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 cir***stantial
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?
From: http://wizbangblog.com/content/2008/02/17/the-zone-nondefense.php
|
