Gun Free Zones 1

Gun Free Zones

An Examination of Policy

Brian M. Kern
University of North Texas
CJUS 4901 Senior Seminar
Dr. Lisa Muftić

“Dominic: What do you think will happen, Inspector?

Inspector Finch: What usually happens when people without
guns stand up to people with guns.”
- V for Vendetta
 Gun Free Zones 2

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a Free State, the
right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
– Second Amendment of the United States Constitution

Every 22.2 seconds a violent crime is committed somewhere in the United States. Every

36.6 seconds an aggravated assault occurs somewhere in the United States. Every 1.2 minutes a

robbery occurs somewhere in the United States, and every 30.9 minutes there is a murder. (UCR,

2006) These statistics, taken from the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Uniform Crime Report,

present a frightening picture of criminal activity in America, but most importantly, underline the

deep and pervasive role violence and criminal activity have on our society. According to one

National Institute of Justice survey of convicted felons, 68% of all robberies are committed with

handguns. (Kates, 2003) Or as Carlisle Moody put it, “A criminal with a gun is a more efficient

criminal.” (Moody, 2003)

In an effort to reduce the harmful effects of firearms, a vast number of policies and laws

have been considered, and some even adopted, by the United States in order to curb what some

see as a historical “bloodiness”, or the American heritage of violence. From the early years of its

inception the United States has been a country that has espoused the very foundations of violent

response. Even its very birth was founded in bloodshed and gunpowder. The United States has

fought in over twenty one armed conflicts in the course of a little more than two hundred years,

projecting force from the barrel of a gun. The United States leads the world in military

advancement and might and the United States leads the world with the largest armed populace,
 Gun Free Zones 3

owning 270 million of the world’s 875 million known firearms. (MacInnis, 2007) As Mao Tse

Tung so aptly put it, “political power comes from the barrel of a gun.”

One of the most important policies that have been enacted in the United States is the

creation of the “Gun-Free Zone”. These zones, initially proposed by gun control advocates who

modeled these programs based upon the relatively successful “Drug-Free Zones” of the early

1980s, were implemented with the intention of increasing the severity of the consequences of

bringing or using a firearm in or around a school. Gun Free Zones were initially designed to

reduce the levels of violence in the testosterone charged atmosphere of high school.

Two important issues appear with the creation of Gun Free Zones. First, in the bloody

aftermath of school shootings, does the deterrent and incapacitation values of Gun Free Zones

stand steady against gun rights activists who point to the mass casualties of Gun Free Zone

shootings? Are Gun Free Zones actually helping to reduce violence? Or do they merely enable

criminals and homicidal nuts to create a higher casualty count? The second issue is more

prosaic, and involves an American concept of personal responsibility. Does the government and

private property owners have the right to declare a public place a Gun Free Zone, thus preventing

law-abiding citizens who are licensed to legally carry a weapon, from doing so?

The Constitutional right to bear arms has been a hotly debated issue for decades, and one

that is not the issue of this examination, but we must acknowledge that the foundation for both

anti-gun laws and the right to bear arms comes from the Second Amendment of the United States

Constitution. Standard bearers for both the “collective” and “individualistic” view of the Second

Amendment come saddled with political bias. But what can not be argued against is the belief of

our founding fathers, who felt that personal responsibility in the face of adversity is one of the

most desirable traits of not just Americans, but mankind. The Constitutional framers clearly
 Gun Free Zones 4

believed in the concept of personal responsibility in the face of aggression and tyranny, and the

right of the people to defend themselves against all aggressors, including the government.

(Kates, 2003) In 1759, Benjamin Franklin said “They that can give up essential liberty to obtain

a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” (Franklin, 1759) Thomas Paine, the

author of Common Sense wrote:

“The peaceable part of mankind will be continually overrun by the vile

and abandoned while they neglect the means of self defense. The supposed

quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms like

laws discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in

the world. All would be wonderful if evil men would disarm, but since some will

not, others dare not lay them aside. Horrid mischief would ensue; the weak would

become prey to the strong.” (Kates, 2003)

And yet as our country continues its technological and cultural advancement, many more

citizens actively promote this abdication of personal responsibility, wanting instead to relinquish

their rights, their safety, their liberty, to the government. Gun Control Advocates state correctly

that firearms are the only “widely available consumer products designed to kill.” (Doyle, 2005)

