Shooting in a "Non Gun Free Zone"
It's no secret that schools are "Gun Free Zones." If it is a secret, it's not especially well kept: the students know it, their parents know it, the teachers and other school employees know it, and the newspapers know it when they publish stories about kids punished for bringing guns or knives into schools, or for drawing pictures of them. Other people might catch on by seeing unarmed school security guards. And still others could probably figure it out from seeing the "Gun Free Zone" signs, with the "No Gun" symbol for those who are functionally illiterate or inattentive.
But let's not allow ourselves to be diverted by red herrings, which alone amongst all the fish are always in season and in no danger of extinction. It's foolish to argue--or be misled into arguing--that "Gun Free Zones" cause school shootings or other murders. It's unlikely that a "Gun Free Zone" sign planted in the middle of an uninhabited area would attract many potential murderers. What's missing from that scenario are the murderer and the victims. No murderer, no murders. No victims, no dead bodies. That's probably why there are no school shootings with high body counts when the schools are not in session.
The murderers in all of the school shootings I remember were
students, starting with Charles Whitman at the University of Texas in 1966, through Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold at Columbine High School in 1999, to Seung Hui Cho at Virginia Tech in 2007. All of them--and I would bet all others too--knew where and when they could score high body counts, make headline news for it, and operate without opposition long enough to make their mark on the world. All of those, and the others I remember, left evidence that they knew they would not get out of the situation alive. So they didn't fear death and, it seems obvious, they even welcomed it. They wanted to go out in style by killing as many people as possible before they were killed or killed themselves.
In order to rack up high body counts they needed concentrations of potential victims, the victims had to be helpless, and the murderers needed enough uninterrupted time to do their work.
What better place is there than a school as the ideal killing ground for a determined murderer who wants to make headlines?
That's where the "Gun Free Zone" nature of schools becomes crucially important: the murderer need not worry that a teacher, administrator, other school employee, or parent could possibly intervene even if they had concealed handgun permits and were well trained. At colleges and universities, moreover, there's no need for a murderer to worry about intervention from students with concealed handgun permits and training either. I don't recall
any mass murders at colleges or universities when I was a student back in the dark ages at a time when nobody seemed concerned if anybody had firearms in dormitories.
I wouldn't be surprised if someone contradicted me with records of school shootings before 1966 and Charles Whitman, but that would miss one of my points. The point is that if they existed they were considered isolated incidents, not good cause for constant worry and attempts to control the uncontrollable. Whitman's 1966 murders from the University of Texas mark the beginning of that phase.
My major point is not that "Gun Free Zones" cause school shootings but that they make them schools attractive and easy killing fields for would-be murderers, especially students, and most especially students who want to kill a lot of school-related people before their own lights go out. They want high body counts and schools are the place to get them. Whitman chose a relatively inaccessible place to do his sniping and brought backup weapons so his murder session could continue in case one failed. Harris and Klebold also had multiple weapons. Cho had two weapons and took the precaution of chaining doors to prevent police from getting at him quickly.
Those thoughts are not all original with me. For years Texas Representative Susanna Gratia Hupp has made many of those same points in her frequent attempts to explain--patiently but with great passion--
why "Gun Free Zones" help kill people. They
do help get a
lot of people murdered.
In contrast, as Susanna Hupp points out, potential mass murderers of
citizens tend not to ply their craft where they know their potential victims are likely to be armed. We're not talking about people who attack police and police stations. They are another breed entirely. There's no way to stop them because they're operating with different motives and other mental processes. Still, even they can be--and are--contained and their damage limited.
That's what we're talking about: containment and limitation that prevent high body counts among the innocent.
Here the 1990 example of David Zaback becomes relevant. He is the man who tried to hold up a gun store in Seattle, Washington. A gun store is
not a "Gun Free Zone" but that doesn't matter because Zaback didn't care. What matters is that Zaback was unable to murderl
anyone because the venue he chose was a place where his potential victims
were armed. They lived. He died.
Zaback became "First Runner Up" for the 1997 Darwin Awards:
On February 3, 1990, a Renton (Seattle area) man tried to commit a robbery. This was probably his first attempt, as suggested by his lack of a record of violent crime, and by his terminally stupid choice:
1. The target was H&J Leather & Firearms, a gunshop;
2. The shop was full of customers, in a state where a substantial fraction of the adult population is licensed to carry concealed handguns in public places;
3. To enter the shop, he had to step around a marked King County Police patrol car parked at the front door;
4.An officer in uniform was standing next to the counter, having coffee before reporting to duty.
Upon seeing the officer, the would-be robber announced a holdup and fired a few wild shots. The officer and a clerk promptly returned fire, removing him from the gene pool. Several other customers also drew their guns, but didn't fire. No one else was hurt.
This happened February 4, 1990.
The robber, David Zaback, 33, died in the hospital a few hours after the shooting. His family said he suffered from a mental disorder that caused him to be irrational at times.
That, I think, is what we should be talking about instead of whether "Gun Free Zones"
cause murders. No one but David Zaback died when he started shooting in a gun store.
A great many people in addition to the murderer die when the murderer starts shooting in a gun free zone.
Who in his right mind wouldn't rather be in a gun store instead of a school when a murderer begins the process of victim selection?
"
