“Hunting preserves for psychos,” thoughts on gun-free zones
Jay Tea at Wizbang coined the phrase I used in the title, “hunting preserves for psychos,” after examining what it would truly take to make a gun-free zone a safe place to be.
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.
In essence, you take the model we all know and love from airport security and/or prisons and apply it to places like shopping malls or college campuses. The idea behind gun-free zones is to make it a safer place. Well, without controlling access of gun-carrying malcontents, how can that truly be? The short in the logic, like in all gun-control laws, is that all people, law abiding or otherwise, will respect the law. Funny how lawbreakers seem to miss that detail every time.
So let’s take the idea of a college, for example, designating itself (or the state legislature designating it) as a gun-free zone. No guns allowed; only the cops have guns. That’s the law students, faculty, staff and campus visitors agree to when stepping onto campus. The burgeoning argument in the Blogosphere is that these groups of people are forfeiting the individual right to “keep and bear arms” in return for the collective’s protection. If I give up my right to self-protection via my firearm, and set foot in the gun-free zone, then there is an expected level of protection afforded me by the college. The institution assumes the duties of protecting me and my family that I would have otherwise been able to provide.
Sounds like a legal briar patch I wouldn’t want to see anyone fall into. In my layman’s eyes, it’s as sound an argument as anything else. You tell me I can’t protect myself as I am able to do so anywhere else, I either a) refuse to step onto your grounds (something a state institution really can’t say) or b) allow me the individual right of self-protection I enjoy near anywhere else.
March 19th, 2008 at 12:55 EDT
A Little Gun History Lesson
In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. >From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
——————————
In 1911, Turkey established gun control. >From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
—————————
Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated
——————————
China established gun control in 1935. >From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
—————————-
Guatemala established gun control in 1964. >From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
——————————
Uganda established gun control in 1970. >From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
——————————
Cambodia established gun control in 1956. >From 1975 to 1977, one million ‘educated’ people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
—————————–
Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million.
——————————
It has now been 12 months since gun owners inAustralia were forced by new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by their own government, a program costing Australiataxpayers more than $500 million dollars. The first year results are now in:
Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2 percent
Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 percent
Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent)!
In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent. Note that whilethe law-abiding citizens turned them in, thecriminals did not, and criminals still possess their guns!
It will never happen here? I bet the Aussies said that too!
While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the past 12 months, since criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed.
There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the ELDERLY. Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety has decreased, after such monumental effort and expense was expended in successfully ridding Australian society of guns. The Australian experience and the other historical facts above prove it.
You won’t see this data on the US evening news, or hear politicians disseminating this information.
Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws adversely affect only the law-abiding citizens.
Take note my fellow Americans, before it’s too late!
The next time someone talks in favor of gun control, please remind him of this history lesson.
With Guns………..We Are “Citizens”.
Without Them……..We Are “Subjects”.
During W.W.II the Japanese decided not to invade America because they knew most Americans were ARMED !
Note: Admiral Yamamoto who crafted the attack on Pearl Harbor had attended Harvard U 1919-1921 & was Naval Attaché to the U. S. 1925-28. Most of our Navy was destroyed at Pearl Harbor & our Army had been deprived of funding & was ill prepared to defend the country.
It was reported that when asked why Japan did not follow up the Pearl Harbor attack with an invasion of the U. S. Mainland, his reply was that he had lived in the U. S. & knew that almost all households had guns.
April 8th, 2008 at 07:30 EDT
I think gun control is a really dangerous thing and we are heading towards the same fate as Australia with their rising crime rates if we impose more gun control on U.S. citizens.
June 7th, 2008 at 01:47 EDT
I like your point about the fact that if, for example, a college declares it a gun-free zone, then by stepping on their property and forced to be unarmed they should bear an extra level of protection towards you. This is a frequent discussion in our house whenever the topic of gun rights or some madman goes on a crazed rampage at a school. If someone had a gun and could fight back, how many more lives could have been saved? Thanks for posting your viewpoint as it mirrors that of many of us reasonable citizens out here.