The "Zone" Non-Defense (Wizbang)

With yet another mass shooting in a "gun-free zone," I find myself thinking a great deal about that concept.

The first idea is one that is bouncing around the blogosphere -- the notion that the powers that be that designate such places ought to be held legally liable for the carnage that erupts in them. I'm no lawyer, but it seems to me that they are making a promise -- possibly a legally binding one -- that "you don't need to defend yourself when you're here, because we'll protect you." They are using their authority as property owner (or manager) to supplant your right to keep and bear arms.

There's nothing wrong with that; it's perfectly legal and acceptable. Their place, their rules; if you don't like it, go somewhere else.

But it seems to this layman (who's done a smidgen of legal studying on my own) that there's an 'implied warranty" here -- they are taking these steps with the promise that this will make you safer. You are being asked to give up your 2nd Amendment right in the name of greater collective safety.

But it doesn't seem to work out like that. Nearly all of the mass shootings of late have been in "gun-free zones." And the ones that weren't -- at the New Life Church in Colorado and the Appalachian School of Law in Virginia -- were stopped by private citizens (and members of the community being attacked) with their own weapons.

Now for my second thought. If these places aren't going to get rid of their "gun-free zone" status, despite the overwhelming circumstantial evidence that they simply get more people killed, then how can they improve their security where it actually make the people inside safer?

I have a few ideas. And for the sake of simplicity, I'm going to apply them to a college.

First up, they need to absolutely control access to campus. They need to build hefty walls, with security features to keep people from going over, under, or through them. Then they need to put serious security measures on the few entrances through those walls. Metal detectors, hefty locks, repeated identity verification, and the like. No one gets in without going through multiple layers of screenings.

And that's just for people. A college campus is not a self-sufficient community. All entering parcels -- food, clothing, books. electronics, office supplies, everything also needs to go through rigid screening to be sure no weapons are sneaked on to campus.

And at each entrance, there need to be armed guards. Enough armed guards to defeat any attempt by attackers to simply force their way through the security measures.

On campus, there need to be regular patrols by security. They must be omnipresent, and in sufficient numbers to discourage anyone from acting up.

The students themselves must give up certain rights in the name of their security, too. They must be willing to be stopped and searched at any time by the security officers, who must be ever vigilant to guarantee no weapons have gotten through the security measures.

This sounds like a lot of work, and it is. Luckily, we don't have to start from scratch -- a lot of the preparatory R&D has already been done for us.

All we need to do is take the existing plans for maximum security prisons and convert them to college campuses.

The same model can also work for shopping malls, but it'll take a bit more work. The sheer numbers of people who visit them makes the entrance security more of a challenge. Even moving the entrance screening centers away from the mall proper simply means that there will still be hefty crowds outside the secure areas, vulnerable to attack. Instead of getting inside the mal and shooting, the nutjob can just shoot up the lines of people waiting to go through the screening.

That, it seems to me, is what it would take to set up a truly safe "gun-free zone." Anything less just makes these places little more than hunting preserves for psychos.

As was shown at Virginia Tech.

And the Omaha mall.

And Northern Illinois University.

And who knows where next?

Comments (99)

Is the sequence of posts co... (Below threshold)

1. Posted by epador | February 17, 2008 2:52 PM | Score: 1 (1 votes cast)

epador:

Is the sequence of posts coincidental?

Posted on February 17, 2008 14:52

Gee Jay, how about prohibit... (Below threshold)

2. Posted by BarneyG2000 | February 17, 2008 2:58 PM | Score: -24 (24 votes cast)

BarneyG2000:

Gee Jay, how about prohibiting access to guns for persons with a history of mental illness like in the VT and NIU cases?

But no, we can't infringe on the rights of the mentally disturbed to own fire arms.

Posted on February 17, 2008 14:58

Barney, you are an idiot st... (Below threshold)

3. Posted by SPQR | February 17, 2008 3:14 PM | Score: 10 (12 votes cast)

SPQR:

Barney, you are an idiot still, I see. People with mental illness are forbidden to purchase firearms. The problem with the VT shooter was that his mental problems had not been documented to the existing NCIC database.

The real problem is what Jay points to, that there are phony "gun free zones" which just cover up the lack of any real efforts at security -- prohibiting the law abiding from taking measures to defend themselves but doing nothing about the actual threats.

Keep up your display of ignorance Barney.

