered the city hall where he shot and killed a second on duty armed police officer. He then shot 5 more people killing 3. More armed police then entered and shot him dead

Three armed police officers have been killed in this community this year. All three taken by surprise and killed.

The details and background of this shooting are complex and sad and predictable.

Thank you, dr lava, for making the point even more clear: three people who trusted the armed police officers to keep them safe died. The non-police victims were, in compliance with the laws, unarmed and unable to defend themselves -- except one guy, who threw furniture at the gunman.

Yup, those laws really do work wonders, don't they?

J.

The interesting thing about the City Hall shooting is that his primary target appeared to be the mayor and certain officials. And the bad guy knew than in order to achieve that goal he needed to neutralize the uniformed officers. Having done that, his only real problem would be any police in plain clothes.

I'm reminded of one of my tactical instructors years ago commenting on the large number of people who legally carry guns in their cars. Someone asked if that bothered him, and he indicated that it certainly did not. He was a State Highway Patrol officer, and he patrolled a large area by himself. He always handled routine traffic stops carefully, and he hoped that if he ever gets in real trouble, an armed citizen would help him. At the very least, the possibility of armed citizens driving by changes the tactical situation.

If your going to commit mass murder, certainly a gun-free zone is the place to go. You would have to be very unlucky to run into an officer plain clothes. The odds aren't 100% in your favor, but they are definitely good odds. In the City Hall shooting, the bad guy knew that the uniformed officers were his greatest deterrent, and he had the element of surprise. As long as any plain clothes officers didn't appear unexpectedly, he knew he had the upper hand.

BTW, I was impressed by the guy who took to throwing chairs. It's a shame that's all he had to fight back with, but he didn't hide under his chair and hope that the bad guy picked someone else to shoot. He improvised.

Armed combat beats unarmed combat any day.

Incoming rounds have the right-of-way.

The discussed tragedy took place in Mississipi? Is Mississipi one of the mis-duided states that doesn't have a shall issue CCW system in place?

It was a tragedy, but I think that the council chambers being a "gun-free" zone had little to do with it. I think it was more that the targets were all together and handy to get at. Must be a violent city to have to protect the city council with several armed police officers.

The first rule of unarmed combat:

Don't stay unarmed.

nd r ths rs sppst t b GN FR ZNS? s mch fr thr gn fr zns nd BLL CLNTN nd hs crck-pt ds lts jst rpl ll gn fr zns

Jay, are you following HB1354 being debated in Concord as we speak? The public hearing was last week, and the Legislative Administration Committee votes on it on Thursday.

I've been covering the crap out of it on my blog, and I will be videotaping the exec. session on Thursday. Be sure to watch the Ridley Report videos to see what the gun-free zone advocates are like in person.

And here's what happened a couple weeks ago in a gun-freedom zone. Oh, the humanity!

By Jay's logic we should eliminate all enforcement officers and return to the days of self protection. If everyone carries a gun there will be no more killing.

BarneyG, stupid as usual. No, there will still be killings but the bad guy will always be one of those killed and numbers of citizens killed will be reduced. But then a democrat can't count so why do numbers matter + mass murder gives them an agenda which they have very few of.

Why is it, some people are absolutely
against the right of self defense?
Maybe there should be a law against
chairs too, it's obvious they can and
are used as weapons of mass destruction.
People against self defense had better get
busy and start writing laws banning just
about anything which can be used as a deadly
weapon, even well sharpened no.2 pencils.

RE: "Why is it, some people are absolutely
against the right of self defense?"

Assuming that this wasn't completely rhetorical, I'd like to answer even if I'm completely preaching to the choir:

1. Because elitists in the political establishment and the MSM trust thieves, killers, and rapists far more than they trust the average citizen.
2. Because elitists don't think that the average person is competent to protect themselves.
3. Because a helpless population will have no choice but to feel more safe by voting for more funding for police and more power for the State.
4. Because those that believe in Peace at all costs cannot bear to have people fighting - even in self-defense. An individual human life is of such high value that it cannot be endangered under any circumstances.
5. And because a population that carries weapons just doesn't appear "Progressive". [Better get used to that word, we're going to be hearing it repeatedly for the next several years.]

RE: "People against self defense had better get
busy and start writing laws banning just
about anything which can be used as a deadly
weapon, even well sharpened no.2 pencils."

Such as the United Kingdom that has also banned the carrying of edge weapons - with predictable results.

Not only sharpened weapons, next should be
regular umbrellas, boiling water, paper
(paper cuts you know)rocks, and broken glass.
Any and all household chemicals (improvsed ieds)
should be looked at too.
/extreme caustic sarcasm

Barney,

I think you (purposefully?) misread Jay's post.

Jay said:

Am I arguing that "gun-free zones" are inherently dangerous, and often act as lures to would-be killers as places where they can freely kill without fear that their would-be victims can shoot back?

No.

I don't need to make that argument.

Res ipsa loquitur -- "the thing speaks for itself."

That is what you might consider the point of the post- the summation of the preceeding paragraphs. To go from that to your "By Jay's logic we should eliminate all enforcement officers and return to the days of self protection" statement is quite frankly, a little silly.

***

Matt (#6) I think you're thinking of Missouri, not Mississippi. However, it is my understanding that both states have a concealed carry permit available.

Another addition to your list Kevino is: The elitists that make the laws, have the wealth and ability have the means to provide for their security so they do not feel fear. The regular people of this country know they only people that can protect us is us. ww

WildWillie:

I forgot. Thank you! I agree 100%

Adrian implies that this is a "wedge" issue e.g., a false issue designed only for political gain.

But that is plainly false, the strategy of gun control advocates for sometime is that of creeping regulation, nibbling on the edges with the goal of regulating away the legitimate use of firearms inch by inch to remove legitimate uses as justification for gun ownership.

