Blog Stage 5

Just Put Up a Sign

     When it comes to gun violence in America, one of the proposed measures for curbing the violence is Gun Free Zones. Numerous senators and congressmen back this effort, which would create more areas that would make it illegal for anyone to carry a weapon on those premises whether licensed by the state, or in blatant disregard for the law. The problem here is, at least in Texas, it is illegal to carry a handgun on your person without being tested, background checked, qualifying with your handgun to meet state standards, being finger printed, and finally, licensed. You cannot be a convicted felon, convicted of a Class-A misdemeanor involving the person's family or household, nor have any specific order issued at the state or federal level prohibiting your ownership of firearms. These measures are put in place so that anyone lawfully carrying a concealed weapon in Texas already fits into certain categories: trained, responsible, vetted, non-criminal, etc. As for those carrying illegally, we already know two things about that person: they are currently violating the law, and have made a conscious decision to do so, even in the presence of "The Sign".

     In 1990 the "Gun Free School Zone Act" was adopted, and prohibits anyone, licensed or not, from carrying a firearm of any kind onto the grounds of a public school. This measure was soon individually adopted by many private schools, universities, and public businesses. Since the passing of this measure, American's have seen the likes of Columbine, Virginia Tech, Newtown, Aurora, Fort Hood, the Amish school shooting, the Sikh Temple shooting, and far too many others. The shootings I have chosen to highlight are the most recognizable events in recent history, and all of them occurred in gun free zones. James Holmes, the Aurora, Co. theater shooter passed seven other theaters on his way to his target. Why? They allowed patrons to carry concealed weapons with permits. Holmes knew that the target he had chosen would not allow an environment where people can protect themselves. Adam Lanza killed his mother in order to steal her guns; he then went to a local elementary school in Newtown, Ct. and murdered 20 children and 6 educators who were trying to protect them. Although they gave their lives fighting for the protection of the children, those 6 educators were unsuccessful. Lanza took advantage of a gun free zone, and even had time to turn the gun on himself before police arrived.

     This is not an argument for arming teachers, or putting a gun in the hands of every citizen, far from it. However, it does seem as though the gun free zones are not having the force field effect on criminals that was originally intended. Doesn't it follow logical reasoning that someone who is in violation of the law by carrying an illegally concealed firearm, would also ignore any posted signs prohibiting the carrying of firearms by law? Where does this naivety come from? If we follow the line of reasoning that gun free zones and signs will reduce crime and the chance of crime, then we can also conclude that erecting speed limit signs will stop speeding, and signs prohibiting drunk driving will curb drunken driving related incidents. But we have speed limit signs, and still people speed, so what do we do? We place enforcers of those laws along our streets to ensure the adherence of the people to those laws. Are children in schools so much less important than commuters on a highway, that the differences in the level of protection and law enforcement provided are so stark? This just strikes me as backwards. People deserve the right to protect themselves, or be protected by others no matter where they may be. Some would argue that their right to life and safety trumps my right to carry a firearm. I would argue that my right to carry a firearm protects both of our rights to life and safety.

     We cannot keep throwing laws on the books expecting that one day, criminals will decide to abide. This, in fact, is what makes them criminals. If someone does not want the responsibility of owning or carrying a firearm, that is their choice; just as it is my choice to protect myself and my family by any means necessary while not impeding on the rights of others. Some would argue that I don't need to carry a handgun to protect myself because we have police. Well the police could not help the 12 people killed, and 58 injured in Aurora, and they could not help the children of Newtown. You, and only you, are the first layer in the defense of yourself. Because when seconds count, the police are only minutes away.