Posted on February 17, 2008 15:14

If anyone here thinks that ... (Below threshold)

4. Posted by Michael K. | February 17, 2008 3:18 PM | Score: 7 (7 votes cast)

Michael K.:

If anyone here thinks that Jay's description of an appropriately
guarded college campus is overkill (no pun intended), then you've
never seem Hebrew University in Jerusalem (of which my wife is a graduate). Jay just described that campus to a Tea (pun intended ;-)

Posted on February 17, 2008 15:18

Won't. Work. Inmates, whe... (Below threshold)

5. Posted by twolaneflash | February 17, 2008 3:20 PM | Score: 5 (5 votes cast)

twolaneflash:

Won't. Work. Inmates, whether penal or collegial, always find a way to arm themselves, or they become victims.

The inmates are not the only ones to fear. Every day, college students across America give campus and dorm access to non-student criminals, calling them family, friends, etc. Rapists and worse have gained entry to dorms with "good" security by getting the electronic door codes from some naive or drunk student.

Then there's the keepers of the institution, many of whom are certifiably insane. Who's to protect the students from one of these wayfarers having an episode of homocidal mania?

Security is a personal concern. One should take it only as seriously as she or he is about surviving. Like the dental hygienist said: "You don't have to floss your teeth if you don't want to, just floss those teeth you want to keep!". With that in mind, one can be legally well armed, even on campus, with minimal research and acquisition. Those kindergarden Kevlar backpacks don't sound so silly or expensive now, do they?

Posted on February 17, 2008 15:20

Barney's comments are perfe... (Below threshold)

6. Posted by Jay Tea | February 17, 2008 3:21 PM | Score: 5 (9 votes cast)

Jay Tea:

Barney's comments are perfectly understandable, as long as you remember that he's got 20/20 hindsight. That's one of the few benefits of having your head up your ass.

As SPQR pointed out, the NIU shooter's issues hadn't been fully documented. And under HIPPA and other privacy laws, as well as the big push to "destigmatize" mental illness, one has to wonder where one would draw the line between medical confidentiality and public safety.

Maybe Barney is too young or too stupid (or both -- they're not mutually exclusive) to remember that the "mental health system" in the Soviet Union became a dumping ground for political prisoners, where a state-employed doctor would certify anyone who dared disagree with the government as dangerously nuts.

Of all the millions of Americans who have some sort of diagnosed mental disorder, Barney, would you care to tell us where to place the bar? Or are you just content to snipe from the cheap seats, as usual?

Posted on February 17, 2008 15:21

Jay and spqr, the VT gunman... (Below threshold)

7. Posted by BarneyG2000 | February 17, 2008 3:40 PM | Score: -14 (18 votes cast)

Jay and spqr, the VT gunman was allowed to purchase guns even though he was prohibited from doing so under federal laws due to his mental illness because the NRA fought state legislation that would require VA to report the killer's illness to the federal database.

The NIU killer was known to have mental or psychotic events as early as high school and was discharged from the army for unknown reasons and was turned down from at least one other law enforcement job, yet he could still purchase multiple weapons legally.

Jay, lay off the Soviet comparisons. It makes you look like someone who lost the argument. Which you have.

Posted on February 17, 2008 15:40

One other item Jay. In VA ... (Below threshold)

8. Posted by BarneyG2000 | February 17, 2008 3:45 PM | Score: -12 (16 votes cast)

One other item Jay. In VA , IL (enactment pending) and at the federal level (signed into law by Bush) it is now required for state medical professionals to report persons with mental illness to the Fed database.

It seems to take a massacre such as VT to push positive gun control legislation past the objections and money of the NRA. Delays that cost the lives of many.

Posted on February 17, 2008 15:45

Jay and spqr, the VT gu... (Below threshold)

9. Posted by Adam | February 17, 2008 3:51 PM | Score: 6 (6 votes cast)

Adam:

Um, please cite. I imagine if they did object to such a bill, it had more to do with some other portion of it.

Posted on February 17, 2008 15:51

With all this talk of the e... (Below threshold)

10. Posted by mantis | February 17, 2008 3:58 PM | Score: -10 (14 votes cast)

mantis:

With all this talk of the efficacy of Gun Free Zones, I've noticed one thing missing. Never, in any of these cases, have I heard someone present at any of the shootings saying that he/she would have had his/her gun at the location if it hadn't been a gun free zones.

Implicit in all of your assertions is assumption that these gun free zones are effective in keeping legal gun carriers out (with their guns, at least), people who could stop the killing if they weren't prevented from doing so by the state or the institution.

Have I missed it? Was there a shopper at the Omaha mall, or students at VT or NIU, who have said they would have had guns with them but were deterred by the GFZ regulation?