However, some current proposals are even more brazen as there has been efforts to introduce b ackdoor bans in several states by banning firearms that lack non-existant technology ( such as California's future requirement for firearms to have a micro-stamping on firing pins that does not work ) and bans on ammunition that is not serialized by individual round.

"Gun free zones" are not merely silly policy exercies but legitimate issues.

Am I arguing that "gun-free zones" are inherently dangerous, and often act as lures to would-be killers as places where they can freely kill without fear that their would-be victims can shoot back? ... Res ipsa loquitur -- "the thing speaks for itself."

Wow, Jay, that's the stupidest thing I've read all day.

Tell you what... let's designate all the open fields and deep canyons "gun-free zones". By your logic, that will draw all the gun-wielding nuts, leaving everyone at malls and churches perfectly safe. Right?

Hmm, or maybe your logic is just amazingly backwards, and reality is that places where there would be high risks of casualties if visited by a wacko are therefore designated "gun-free"?

Not that that designation necessarily stops crazies, I admit. And it certainly doesn't stop crazies like you from writing bizarre things about it.

Hmm, or maybe your logic is just amazingly backwards, and reality is that places where there would be high risks of casualties if visited by a wacko are therefore designated "gun-free"?

Um...wow.

Just, wow.

Tell me you understand this simple reality:

1. VA Tech was DESIGNATED a gun-free zone.
2. VA Tech was NOT a gun-free zone, as indicated by the fact that a psycho nutcake was running around shooting people.

Your line of thinking (for lack of a better term) would have us believe that a cold-blooded killer would see the "no guns allowed" sign, and return home without carrying out his planned shooting spree.

It's fantasy-based, liberal logic at its finest.

Brian,

Wow it really helps your argument when you insult someone.

How many people are in these canyons and wide-open-fields that you mention? Next to zero. How many are in the "gun-free" locations when a criminal decides to visit? Plenty. Which would a would-be killer rather attack- an empty field, or a building full of unarmed people?

So a more accurate comparison would go something like this. Would I- as a criminal determined to go postal & kill folks- rather visit the local university (declared gun-free by legislation) or the local IDPA shooting range?

I think the answer is obvious.

Bruce, you took my sarcastic point, meant to show how absurd Jay's point was, and took it literally.

Your line of thinking (for lack of a better term) would have us believe that a cold-blooded killer would see the "no guns allowed" sign, and return home without carrying out his planned shooting spree.

And Jay's line of thinking (for lack of a better term) would have us believe that a cold-blooded killer would see the the "no guns allowed" sign, and return home to get his gun after deciding that the designation made it a more attractive location for a shooting spree.

It's fantasy-based, liberal logic at its finest.

Fantasy-based, yes. But I don't think Jay would call himself a liberal.

How many people are in these canyons and wide-open-fields that you mention? Next to zero. How many are in the "gun-free" locations when a criminal decides to visit? Plenty. Which would a would-be killer rather attack- an empty field, or a building full of unarmed people?

Your attitude suggests you disagree with my point, but your argument supports my point. Killers don't go to "gun-free zones" because they're "gun-free". They go because that's where the people are.

Brian,

Please read the paragraph after that. I think I pointed out that the open field/crowded building argument is a poor analagy. A better analagy is a crowded gun-free building, vs. a crowded gun show.

That's the point I think Jay made, and that's the point I'm making.

You're saying the nuts go to crowded buildings, and I'm saying the nuts go where there will be less resistance to their violence.

You're saying the nuts go to crowded buildings, and I'm saying the nuts go where there will be less resistance to their violence.

Go read the incidents Jay linked to. Most of those nuts had beefs with the sites they targeted. They didn't go to find less resistance. They went to satisfy their grudges.

Yes, Brian, and what happened when the people in those places the shooters had beefs with were unarmed, by the demand of that place? Versus what happened when the people in one targeted location took responsibility for their own safety?

Here it is in a nutshell (an exceptionally accurate term for Brian and Barney): when you go to a "gun-free zone," you're placing your own safety in the hands of those who have designated it as such. And if some whackjob with a "beef" against that place decides to show up and -- horror of horrors -- ignore the "gun free zone" signs and all their mighty power, you better run like hell or find a good hiding place, because you can be damned sure that none of your fellow victims will be ready to stop the whackjob. And when the police eventually arrive and cautiously enter the scene (what was the response time at the Omaha mall shooting -- I think it was half an hour or more from the first 911 calls to finding the gunman), I'm sure they'll be very considerate when they put you in the body bag.

J.

Well now you're changing arguments, Jay. First it was that gun-free zones "lure" would-be killers, but you had a shoddy basis for that judgment. So now you're switching to "a private citizen with a gun can usually stop a madman with a grudge faster than police will arrive".

Which, by the way, few would disagree with.

But that's not the question, is it? Just your little strawman coming out for his weekly romp.

A "Gun-free Zone" is by definition a "Victim Zone." To argue otherwise is to stick your fingers in your ears, sing the national anthem at the top of your lungs, and ignore basic human nature: that someone intent on shooting another human being is sure as hell not going to be concerned about a "Gun-Free" ordinance/stipulation. Which is why I carry just about everywhere.

What I'm waiting for are the lawsuits against these private establishments that have declared themselves Victim Zones. If I go to a mall that tells me I can't bring my 9mm along (even though my state has seen fit to issue me a license approving carry), all the while assuring me that they have armed security on duty, and I get shot and wounded by some nutjob while shopping there, you can bet your pretty little ass that I'm going to sue the mall for all it's worth and then some.

Why Va Tech wasn't sued into near-bankruptcy for their combination of infringement of basic Constitutional rights and negligence is beyond me.