Over 28,000 Americans die every year to gun violence. (Doyle, 2005) But as experiments in

gun-free nations such as Great Britain have shown, controlling guns by removing them from the

populace only places law-abiding citizens (or subjects) in danger. Following the 1997 UK

handgun ban, felony crimes committed with pistols rose by 40 percent, and the upward trend has

continued. (Malcom, 2000) Other interesting facts also reveal themselves; for example, in the
 Gun Free Zones 5

United States, most home burglaries are committed when no one is at home. In Great Britain,

32% of home invasions are committed during the evening, when families are present. A

frightening 30% take place on the weekends! (SecureOne, 2008) The psychology behind this is

easy to deduce. American burglars are worried about getting shot. British ones are not.

Just as any tool or technology can be used for purposes that support the common good,

firearms are an almost “made-to-order” recipe for the criminal element. Violence in the United

States has always been higher in comparison to other western nations, with or without guns. But

our propensity and reputation to solve problems with a gun, to “shoot first and ask questions

later” and the massive number of firearms held by the American public, certainly provokes

important questions concerning the wisdom behind the Second Amendment. The debate over

gun control is a raging firestorm of statistics, intentions, crime reports, and high emotions.

Advocates of gun control point to the possibilities of reduced crime, less violence, and fewer

accidental shootings. The National Rifle Association points out the number of violent crimes

STOPPED by armed citizens is much higher than the reduction of crime caused by gun bans.

Great Britain 1997 Gun Control Policy established one of western civilization’s most restrictive

handgun bans, promoting the concept of “domestic defense”. Unfortunately, with gun crime on

the rise in Great Britain, armed criminals are becoming more prevalent and the London

Metropolitan Police are looking to NYPD for advice. (Malcom, 2000)

Today, the ownership of guns is a constitutionally protected individual right, supported by

the Supreme Court, but that has not stopped gun-control advocates from imposing their own

viewpoints concerning firearms on our nation, irregardless of court cases and constitutional

amendments. Throughout the last ten years, gun-control forces have proposed and made into law

the expansion of “gun-free zones”, to include not just primary and secondary education facilities,
 Gun Free Zones 6

but other areas around children, hospitals, and other businesses. These weapons free zones

serve dual purpose: too increase the penalty for criminals who use or carry firearms while within

the gun-free zone, and to prevent those who carry handguns legally, with a government licensed

permit, from entering the zone with their gun. According to the National Crime Prevention

Council, gun free zones were initially designed to deter youths from bringing or using a gun at

school. This concept, based loosely on the “drug-free” programs of the 1980’s has actually been

effective in reducing firearm possession and violence at high schools around the country.

(NCPC, 2008)

While there has been no specific research done directly on the effects of Gun Free Zones,

for fairness sake we must analyze separately Gun Free Zones at high schools compared to private

businesses, government offices, and universities. According to research studies, the primary

reason juveniles carry a weapon was for protections. (Shelley, This, plus correlates between

criminal behavior and gun possession, especially of automatic or semi-automatic handguns,

sawn-off shotguns, and revolvers, demonstrate a real need for comprehensive gun control policy.

With the creation of Gun Free Zones at high schools, incarceration rates increased as juveniles in

possession of weapons received greater sentences. Researchers were unable to determine if there

was an increased deterrent value. (Sheley, 1998)

However successful Gun Free Zones have been at the secondary education level,

they have failed miserably at the university and private business levels. Starting in 1966 at the

University of Texas in Austin where Charles Joseph Whitman killed 14 people from the

observation deck of school’s administration building, the litany of school killings are vast. Kent

State University: 4 dead. Jackson State University: 2 dead. California State University: 7 dead.

University of Iowa: 6 dead. Lindhurst High School: 4 dead. Simon’s Rock College of Bard: 2
 Gun Free Zones 7

dead. Columbine High School: 15 dead. Rocori High School: 2 dead. Lancaster, Pennsylvania

Amish School: 6 dead. Virginia Tech: 33 dead. Delaware State University: 1 dead. Success

Tech Academy, Cleveland, Ohio: 1 dead. Louisiana Technical College: 3 dead. Northern Illinois

State University: 6 dead.

