Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Gun Free Zones: The Ugly Truth

Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by Dean Weingarten, Feb 28, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Dean Weingarten

    Dean Weingarten Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2012
    Messages:
    423
    The ugly truth is that gun free zones are not about irrational dreams of safety. They are about power and control. The irrational spouting about safety is just a way to get emotional support from those who don’t really think about the issue.

    Gun free zones are just another incremental way to move toward total control. The idea is simple: make an example of a place where guns are not allowed, with no rational reason other than “we do not tolerated armed citizens *here*” . This lends legitimacy to the thought that citizens with guns are a bad thing, and the idea that more such zones should be created and encouraged. Haven't we all heard a variant of “If we do not allow guns in (school, legislature, church) then we certainly should not allow them in (school, legislature, church, parking lot, mall, store, DC.)

    Gun free zones are designed to grow and spread, like small pox.

    The other purpose of gun free zones is to make carrying a gun as uncomfortable, legally dangerous, and impractical as possible. Look at any map that shows the impact of the insane “Gun Free School Zone” act of 1996. In any urban area, it becomes impossible to conduct business in a normal manner while carrying a gun that is not licensed in that state, without breaking the law.

    Neither of these clear purposes is discussed openly by those who detest free citizens, fear the power that they gain from carrying guns, and the independent mindset that it fosters.

    Those who favor citizen disarmament base their appeal on lies, derive their power from lies, and cannot exist when their lies are exposed.

    ©2013 by Dean Weingarten Permission to share granted as long as this notice is included.

    http://gunwatch.blogspot.com/2013/03/gun-free-zones-ugly-truth.html
     
  2. JustinJ

    JustinJ Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2011
    Messages:
    4,046
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    What evidence do you have for the above statement? Do you have the ability to magically read people's minds to identify their real motives? It is not hard to understand how people intuitevely conclude that restricting firearms will create a safer area. If a store, hospital or church decides to ban guns on their premise do you honestly believe it is because they attempting to gain incrimental control? Some businesses with lots of money or valuables on hand ban concealed weapons because they believe the best chances of preventing death or injury during a robbery is to comply with the thief rather than resist. In the vast majority of instances they are probably right. They don't want a customer or employee to turn a robbery into a murder. Some places may also be concerned with irresponsible gun handling. Negligent discharges do happen and i know people with permits who have accidentally left their guns in public places. Others may be concerned about normally law abiding citizens escalating conflicts to dangerous levels that otherwise would be minor. Security has a saying about signs and cameras, they keep the honest people honest.

    Am I in favor of gun free zones? No. There are instances in which i can see the reason behind them but i don't believe my ability to defend myself should be limited because of the actions of others. Some people don't agre with me. That doesn't justify me making up unsubstantiated claims about their desires to take over the world.
     
  3. Deltaboy1984

    Deltaboy1984 Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2008
    Messages:
    6,306
    Location:
    Johnson County Texas
    There is no logical reason for Gun Free Zones.
     
  4. GAF

    GAF Member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2012
    Messages:
    368
    Delusional thinking creates dangerous zones where the like minded feel safe.
     
  5. Dean Weingarten

    Dean Weingarten Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2012
    Messages:
    423
    Perhaps I should have said "legislated" gun free zones, but I thought that was implied.

    Those who have the motives that I ascribe do not commonly place those thoughts in the public discourse, and motivations are slippery things.

    But to attribute the desire to ban guns from a thousand feet of a school, as somehow contributing to "school safety" seems so clearly disingenious as to lack of another explanation than that given.

    I am willing to listen to other motivations that you would suggest.
     
  6. JustinJ

    JustinJ Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2011
    Messages:
    4,046
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    So then you must believe that the Texas State Legislature does not allow concealed weapons in public schools because they have a secret pact to take over the world through incremental totatalitarianism? Perfectly logical.

    People are not infallible. People do have negligent discharges. One guy managed to accidentally shoot his concealed carry gun in a walmart bathroom. Some even accidentally leave guns in public places where a child could find them. Those are not valid reasons to be concerned about allowing firearms to be carried in certain places?
     
  7. JustinJ

    JustinJ Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2011
    Messages:
    4,046
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    I've already listed quite a number that are absolutely applicable when considereing legislation. My point is that there are valid arguments for certain gun free zones just as there are valid arguments against them. Like most things in life it is not a black and white issue. I object to ignoring the expressed concerns of people with a different point of view and then accusing them of just wanting to implement total control, which they themselves wouldn't gain to begin with, rather then actually having a real discussion.
     
