by Dennis Smith

Created on: April 15, 2008

Colleges ARE already gun-free zones. In most states guns are prohibited from college campuses even for those who legally own and are permitted to legally carry a gun by that state. Whether you are a student or a visitor the law holds.

However, this has not prevented mass-shootings on college campuses. There is absolutely no statistical evidence to indicate that gun-free zones have any positive effect in preventing shootings. The simple and obvious fact is that the shooter does not CARE that the area is a gun-free zone. He is intent on killing people, feels justified in doing so and does not give two cents that it is against the law to have a gun on the campus. After all he is contemplating murder, mass murder.

If a gun-free zone does anything it prevents law-abiding people who DO care about obeying the law, from having the means to protect themselves and their loved ones from a lethal attack. In almost every case of a mass shooting on a college campus or any where for that matter, the only choice the victims had was to run or hid. Most often they were shot cowering on the ground as the shooter walked unhampered on his killing spree. Why?, because it was a gun-free zone and no one except the shooter had a gun. Why?, because only the shooter didn't care whether it was a gun-free zone or not. He will conceal the weapon as well. So, being able to "single out" a shooter because no one else has guns is not a valid argument either.

In most cases the shooting and killing was over by the time police arrived. In most cases the carnage ended ONLY because the shooter decided to shoot themselves for some reason. It is only the people who are there, on the scene, when the incident occurs who have any chance of stopping someone. Conversely, there have been a number of cases when armed students of faculty stopped an attack. Unfortunately these incidents don't make the papers. One occasion was at the Appalachian Law School January 16, 2002. Two armed and one unarmed student stopped the gunman before he could kill anyone. Both armed students had to run to their cars to retrieve their handguns. In that time the shooter killed three people and wounded three others. They had to go to their cars because they were not allowed to carry on campus.

Gun-free zones are an illusion. They sound good but accomplish nothing. They give the illusion "something is being done" but are based on irrational thinking. The only think they accomplish is to give the shooter a "fish in a barrel" opportunity. Calling the police does not work as they almost always arrive AFTER the incident is over to clean up the blood and catch the shooter IF he has not already killed himself.

Occasions when people use firearms to defend themselves and others is greatly under reported. As a result people have the impression that carrying a gun or possessing a gun will not and does not save lives. This is a fallacy. You might also consider another gun-free zone, church. Thankfully the account of the shooting at New Life Church in Colorado has received more press. The gunman was shot by a volunteer member of the church's Security staff. The gunman actually killed himself after being shot and downed by the member.

If shooting in schools are valid arguments for gun-free zones however irrational, why are accounts in which the possession of a firearm by someone at the scene during the incident ended the violence considered "anomalous" and no argument for the revocation of gun-free zones? People abhor violence and irrationally lump all use of force as violence. The use of a gun for self-defense is not distinguish from the use of a gun to commit a crime.

Learn more about this author, Dennis Smith.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.