The entire list of mass murder incidents in the previous paragraph were already identified

as “gun-free zones” or currently are “gun-free zones” thanks to the deranged individuals who

violated the holy halls of learning. Obviously, the existence of “gun-free zones” did nothing to

deter these disturbed individuals who committed these atrocities. Yet equally stunning is the

determination of so many individuals to keep “gun-free zones” despite the increasingly obvious

fact that they do not deter criminals.

The media has also played an important role in establishing “gun-free zones” by ignoring

or downplaying incidents in which a legally armed citizen prevented or stopped a shooting. On

March 5, 2001, Charles Andrew Williams opened fire at Santana High School in Santee,

California. The school sent in an unarmed “trained campus supervisor” to negotiate with

Williams which resulted in the supervisor’s death. An armed off-duty police officer, who was

dropping off his daughter at the school, kept Williams at bay until more police could arrive. 2

dead. (Freydis, 2008)

At the Appalachian School of Law in 2002, a student began shooting at his classmates.

Two other students retrieved their personal weapons from their vehicles and forced Peter

Odighizuwa to drop his weapon. 3 dead. (Freydis, 2008)

On October 1st, 1997 Luke Woodham began a shooting spree at Pearl High School in

Mississippi. After killing his former girlfriend and another student, he went on to shoot seven

others. Joel Myrick, the assistant principal retrieved his handgun from his car and subdued
 Gun Free Zones 8

Woodham. 2 dead. (Freydis, 2008) Perhaps Ann Coulter said it best: “When you need a gun,

nothing else will do.” (Coulter, 125)

Currently, the State of Texas prohibits a variety of different weapons, including

handguns, from being actively carried upon one’s person, irregardless of whether a person is

standing in a Gun or Weapons Free Zone. (Texas Penal Code, Sec 46.01-02) (Bender, 2005)

The only exception to this law is for citizens who possess a concealed weapons permit. The

Texas Concealed Weapons Permit allows citizens who are legal residents of Texas, who are

qualified to purchase a handgun under state and federal laws, with relatively clear criminal

background histories with no felony convictions and only a few allowed misdemeanor

convictions can even apply for a license. Other factors such as pending court proceedings,

alcohol problems, and certain types of mental illnesses, restraining or protective orders, non-

payment of government taxes, governmental fees, student loans and child support, all play major

roles in our government’s suitability requirements. Additionally, citizen’s who wish to become

licensed to carry a concealed weapon must attend a training course which covers firearm safety,

risk assessment, law, and situational ethics. (Texas Department of Public Safety, 2008) The

State of Texas also actively bars a licensed weapons holder from entering any clearly marked or

established “Gun Free Zone” with their weapon.

A major question arises when a private business, government building, or school, in

which the public is invited onto the premises, declares the property to be a Gun Free Zone, and

then does nothing to ensure the safety of those who are invited. As mentioned earlier in this

paper, the concept of personal responsibility in the face of adversity is an American trait, one in

which our forefathers felt was in the best interests of our country. Gun Free Zones obviously do

nothing to deter the mentally disturbed individual and merely unarm law-abiding citizens. Do
 Gun Free Zones 9

schools such as Virginia Tech, which suffered a mass casualty shooting in 2008 have a

responsibility to the safety of their students if they disarm them?

At the American Airlines Center in Dallas, Texas, one must pass through a metal detector

and a bag search before being allowed to enter the facility. The Supreme Court has ruled that

searches such as these and those at the airport, are not a violation of a citizen’s right against

unreasonable search and seizure. Entry to these facilities comes with the understanding that you

will be searched. But citizens possessing a concealed weapons license accept being disarmed

under such circumstance for one reason: the facility has accepted the burden of providing for the

general safety of those under its wing.

The policy concept behind gun-free zones is based on public fear and “feel good

morality”, rather than statistics. Gun owners who are licensed to carry their handguns argue that

gun free zones merely disarm everyone within, except the criminal element, who has no intention

of obeying the law in the first place.

Oddly enough, the vast majority of mass shootings that have taken place in the last seven

years have all occurred in “gun-free zones”. Unfortunately, most of those have been schools.

