Why (most) Gun-Free Zones Shouldn’t Exist

Once again the NRA’s statement of “The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun” is proven correct. Thanks to Bitter I now have an article that tells most of the story about the Hospital shooting in Pennsylvania. While incomplete we can see from the story that the the attacker would have been prohibited under current law from possessing firearms having been involuntarily committed at least twice and possibly felony robbery and misdemeanor domestic violence convictions. For cognoscenti it’s not surprising that this person ignored prohibitions on firearms possession and the Gun-Free Zone where he murdered one and injured another.

The Doctor is now facing trouble because he too violated the Gun-Free Zone. Legally he may be saved by the “doctrine of competing harms,” which is a legal precedent where you may break a rule when following it would create a situation of greater danger (there’s a good explanation here). However, this may not save him from losing his job as well as his lively hood if they yank his medical license as well as terminate him.

If an organization or government entity feels it necessary to establish a gun free zone I feel they should be required to comply with the same standards the State of Kansas requires for public buildings. These standards include armed guards and metal detectors at entrances. Otherwise the good guys with the guns should be allowed to come and go without being hindered just like the bad guys with guns already do. At least the bad guys may think twice knowing response will be swifter than the nearest patrol car.


Comments are closed.