Posted on February 17, 2008 15:58

mantis, might I refer you t... (Below threshold)

11. Posted by Jay Tea | February 17, 2008 4:04 PM | Score: 8 (12 votes cast)

mantis, might I refer you to Suzanne Hupp and the Luby's Massacre in Killeen, Texas?

On the flip side, could you cite a case where civilians with weapons on their persons actually made a situation worse in one of these mass shootings? Just one example of one of those "Wild West-style" shootouts that are trotted out as the reason why people shouldn't be allowed to carry weapons?

Posted on February 17, 2008 16:04

Thanks for the reminder, Ad... (Below threshold)

12. Posted by Jay Tea | February 17, 2008 4:07 PM | Score: 8 (10 votes cast)

Thanks for the reminder, Adam. I tend to forget that when Barney doesn't cite sources, it's because he doesn't have any. And when he does cite sources, they tend to prove just the opposite of whatever he says they do.

Posted on February 17, 2008 16:07

Jay, the only problem with ... (Below threshold)

13. Posted by Chuck Simmins | February 17, 2008 4:13 PM | Score: 7 (7 votes cast)

Chuck Simmins:

Jay, the only problem with legal liability for no gun locations is that the law seems to support "no liability". Even the police are under no legal requirement to protect you. I clearly remember being dumbfounded by that revelation.

Posted on February 17, 2008 16:13

Is this good enough for you... (Below threshold)

14. Posted by BarneyG2000 | February 17, 2008 4:13 PM | Score: -12 (12 votes cast)

Is this good enough for you jay?

"In a flurry of bullets early Sunday morning, at least five bounty hunters wearing ski masks forced their way into a house here and killed a couple who apparently did not know the bail jumper who was being sought.

The Maricopa County Attorney, Richard Romley, said today that the deaths of Chris Foote, 23, and his girlfriend, Spring Wright, 20, were ''troubling,'' and warranted a look at new laws that would force bounty hunters to be licensed and undergo background checks.

The bounty hunters, who wore body armor and ski masks, burst into the house at 4 A.M., held three children and another couple at gunpoint, then opened fire into a bedroom that Mr. Foote shared with Ms. Wright. Mr. Foote returned fire, wounding two of the attackers."

But no, we can't license persons who are just exercising their right to bar arms. That gun really helped Mr. Foote.

Typical Barney. No link to ... (Below threshold)

15. Posted by Jay Tea | February 17, 2008 4:29 PM | Score: 13 (17 votes cast)

Typical Barney. No link to his source material -- and the actual incident has absolutely nothing to do with the kinds of incidents being discussed.

I'll do his homework for him: here's an account of the incident he cited.

Let's look at the facts, shall we?

Burglary, not a mistaken search for a bail jumper, was the reason five bounty hunters in black ski masks and body armor broke into a home and shot a couple to death last month, prosecutors said Saturday.
"Bounty hunting was a ruse to get out of trouble if they got caught," Maricopa County Attorney Rick Romley said in announcing first-degree murder charges against the men.

Prosecutors said the men had worked as bounty hunters in the past, but their story of a tragic case of mistaken identity in their search for a California bail jumper didn't pan out.

The warrant for the bail jumper had expired and police could find no connection between the bail jumper and the victims. Also, the company they said they were working for has denied sending them.

So, once again Barney's so-called "evidence" blows up in his face again.

Don't you EVER get tired of being proven to be an ass, Barney?

Posted on February 17, 2008 16:29

Jay, you missed the point o... (Below threshold)

16. Posted by BarneyG2000 | February 17, 2008 4:53 PM | Score: -15 (17 votes cast)

Jay, you missed the point of my example. Due to a lack of laws that regulate who can own, and carry weapons a group of criminals were able to use their "bounty hunter" credentials to commit crimes.

My argument has always been that common sense laws, almost always opposed by the NRA, are needed to prevent killings. This was a case were an unregulated armed force (a loop-hole) was allowed use their "rights" to kill.

As usual, it take a senseless loss of life to allow passage of common sense laws:
Until the Legislature revamped the law after the shootings, anyone could be a bounty hunter in Arizona. A bail contract provided a license to break into someone's home and drag them out with no explanation. Now, bounty hunters in Arizona must be licensed and need to get permission from the occupants of a home before entering.

Posted on February 17, 2008 16:53

Barney, your responses are ... (Below threshold)

17. Posted by SPQR | February 17, 2008 5:10 PM | Score: 7 (9 votes cast)

Barney, your responses are truly bizarre. A bounty hunter? That had nothing to do with your claims and only illustrates your perennial incompetence. Not to mention some truly weird associations that you pull out of your head - or more often the exit of your alimentary canal.