John Lott, Jr and William Landes conducted a study that found that states passing right-to-carry

laws saw violent criminal attacks fall by as much as sixty percent. Violent deaths and injuries

from multiple-victim public shootings fell by an astonishing 78 percent. (Lott, 2005)

Proponents of gun free zones, especially at universities and private businesses quote most

frequently their fears of being assaulted or harmed by ANY person with a gun, including those

who are legally carrying. It is a well known fact that many murders are crimes of “passion”,

rather than premeditation, and the ready availability with a gun makes for a recipe of instant

violence. According to the Texas Department of Public Safety Regulatory Licensing Service,
 Gun Free Zones 10

Concealed Weapons Permit Holders are a relatively non-criminal bunch. In 2005, there were 175

total convictions for murder in the State of Texas. Only one of those convictions was of a

Concealed Handgun License Holder. 958 individuals were convicted of aggravated robbery, and

yet only 3 of those convictions were Concealed Handgun License Holders. In 2005 there were a

total of 34,791 total convictions, of both felonies and misdemeanors. Of that thirty four

thousand, only 129 were holders of concealed weapons permits. Less than 0.3708% of all crimes

in the State of Texas during 2005 were committed by Concealed Handgun License Holders.

(TXDPS, 2006)

In conclusion, it seems apparent that while Gun Free Zones may provide a deterrent

effect on juveniles, Gun Free Zones do nothing to prevent or dissuade mentally unhinged

offenders or hardened criminals from carrying or committing firearm involved crimes.

Irregardless of the effectiveness of the Weapons Free Zone deterrence, the basic fact that some

governmental agencies, schools, and private businesses actively deny a law-abiding citizen’s

right to self-protection without assuming the responsibility themselves. As the lawsuits against

universities such as Virginia Tech cost taxpayers and education facilities millions of dollars, we

are forced to wonder why ANY university or business would want to declare their establishment

GUN FREE.
 Gun Free Zones 11

Bibliography

1. Coulter, Ann. “If Democrats Had Any Brains, They’d Be Republicans.” Random House,
New York. 2007
2. Doyle, Kelly ed. “Is Gun Ownership A Right?” Greenhaven Press. Farmington Hills,
MI. 2005
3. Franklin, Benjamin. “Historical Review of Pennsylvania.” Philadelphia, PA 1759
4. Freydis. “School Shootings” Holology Research. Retrieved from
http://www.holology.com/shooting.html#I on April 28, 2008.
5. Lott, John. “Disarming Facts”. National Review Online. March 23, 2005.
6. Kates, Don B. “Guns and the Law” World & I, October 2003, pp. 26-31
7. MacInnis, Laura. “US Most Armed Country with 90 Guns Per 100 People.” Reuters.
August 28, 2007. Retrieved from:
http://www.reuters.com/article/wtMostRead/idUSL2834893820070828
8. Malcom, Joyce Lee “Gun Control’s Twisted Outcome” Reason Online. November 2000.
Retrieved from http://www.reason.com/news/show/28582.html on March 18, 2008.
9. Moody, Carlisle E. and Marvell, Thomas B., "Pitfalls of Using Proxy Variables in Studies
of Guns and Crime" (November 10, 2003). Available at SSRN:
http://ssrn.com/abstract=473661 or DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.473661
10. National Crime Prevention Council “Gun Free Zone Strategies” Retrieved from:
http://www.ncpc.org/topics/school-safety/strategies/strategy-gun-free-school-
zones/?searchterm=gun%20free%20zones on April 28, 2008.
11. SecureOne.com; “Household Burglary in the UK – Facts and Figures”. Retrieved from
http://www.secureone.co.uk/domesticalarms/burglaryfacts.html#Anchor-When-7431 on
April 15, 2008.
12. School Shootings (List) Retrieved from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_massacre on
March 18, 2008.
13. Sheley, Joseph F. and Wright, James D. “High School Youths, Weapons, and Violence: A
National Survey”. U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National
Institute of Justice. October 1998.
14. Texas Department of Public Safety. “Frequently Asked Questions About Texas
Concealed Handguns”. Retrieved from:
http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administration/crime_records/chl/faq.htm on April 15th,
2008.
15. Texas Department of Public Safety Regulatory Licensing Service. “Conviction Rates for
Concealed Handgun License Holders Reporting Period: 01/01/2005 – 12/31/2005”.
Austin, Texas 2006 Retrieved from:
http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administration/crime_records/chl/ConvictionRatesReport200
5.pdf
16. Bender, Matthew & Company. “Texas Criminal and Traffic Law Manual 2005-2006
Edition.” LexisNexis. Charlottesville, VA 2005.
17. US Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation. “Time Clock – 2006”
Washington D.C. 2007.