Most dangerous ban in America already here: ‘Gun Free Zones’

In the wake of the tragic, horrific slaughter of innocent school children in Connecticut, there has been a renewed cry for more gun control laws. This stems from the natural need to “do something” when a tragedy of this proportion occurs. I agree we need to do something, but the “something” I want is a bit different.

The “Gun Free Schools Act of 1994” made it a federal crime to possess a firearm on any school property. Many states enacted similar legislation at the state level, as the federal act required them to do so or lose certain federal funding. Thus, it has been a crime to go onto school property anywhere in the US while in possession of a gun for the past 18 years. Has that helped?
Well, I did some research and I cannot find a single mass school shooting in the US prior to 1994, when this bill was passed. For the purposes of this discussion, I will define a “mass school shooting” as one in which three or more people were killed. I have found 14 such incidents in the United States between 1997 and the Newtown, CT, incident of yesterday. That is an average of one incident every two years.

ALL OF THESE OCCURRED AFTER THE ENACTMENT OF THE GUN FREE SCHOOLS ACT OF 1994! Let me emphasize that—every mass school shooting in the US occurred AFTER it became illegal to possess a gun on school grounds.

Why?

The answer should be obvious. By making schools a “gun free zone”, you automatically disarm all law abiding citizens at those locations. This is tantamount to placing a sign on the front of the building inviting criminals and mentally deranged persons to come shoot up the place. “Come on in. We’re all unarmed, by law. We won’t interfere with your mayhem.”

Disgusting…

I, for instance, have a state issued handgun carry permit. I am certified by the NRA as a Law Enforcement Firearms Instructor and I have been certified by the FBI as a police firearms instructor. I am certified by two states to train and certify new firearms instructors for those states. I have held a law enforcement officer commission. I travel all over the US teaching defensive firearms use. Yet, by law, I would commit a felony by stepping onto school grounds while wearing my sidearm. Despite this, someone who, for whatever reason, wants to shoot up a school can walk right in. If he is willing to murder six year olds in cold blood, he certainly won’t be deterred by a law against bringing a gun onto the campus. Duh….. To think otherwise is so naïve as to be a form of mental illness.

I think it is truly ironic that in the first mass school shooting I could find, occurring in 1997, the mayhem was stopped when the Assistant Principal got a handgun from his car and confronted the gunman, who surrendered to him. Thank God the Assistant Principal had an ILLEGAL gun that day.

A couple of weeks ago, there was an attempted mass shooting at a mall in Oregon. The demented shooter had a high capacity semiautomatic rifle, but he only managed to kill two people and wound one other before killing himself. Why was the body count so low, given that this was obviously a copy-cat version of the Aurora, CO, shootings? The answer is simple. Because Nick Meli, age 22, was at the mall there with his wife and child. Nick has a concealed carry permit and was wearing a handgun concealed on his person. When the suspect began shooting, Nick drew his gun and verbally challenged the gunman. Meli held his fire because of innocent people in the background (excellent judgment under stress), but his actions caused the gunman to break off the attack, run into a nearby service corridor and kill himself, ending the spree. Of course, the lamestream media will not tell you about Nick. They would prefer a higher body count rather than tell you a legally armed citizen saved the day.

Here are a few other instances that two minutes of internet research brought to light. In each case, a legally armed private citizen saved lives by being there and by being armed.

  • In Pearl, Mississippi in 1997, 16-year-old Luke Woodham stabbed and bludgeoned to death his mother at home, then killed two students and injured seven at his high school. As he was on his way to another school building , he was stopped by Assistant Principal Joel Myrick, who had gone out to get a handgun from his car. Having that gun was illegal, but it saved lives.
  • In Edinboro, Pennsylvania in 1996, 14-year-old Andrew Wurst shot and killed a teacher at a school dance, and shot and injured several other students. He had just left the dance hall, carrying his gun when he was confronted by the dance hall owner James Strand, who lived next door and kept a shotgun at home.
  • In Winnemucca, Nevada in 2008, Ernesto Villagomez killed two people and wounded two others in a bar filled with three hundred people. He was then shot and killed by a patron who was carrying a gun (and had a concealed carry license).
  • In Colorado Springs in 2007, Matthew Murray killed four people at a church. He was then shot several times by Jeanne Assam, a church member, volunteer security guard, and former police officer (she had been dismissed by a police department 10 years before, and to my knowledge hadn’t worked as a police officer since).

So, I do want some legislative action. I want “gun free zones” abolished, at least for legally armed citizens with government issued licenses to carry. This is real “common sense” gun legislation.

posted by JEDECKERT · tags: , , ,
  • theillinoisprepper

    Are Gun Bans What We Need???

    In my own opinion, I say no, why do I say this? In this article I will explain my reasons for my opinion.

