Bill would abolish gun free zones.

Status
Not open for further replies.
As a teacher I'd love it, but I foresee many states quickly enacting their own version of gun free zones if the federal law got repealed.
 
It would cost too much politcal capital. People would lose their seats in their next election because they voted to "let any madman into the schools with guns". Very few would keep their elected positions. Sad to say it but the "think of the children" attack would work in most districts. Because of this, VERY FEW pro-gun legislators would vote for it and absolutely none of the anti's would. We have seen time and time again that members of all parties are not willing to shoot themselves in the foot and deliberately cost themselves re-election for any law.

Then there is the Chicago bred, very anti President we have. It would still be falling onto his desk and he'd already have the veto stamp out.
 
Why Would You??

Why would you want to carry in a school?? I can see having police available in schools, which some schools already have, but not to allow the public to carry in schools.
 
snubbies - There have been several shootings in schools, colleges specifically (Virginia Tech) that could have been ended with A LOT less casualties than there were if students or teachers were able to carry on campus. Colombine could have been ended a whole lot earlier if the staff were armed. It's easy to go on a shooting rampage when there isn't anyone shooting back. The very real chance of equal and fatal retaliation is a strong deterrent .. ever hear of the cold war?

On the other hand, what makes a school ANY different than elsewhere? There are messed up people everywhere in this world...Slapping a University sign on a building doesn't stop them from entering. If you are carrying in a school, you are of legal age to have a firearm (18 for handguns according to federal law) which means you are probably in a college already. At that age, you can defend your country, but not your classmates?
 
Once again, the argument focuses on the relatively few (thank the Lord) school shootings and protecting the children from "madmen" (What madmen? The parents? The teachers? The homicidal janitor?) and not on something simple like a licensed carrier dropping off or picking up their children, or a teacher who is working late and is concerned about his or her personal safety.

If you must argue the public school massacres, the "gun-free" zones don't do anything about the typical perpetrators of the school violence: students who are already prohibited from carrying weapons without adult supervision in most states. They're already breaking the law; the gun-free zones just add another law to break. Some of these killers had already murdered someone before they even came to school! The Columbine shooters had already violated a raft of federal laws before entering into the building. For whatever reason, these young killers already clearly demonstrated that all the laws in the world won't deter them from their vicious goals. What the law does do is essentially eliminate the possibility that someone might be able to stop them before the body count gets too high.

The security guards in my local school district not only do not carry sidearms, they are prohibited from carrying them. They can't even carry a concealed weapon with a CHL, thanks to a brilliant piece of state legislation. Armed officers are available, courtesy of the constable's office, but they are too few to be posted in even the high schools on a regular basis. Some districts do have commissioned police officers who do carry sidearms, but you might have one in a school; there don't seem to be enough to have one in every school.

Furthermore, when the first law enforcement officers do arrive, they generally delay entering the building (this isn't a criticism: there are very good reasons for this). Only someone on the inside has the chance to end the killing spree.

Nobody is protecting the children by stripping those who would normally protect them of the means to do so. Teachers have already given their lives trying to protect their students.

This isn't just a matter of a federal law; it's a matter of well-intentioned but misguided legislation at the state level and it needs to be addressed.
 
We should all contact our representatives and encourage them to support Rep. Paul's legislation.

The Gun Free School Zones Act does absolutely nothing except disarm law abiding citizens. Guns aren't evil.........criminals are.
 
Tex, everything you said is true, but that won't change why the bill would never pass. Elected officials are loath to take action that will cost them their job. I'd bet my small collection that the "madmen in school" strawman would come up in every election where the person voted for the bill. I'd bet money that it would work in the majority of them (the same way death panels riled people up though it was a twist on what was in the proposed law which would require gross negligence to occur). My school shootings prove need, not convenience. My father can no longer shoot in his front yard because they built a school in town across the street from his house (he isn't in town, the road is the border). In IL, it's 1000 ft. Luckily he lives on a 170 acre farm and he can just move his range. Him, driving down his driveway going home from the official ranges in IL could cause a violation. That stupidity will not be the benefit focused on in any debate surrounding the law. While it is the most real and tangible benefit... the madmen scene will steal the focus because it is just hysterical enough to cause public anger. You have to sway the public opinion away from the madmen view before you can rationally talk about people picking up their kids with a gun in the car due to an unfortunately common irrational fear of handguns from the general non shooting public, aka the majority. If we can ever get general and widespread acceptance of firearms in public places (not just ccw), then it will be time to introduce the law as it will then have a shadow of even making it to debate instead of being tabled from the get go which is what this bill is destined for.
 