  8. jerkface11

    jerkface11 Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2005
    Messages:
    5,498
    Location:
    Arkansas
    Of course JustinJ also thinks the president and vice president are motivated by concern for the safety of our children and not just grabbing for power.
     
  9. JustinJ

    JustinJ Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2011
    Messages:
    4,046
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    Jerkface, loosen the tin foil and actually adress my points for a change.
     
  10. bobmcd

    bobmcd Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2008
    Messages:
    132
    Location:
    Alexandria Virginia
    There is a wise old saying that one should not try to pin something on malice that can be explained by stupidity. I am of the opinion that GFZ's are stupid, but not malicious.

    Just one man's opinion.

    On the other hand, the stupidity of the gun free zone idea is well over a hundred years old. In 1881, Tombstone was a city-wide gun free zone (they obviously did not call it that at the time). This did not prevent the OK Corral shootout; in fact, it can be argued that it caused the shootout.

    Malicious? Maybe, maybe not. Stupid? Definitely.
     
  11. jerkface11

    jerkface11 Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2005
    Messages:
    5,498
    Location:
    Arkansas
    It's hardly tinfoil hat territory to think that gun control advocates don't realize it doesn't work.
     
  12. jamesbeat

    jamesbeat Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2009
    Messages:
    610
    I think that it also has something to do with demonization.
    When my wife was pregnant, we had to go to the emergency room because of a complication (baby's fine btw).
    Because it was an unexpected visit, I had my knife clipped to my pants IWB, but with the end of the handle and the clip showing.
    I was in a bit of a panic because of the medical emergency, so until everything calmed down it didn't even occur to me that the knife was a) on my person, and b) unwelcome in the hospital.
    I saw a sign forbidding knives (actually 'weapons' with a picture of a knife and a gun) so I made an excuse and went to the bathroom to drop it in my pocket, covering it with my arm on the way.

    Now, I'm sure hospitals get more than their fair share of psychos, but I'm equally sure that someone who is intending to cause trouble will not heed the signs.

    These types of signs definitely give out a 'Your kind aren't welcome here' vibe to me.
     
  13. CarolinaChuck

    CarolinaChuck member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2013
    Messages:
    65
    First off you are trying to reason with the irrational, and that usually makes you come off as sounding foolish. I feel the arguement is much simpler than that; there is evil in this world, and as such, safety in ones person is an illusion. These fools can not legislate morality no more than they can legislate safety... These people who think or speak of such nonsense are dulusional at best, or just full of crap.

    Some people are just out of their gords; all you have to do is drive down the highway a few miles. How many tickets have been written, are written and will be written? And yet, the American highway is still the most dangerous place on earth...

    Chuck
     
  14. Dean Weingarten

    Dean Weingarten Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2012
    Messages:
    423
    I have been participating in this discussion and legislative process for about 45 years. There are people who actually believe the points that you bring up; but experience in the last 20 years or so shows that they are generally mistaken in their fears.

    However, at the legislative level, those that write the laws that create such things as the "gun free school zones" clearly have an agenda that means to gradually and incrementally disarm the American populace. Sometimes it is directly admited, as by Senator Fienstein or by an intellectual such as Charles Krauthammer. It has been a staple of "progressive" thought for nearly a hundred years.

    It is not so easy to document a movement that is based on the belief that it is necessary to decieve the people in order to "advance" society.
     
  15. Dean Weingarten

    Dean Weingarten Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2012
    Messages:
    423
    We existed for hundreds of years without such a prohibition, and we had less problems than today. Then there is a huge media campagn to ban guns in schools and the Federal government passes a law prohibiting guns within a thousand feet of a school, and this is all based on no verifiable benefit. Since the law passed, the number of mass school shootings has quadrupled.

    I do not doubt that there are many who actually believe that Gun Free Zones increase safety, but it appears to be because of a media campaign based on "progressive" ideology that has promoted that beleif.

    There is no question that the "progressive" belief structure desires to increase government power, degrade the Constitution as old fashioned, and create some sort of "world government" . It also appears to denigrate the idea of God.

    If that is your idea of
    then, yes I believe that is correct.
     
  16. beatledog7

    beatledog7 Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2011
    Messages:
    5,093
    Location:
    Tidewater
    Dean,

    Has anyone ever studied or considered which places do we all think actually should be gun free, and how would we ensure that they really are gun free?