The NRA has not weighed in on the licensing of bounty hunters.

Face it, Barney, you continually comment on issues that you are completely clueless upon.

Posted on February 17, 2008 17:10

Bounty hunters have nothing... (Below threshold)

18. Posted by Adam | February 17, 2008 5:28 PM | Score: 7 (7 votes cast)

Bounty hunters have nothing to do with regular gun owners, nor do they have anything to do with the insane. I asked for a cite on the NRA opposing keepings nuts from getting guns.

I have yet to see this cite.

I've yet to see anyone outside of the far, far right kooky survivalist militia types saying anything about keeping the insane, or violent felons, able to carry guns*. No state concealed carry law allows for it.

And, a few crazies who are killing people don't make up the vast majority of crimes committed with guns: Young men who are career criminals that get let out by judges soft of crime. Almost every time Kim du Toit posts about a defensive shooting, the thug that gets shot has a record as long as my arm.

* Okay, and one far leftist nut, Diane Fienstien, who gets to carry a gun.

Posted on February 17, 2008 17:28

This is the same thing that... (Below threshold)

19. Posted by mpw280 | February 17, 2008 5:40 PM | Score: 3 (3 votes cast)

mpw280:

This is the same thing that the dimocrats are attempting to do with wiretaping. Make the US an "Intellegence" free zone and then blame the bad guys when they do manage to do something. Never be prepared before the fact, legislate it after the fact.
mpw

Posted on February 17, 2008 17:40

mpw280, and Barney's opinio... (Below threshold)

20. Posted by SPQR | February 17, 2008 5:52 PM | Score: 2 (2 votes cast)

mpw280, and Barney's opinions on FISA are just as confused and ignorant as his opinions above.

Posted on February 17, 2008 17:52

Barney, you offered an inco... (Below threshold)

21. Posted by Jay Tea | February 17, 2008 6:08 PM | Score: 4 (6 votes cast)

Barney, you offered an incorrect description of an irrelevant anecdote, with no link or citation, and it's OUR FAULT that we didn't get your wrong point?

THEY WERE NOT BOUNTY HUNTERS WHEN THEY MURDERED THOSE PEOPLE.

They were common criminals who were ready to pretend to be bounty hunters if they were caught.

I just wish I could find an account of how the case was finally disposed, because I dearly wish they were executed.

But regardless, that incident had about as much to do with my posting as the price of sugar in Belize -- but it did manage to distract people from actually discussing the issue, which I suspect was your intent all along.

Barney's like a blog kamikaze -- he is dedicated to destroying the discussion, even at the cost of his own (flimsy) integrity and reputation.

Posted on February 17, 2008 18:08

spqr, and what are my ignor... (Below threshold)

22. Posted by BarneyG2000 | February 17, 2008 6:12 PM | Score: -6 (6 votes cast)

spqr, and what are my ignorant opinions on FISA?

As far as the NRA are you telling me they are not opposed to Federal standards to enforce background checks on private gun sales? That sure sounds like a loophole that allows criminals, and in at least one case to a terrorist, the sale of guns?

Posted on February 17, 2008 18:12

Now you are showing your us... (Below threshold)

23. Posted by SPQR | February 17, 2008 6:34 PM | Score: 2 (4 votes cast)

Now you are showing your usual stupidity, Barney, in now inventing yet another third thing to complain about - one that still has nothing to with the original posting.

Just keep abandoning your last position and invent a new one and pretend that was your complaint all along - that's a trick that impresses only you, Barney.

Posted on February 17, 2008 18:34

As far as the NRA ... (Below threshold)

24. Posted by SPQR | February 17, 2008 6:38 PM | Score: 2 (4 votes cast)

As far as the NRA are you telling me they are not opposed to Federal standards to enforce background checks on private gun sales?

How could I be telling you something about a topic that had not been mentioned a single time in this thread until you wrote that?

You really are a completely incoherent buffoon, Barney.

Posted on February 17, 2008 18:38

"..and it's OUR FAULT that ... (Below threshold)

25. Posted by BarneyG2000 | February 17, 2008 6:43 PM | Score: -6 (6 votes cast)

"..and it's OUR FAULT that we didn't get your wrong point?" Jay

I got your point Jay. I was pointing out an example, as you requested, were at least one person that was by all accounts a law abiding citizen used his conceal to carry permit to enter into a conspiracy that resulted in the murder of two persons.