    A lot of Americans believe that a Gun Ban would solve the mass killings that have been happening here in America during the past few months. Does anyone remember the Oklahoma City Bombing? Here is a link about it if you have forgotten.
    http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma_City_bombing
    Now this was a “bombing” not a shooting and 168 deaths and 680 injured.
    Then you have the notorious 9/11 Attack where 2,996 Americans were killed and 6,000 injured. All of this done with Aircraft not guns. Here is a link in case you forgot.
    http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11_attacks
    Do you also remember Waco Massacre where a takeover of the operation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Hostage Rescue Team and a 51-day standoff, which ended in an assault on the premises on April 19, 1993, and a fire in which 76 of the occupants died, including many women and children? Here is the link to that and again no guns were used in the killings.
    http://www.constitution.org/waco/mtcarmel.htm
    Another bombing that took the lives of 243 passengers and 16 crew members and 11 innocent people on the ground below was the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103, where two Libyan nationals planted a bomb on the plane and exploded it in mid air. Here is a link to that.
    http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan_Am_Flight_103
    So should we ban steel,wire,gun powder,tape,clay and other components to make a bomb? Should we ban Aircraft also since Aircrafts alone have killed more people than bullets??

    Do you really think that a Gun Ban would stop local area gangs from stealing guns, or buying them from Mexico? Also do you really think gang members will hand over their guns peacefully? I know the answer to that but do you? Just think about it, to give you an idea of what they are dealing with as far as gangs and its members go, here is a link with stats from 2008 of how many there are here in the United States. Just a heads up, it is not a small number.
    http://crimeinamerica.net/2010/04/01/774000-gang-members-and-27900-gangs-active-in-the-us-crime-news/
    This is what they are up against, not including the rest of America of the law abiding citizens. There are over 300 million Americans, and around 47% of all Americans own a gun legally. Then factor in the illegal gun owners and you are probably looking at a percentage around 87% of all Americans have atleast one gun. Here is a link to prove my numbers..
    http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_gun_owners_are_there_in_the_United_States_of_America#page1
    Do you know how many Elected Government Officials there are in the United States? I bet you will be surprised to know there are only 537 members. Here is a link for that.
    http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_elected_government_officials_are_in_the_US#page1
    For all of you out there who think that our Government can take our gun rights and our guns, you are only half right. The Constitution and the Amendments in it can NOT be abolished but CAN be amended. What this means is they can say what kind of gun you may own but they can not take away your right to own a gun, PERIOD end of story. Here is my link to this proof.
    http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution
    If and that is a BIG “IF”, they tried to disarm Americans it would not only be unconstitutional and Treason but impossible. They are out numbered and out gunned. This is a Civil War they do not want to start. So yes they may say you can not own a semi-automatic rifle but I do not see them banning lever action sniper rifles like the 7.62 Mosin Nagant or the Remington R700.
    Are our guns safe then you ask? Yes, for now. Just do not underestimate their mindset.

    • Nope just Nope

      You are so wrong, you cant assume people that use a gun turn to maikng bombs that is just plain wrong. How did you come up with that? Also, you said planes kill people and you are correct they do but, by malfuntion not a pesrons finger. The sad part is you Americans will ignore the death and killing right infront off your eyes and say that its the crazies fault, but in fact the gun laws are the problem you cant fix people that are crazy, but you can change GUN LAWS. Anyways next point, you said that their are 87% of people that have GUNS, thats crazy in it’s self 87% have guns that just blows my mind how irresponsible can you get, are you trying to get 100%? Because it seems like you want a gun on every person in the states thats sane. Last point, I love the good old guns do saves lives line, that is just plain ignoriant, and its correct to a point. For example, go to any news paper and no doubt there will be a shooting in the newspaper, and now go look for a gun man saving lives with his gun odds are the gun man killing people will be higher, due to the fact that people snap and loose it unknowingly which is the BIG PROBLEM you cant find out when a person has snaped if they only live by themsleves that is why guns do more harm then good.

      • billl77

        I think you live by yourself you wacko you could not even comprehend what the poster was even talking about try reading it again slowly then maybe you won’t make such a fool of yourself

  • http://www.facebook.com/antmancpa Less Antman

    One correction: 1994 was 18 years ago, not 28.

    It does seem like common sense that, just as non-gun owners don’t put signs up outside their house to let strangers know everyone inside is unarmed, schools shouldn’t advertise a lack of protection, even if none of the staff actually carry guns at work And as this study (http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=161637) shows, multiple death shootings overwhelmingly take place in designated gun-free zones, and concealed carry reduces the frequency of rampage killings. Why bother calling the armed police once the shooting starts if firearms have no legitimate defensive use?

    The studies I’ve seen suggest that 45% of homes have a gun. 87% isn’t accurate, because it is the number of guns divided by the population, and fails to take into account the fact that some own multiple guns. A friend of mine who is a police officer has several at home, in addition to his service revolver, simply because he enjoys upgrading and hates to dispose of old friends.

    Anyone who thinks that people won’t acquire guns (or smoke pot) if illegal are deluding themselves. Bad guys are badly outnumbered by good guys, so why disarm the latter to make it easier for the former to succeed? I don’t like guns, but I also don’t like victim disarmament laws, enforced by people with guns.

    • http://vforvandyke.com/ Stephen VanDyke

      > One correction: 1994 was 18 years ago, not 28.

      Thank you Less, this has been corrected.