Why would you want to carry in a school?? I can see having police available in schools, which some schools already have, but not to allow the public to carry in schools.

.....please tell me you are kidding....?


VT and Columbine.......ide imagine someone with a CCW might have saved some lives.



also, what about going to and from school......

i happen to go to school near a pretty unsavory area.......we get security alerts at least once a month telling us that someone was attacked going to the train station, someone got mugged leaving a building at night, ect.

i know i would feel MUCH safer if i could carry my side arm with me.....but i cannot.........as a result, i dont stay on campus much after dark.
 
Colleges maybe, but I would not be comfortable with my nephew's teacher being armed. She is a fruitcake.

One place where I agree that guns do not belong is in a bar. Booze and guns do not mix.
 
Add a few Nuts

I am not kidding. How many teachers have the balls to get in a gunfight with a nut armed with an automatic weapon. Are you going to check the mental stability of those carrying the guns in the school?? Were there screening devices at Virginia Tech or Columbine??? This argument is academic since the repeal of the law will never happen. I think we are fortunate that CCW's are being enacted, except maybe Illinois, to allow us to protect our family and loved ones.
 
I am not kidding. How many teachers have the balls to get in a gunfight with a nut armed with an automatic weapon.
...
...
...
.

No one is asking them to.

What made you jump to such an extreme?

I'd just like for anyone that wants a chance, to have a chance.

Sounds, no more, nor... no less, ... than fair to me.
 
I am not kidding. How many teachers have the balls to get in a gunfight with a nut armed with an automatic weapon. Are you going to check the mental stability of those carrying the guns in the school?? Were there screening devices at Virginia Tech or Columbine??? This argument is academic since the repeal of the law will never happen. I think we are fortunate that CCW's are being enacted, except maybe Illinois, to allow us to protect our family and loved ones.

jeese, i wonder why there arent more violent shootings caused by deranged people with valid CCWs............oh thats right.....maybe its because mentally deranged people cant legally own weapons.

what is it about schools that cause people to think a legal CCW permit holder is all of a sudden going to snap and start murdering children?



as for your comment about teachers having the "balls" to get into a gun fight..........ive had professors who were Vietnam veterans.....even one who was a WW2 vet......im not saying they were expert marksmen....or even "gun guys"......but if someone came in shooting up the school...and they had a CCW, youd be damn sure it would be used if necessary, these arent the type of people who would just "roll over and die".
 
snubbies, you should ask some of the real oldtimers here and elsewhere who remember taking their guns to school for rifle team, or hunting after class, and nobody ever got shot. I prefer to have my sidearm on when I go to my son's school, and I am authorized by law to do so. I believe the right should be recognized for any lawful carrier. This type of law does NOTHING to enhance "security" whatsoever, and everything to make it far, far more likely that a crazed person may do death en masse before being stopped, or stopping themselves with suicide. I don't think anyone should ever be forced to carry, as they will not train with it, maintain it, or carry it safely, and may easily become a target in of itself for theft.
 
Zero chance of becoming POTUS, but wouldn't it be nice. RP for president.
 
It is impossible to prevent violent crime at any location on the planet. Laws do not prevent a violent criminal act from occurring by anyone who is intent to doing what they want to do. Passing any law that seeks to prevent any reasonably sentient human being from self-defense is foolish, contrary to simple reason, and militates against natural law. All creatures on this planet have some means of natural defense. For humans, it is our intellect coupled with the ability to use tools. Only fools and tyrants, at their peril, seek to monopolize control of the tools to the detriment of free citizens.
 
I don't care much about on school grounds, but that 1,000 foot zone has to go. When you add in all the schools in Phoenix its close to 75% of Phoenix being a gun free zone. Its not a question of who wants to take a gun to school its a question who wants a gun in 75% of Phoenix. While you can carry if you have a CCW its technically against the law to use it to defend yourself because its illegal to discharge a fire arm in that zone. One of the worst laws ever written.
 
Never Pass

The discussion above demonstrates why this law will never be repealed. Those on either side of the issue are locked in their position.
 
People would lose their seats in their next election because they voted to "let any madman into the schools with guns".

Well that would certainly preclude some crazed student from putting a rifle under a long coat and bringing it into the school, wouldn't it? :eek:
 
The discussion above demonstrates why this law will never be repealed. Those on either side of the issue are locked in their position.

locked into my position that "victim zones" need to go away...

...yeah, im happy to say thats one view i dont plan on changing.


they do nothing but make ignorant people feel good........"well, this is a gun free zone, no one can hurt me here"
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top