Posted on February 17, 2008 18:43

You pointed out no such thi... (Below threshold)

26. Posted by SPQR | February 17, 2008 6:45 PM | Score: 1 (3 votes cast)

You pointed out no such thing, Barney.

Posted on February 17, 2008 18:45

"..Barney's opinions on FIS... (Below threshold)

27. Posted by BarneyG2000 | February 17, 2008 6:48 PM | Score: -5 (7 votes cast)

"..Barney's opinions on FISA are just as confused and ignorant as his opinions above.

20. Posted by SPQR |"

"spqr, and what are my ignorant opinions on FISA?" 22 Barneyg2000"

"Now you are showing your usual stupidity, Barney, in now inventing yet another third thing to complain about - one that still has nothing to with the original posting." 23. Posted by SPQR |

spqr, based on exhibiting multi personalities, I hope there is is some gun law out there that prohibits you from owning a gun.

Posted on February 17, 2008 18:48

Here's an illustration of B... (Below threshold)

28. Posted by SPQR | February 17, 2008 6:49 PM | Score: 4 (6 votes cast)

Here's an illustration of Barney's poor reading skills.

Jay's comment:

Barney's interpretation:

I was pointing out an example, as you requested, were at least one person that was by all accounts a law abiding citizen used his conceal to carry permit to enter into a conspiracy that resulted in the murder of two persons.

As I said, incoherent. Fake bounty hunters / burglars are now law abiding citizens.

This kind of incompetence is self-parodying.

Posted on February 17, 2008 18:49

Barney, I was talking about... (Below threshold)

29. Posted by SPQR | February 17, 2008 6:52 PM | Score: 3 (5 votes cast)

Barney, I was talking about your multiple complaints about the NRA, where you falsely claimed that there was no prohibition on mentally ill people buying guns, then falsely claimed that the NRA was stopping reporting to the NCIC database and then invented an incoherent comment about bounty hunters.

You really should work on your reading comprehension.

Posted on February 17, 2008 18:52

mantis You raise an ... (Below threshold)

30. Posted by HughS | February 17, 2008 6:55 PM | Score: 1 (1 votes cast)

HughS:

mantis
You raise an interesting point:

Was there a shopper at the Omaha mall, or students at VT or NIU, who have said they would have had guns with them but were deterred by the GFZ regulation?

The following link does not directly answer your question, but it makes one wonder if there wasn't a gun free zone that this guy might be carrying.

http://joemerchant24.blogspot.com/2007/12/firsthand-account-of-von-maur-shooting.html

Jay provided this link in a post last year.

Posted on February 17, 2008 18:55

BarneyG, say "thank you" to... (Below threshold)

31. Posted by Jay Tea | February 17, 2008 7:16 PM | Score: 1 (5 votes cast)

BarneyG, say "thank you" to SPQR. He just saved your commenting career.

I was just about to ban you for your incredible stupidity, convinced that no human being could possibly be as dumb as you come across, when he got me to laugh at you instead, and I relented.

SPQR, you realize now that by Chinese tradition, you are now responsible for everything BarneyG says in the future?

Posted on February 17, 2008 19:16

Jay - you are mean, just me... (Below threshold)

32. Posted by SPQR | February 17, 2008 7:32 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)

Jay - you are mean, just mean.

Barney is truly a blithering incompetent - nothing I do can change that.

What did you laugh at? 6:49pm above? It is hilarious isn't it?

Posted on February 17, 2008 19:32

I see that Jay and spqr wan... (Below threshold)

33. Posted by BarneyG2000 | February 17, 2008 7:45 PM | Score: -7 (9 votes cast)

I see that Jay and spqr want to deflect rather than address my comments/rebuttals to their lame responses.

spqr claims that I am changing the conversation, but it was he that brought up FISA which I have not addressed or suggested in this thread.

It was Jay that suggested that we should arm all law abiding citizens, and it was I that pointed out a case where a mass murder was committed by law abiding C&C carriers.

jay can't refute my logic, so he threatens to ban me. Classic!

Posted on February 17, 2008 19:45

Fixing THIS might help prev... (Below threshold)

34. Posted by groucho | February 17, 2008 7:45 PM | Score: -2 (2 votes cast)

groucho:

Fixing THIS might help prevent these kinds of shootings. I can't order a case of wine from another state but if I need a Glock, well step right up son...

http://www.newser.com/story/19175.html?rss=y

The "Zone" Non-Defense

TrackBack

Comments (99)