“Gun Free Zones” and Criminals

As many of my posts display, I am NOT a fan of gun free zones and I am a staunch supporter of the 2nd Amendment.  That said, it was quite troublesome to see the video’s that were prepared to be shown at yesterday’s marches which INCORRECTLY  referred to AR-15s as “Assault Weapons”.  An AR-15 is nothing more than a semi-automatic (definition:  One pull of the trigger fires one round) version of a popular deer rifle!

I have always maintained that “Gun Free Zones” ONLY are gun free to law abiding citizens (the definition of a criminal is one who does not follow the law), and as such leave all law abiding citizens in them completely defenseless in the face of a criminal gunman.

Furthermore I have always advocated for ALLOWING licensed faculty and staff on schools to carry their personal firearms on the property as the BEST defense for an active shooter situation.  My reasoning is as follows:

1. Paid, Armed Security, typically wears a uniform so that they can be easily distinguished from the general population.  This allows the criminal to easily see where they are at any time and to plan an attack vector that puts him farthest away from the armed security.
2. Many people are demanding arming the teachers as a solution. As I stated above, I advocate ALLOWING licensed faculty and staff to carry PERSONAL firearms on the property for the following reasons.
   1. The carriers are already familiar with these firearms.
   2. The carriers PRACTICE with these firearms.
   3. The carriers are already comfortable carrying their personal firearms.
   4. Not everyone can deal with the responsibility that comes with carrying a firearm, and as such I believe it is not a best practice to try and arm a person who cannot deal with carrying a firearm.
3. The Parkland attack demonstrated an issue that I had never considered. These “highly trained” law enforcement officers seem to be trained to call for backup instead of engaging the shooter as soon as possible.   This is the worst possible scenario because we have “a good guy with a gun” already on site, but the waiting for backup to arrive completely neutralizes his presence, it is just like calling the authorities even without paid armed security on site!  A complete waste of the school’s funds and it cost 17 people their lives!
4. I hear many people calling for licensed carriers to “be trained” before they can carry on school property.  I have asked all who say that when I meet them as to what kind of training are they advocating, and NONE can give an actual type of training that they feel is appropriate.  The best, and most unexpected, thing that licensed carriers can do in an active shooter situation is to shoot back!
5. Allowing licensed carriers on school property causes the following to change as the “Gun Free Zone” is eliminated.
   1. The criminal no longer KNOWS that the population at the school is completely defenseless.
   2. The criminal will encounter the one thing he hates the most, someone shooting at him! (likely from several different directions).
   3. The criminal can no longer tell who is carrying and who is not.
   4. The criminal can no longer know where the guns are on campus at any time.
   5. The criminal can no longer select an attack vector where he has the greatest chance to kill without risk.
6. At Parkland, and other “Gun Free Zone” attacks, some people shielded others and attempted to engage the gunman, unarmed.  Sadly these efforts ended tragically, but had these heroes been armed, all those incidents would likely have ended much differently.

In closing, my support for the 2nd Amendment is unwavering.  My view is that if you can afford to buy the firearm and you can afford to feed the firearm (purchase the ammunition so you can practice with the firearm), you should be allowed to own the firearm.