Gun Free Zones

Howdy, friends;

Many of you will by now be aware of the huge debate over gun-free zones engendered by the Virginia Tech massacre.

Briefly stated, there are two camps:

One camp believes that gun control will solve their problems - they think that the solution is to get rid of all the guns, and all of America will become a gun-free zone. I personally think this is both impractical and naive, because if guns were outlawed, it would work about as well as prohibition did - or for that matter the current prohibition on drugs. That is to say, it just won't work, except to disarm the law-abiding victims.

The other camp believes that gun-free zones get people killed because the only people who have guns in gun-free zones are criminals - people who don't care that the law says it is a gun-free zone. So gun-free zones become kill zones.

I've been thinking about this. If a business, school or government entity wants to establish a gun-free zone, why not make them legally liable for enforcing it? After all, by taking away the right of the individual to have with them the tools of self-defense, by implication they are assuming the responsibility for the safety of the people in the gun-free zone. Require those who would inflict a gun-free zone on us to provide enough armed guards, and scanners and security personnel such as exists at the entries to the safe zone at airports, to guarantee that it really is a gun-free zone.

If the creator of the gun-free zone doesn't want to take on the responsibility (or financial burden) for the protection of the people therein, then they shouldn't have the right to remove the individual's tools of self-protection.

What the law should create at minimum is a level playing field for the good guys. Right now, the bad guys have a distinct advantage (mandated by law) since the gun-free zones are typically not enforced except at airports and courtrooms. And they know it, too.

What do you folks think?

-Pop