    Rather than start with those that are so-called gun-free now and work backwards, what if we consider it from a position of "no place is designated/legislate gun free" and add places to that set of none?
     
  17. Dean Weingarten

    Dean Weingarten Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2012
    Messages:
    423
    There is a pretty simple answer as to what places should be "gun free". It may not be perfect, but It solves most problems.

    It is this: If police are allowed to be armed there, then so should other citizens. This takes care of prisons and most courtrooms. If it is truely dangerous to have guns in a location, then the police should not be allowed to have guns there either.
     
    Last edited: Feb 28, 2013
  18. beatledog7

    beatledog7 Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2011
    Messages:
    5,093
    Location:
    Tidewater
    I'm inclined to agree. If the no-guns-for-safety concept is in effect, then a BG who can snag my CCW could even more easily snag a LEO's open carry gun., especially given that he can see it.
     
  19. Dean Weingarten

    Dean Weingarten Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2012
    Messages:
    423
    Another thing to consider is the actual effect of legislation rather than its stated purpose. More often than not, legislation is given a stated purpose that has nothing to do with its intended effect, simply as an artifice to help pass it into law.

    I think it is more important to look at the actual effects of legislation rather than the stated purposes. As I have already said, motivations are slippery things, and many people are very good at lying to themselves.
     
  20. OptimusPrime

    OptimusPrime Member

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2012
    Messages:
    573
    Location:
    The Old Dominion
    I always thought that zero tolerance laws exist so that a stiffer penalty can be enforced when they're broken. You make selling dope a certain level of crime, but if near school property then the penalty increases hugely. Same with guns; make a city "gun-free" and then you can prosecute the criminals to a higher level or maybe actually get them imprisoned.
    Of course, it catches some of the ones who aren't really criminals too but those poor few don't really matter, right?
     
  21. jamesbeat

    jamesbeat Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2009
    Messages:
    610
    Agreed, in fact while I was at the hospital with my knife, there were several police officers there too, guarding a dangerous patient.
    I'm no cop basher, but LEO's have their fair share of ND's, shooting bystanders etc, plus the open carry thing makes it easier for someone to grab their gun.
    I'm not saying the cops shouldn't have been armed, but I certainly shouldn't have been made to feel uncomfortable and guilty for having my folding knife either.
     
  22. Vurtle

    Vurtle Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2011
    Messages:
    77
    JustinJ,
    How can you have over 3000 post on this forum and still think that gun free zones are a good thing? Maybe I am misunderstanding what you are saying though and I apologize if so. It is super simple to understand. People with bad intentions do not stop what they plan to do simply because an area is "gun free". They probably prefer those areas because of their high odds of achieving their goal without much resistance. The gun free zones are also called gun slaughter zones for a reason. The idea of leaving people defenseless and thinking bad people will not bother with a zone designated to be gun free is ignorant. There will probably be many more of these sad incidents because bad people are realizing how effective they can be at mass murders when there is no opposition.
     
  23. Vurtle

    Vurtle Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2011
    Messages:
    77
    JustinJ,

    Based on your reasoning of what can happen with a firearm, does that mean you think that everywhere should be a gun free zone? Because in reality, accidental discharges and other firearm incidents can happen any where with any body.
     
  24. USAF_Vet

    USAF_Vet Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2011
    Messages:
    5,773
    Location:
    Hastings, Michigan
    I would agree that this makes sense, but then I look a Chicago and realize that it isn't put into practice. EVER. The Honor Student 0bama likes to talk about who was shot a few blocks from his house was shot by a thug who has a long list of gun crimes, and consistently given probation. If probation is Chicagos idea of a 'stiffer penalty' then they deserve their title of "murder capital, USA, 2012". If they would actually throw these thugs in prison and leave the law abiding alone, they might make some headway with their crime/ gang problem.
     
  25. jamesbeat

    jamesbeat Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2009
    Messages:
    610
    I'd go one further, use modern terminology, and say that there is no such thing as an 'accidental' discharge.
    Aside from the vanishingly small chance of a firearm going off because of a mechanical failure (or series of mechanical failures in a modern firearm) 'accidental' discharges are actually not accidental, but negligent.
    Given that all people are prone to make mistakes, the prospect of a ND is something to be considered, but I agree with the above poster that if police can carry in a given area, civilians should be able to too.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page