In many ways, the debate over gun-free zones are a reflection of the debate of many gun laws in the United States. Specifically, are people who observe these well-intentioned laws more likely to become victims at the hands of criminals?
In a gun-free zone, it is only the criminals that will be armed, putting potential victims under even greater threat from gun violence. Do gunmen target gun-free zones for this reason, or are they motivated by other factors? These questions are extensions of even deeper issues concerning gun laws in our nation.
Why Are People Opposed to Gun-Free Zones?
The arguments from opponents of gun-free zones stem from the fact that those who actually observe the law won’t be carrying guns. That means that law-abiding citizens are the ones who are at a disadvantage in gun-free zones should they be subject to a violent attack from an armed assailant.
A gunman with malicious intent won’t have any misgivings about breaking the rules of a gun-free zone. After all, they are intending to commit an act of violence against other people, so the least of their concern is breaking a no-gun policy. For this reason, gun-free zones are the perfect target for someone like a mass shooter. The likelihood of retaliation from armed victims is greatly reduced.
In addition to concerns over safety, there are now legal concerns for businesses who choose to make their property a gun-free zone. For example, under Tennessee law, businesses can now be held liable for the safety of those with concealed carry permits.
Lawmakers in many other states are considering similar legislation. A Wisconsin congressman in favor of passing a gun-free zone liability law compared businesses banning guns to water parks banning flotation devices.
How Big Is the Effect of Gun-Free Zones on Gun Violence?
The above argument makes perfect sense. Yet, the issue of mass shootings is a complex one, and there is plenty of data to suggest that mass shooters usually have motives that have little to do with whether their target is gun-free. More often than not, a gunman’s target is based on personal or political grievances. For example, the San Bernardino shooter targeted coworkers. The Orlando shooter at the Pulse nightclub targeted victims whose lifestyle he condemned.
A number of studies show that mass shootings occur more frequently in areas that are not gun-free, with some estimates saying that only 13 percent of these acts of violence occur in gun-free zones. Perhaps the bigger question is how many gunmen or mass shooters would actually be stopped by armed civilians. There are examples of armed citizens using firearms to take down a shooter, but there are still many questions that hang in the balance. For example, another major concern is whether intervention on the part of an armed citizen would actually lead to more injuries and fatalities.
It makes sense that so many people would have concerns over gun-free zones. People don’t want to feel as though they are vulnerable to the whims of a gunman. It’s also easy to understand people’s concerns about allowing guns in some public places. Issues over guns will continue to be hotly debated, especially in an election year.
If you (or a loved one) have been arrested in Kentucky or in the Lexington area in particular, call my office at (859) 685-1055 for a free consultation. Our lawyers specialize in helping defendants fight back on assault charges, misdemeanors, domestic violence, property crimes, drug charges and more, call today.