University shooting raises questions on effectiveness of gun-free zones

By: Nic Dunn

Monday, February 18, 2008 - 9:18 PM

Last week the nation saw another public shooting take innocent lives. About 60 miles west of Chicago at Northern Illinois University, a young man entered a lecture hall on the campus and opened fire on the students inside. Six were killed, including the shooter who took his own life.

Unfortunately the country is becoming used to hearing about events like Columbine, Virginia Tech and now NIU.

Coupled with recent mall shootings, NIU reopens the question: Why has there been such a surge of violence recently? Well, that one will have to be left to the social psychologists.

A more practical question is to ask what can be done about these shootings. Many people will call for more restrictions on gun-carrying laws. That would be a terrible mistake.

The media has given us extensive coverage of recent school and mall shootings with pinpoint accuracy.

But they always downplay one extremely crucial point: All of the major shooting incidents occurred in gun-free zones.

Many states in America have laws that allow citizens to carry handguns. But there are also many private properties that place restrictions on these right-to-carry laws.

Last year’s Omaha, Neb., shooting took place in a mall that did not allow citizens to carry handguns. The same was the case with the Trolley Square Mall shooting in Utah last February. In fact, the off-duty cop who eventually stopped the shooter happened to be carrying his gun with him in violation of the gun-carrying ban. Both Virginia Tech and NIU are gun-free zones.

Research is showing that multiple-victim shootings are repeatedly occurring in areas where guns are banned. When will people realize that gun-free zones do not work?

A ban on handguns in a public place only disarms the victims. This makes it all the easier for the shooter to kill to his heart’s content.

The concept of creating a gun-free zone is completely beyond logic. If you were a homeowner, would you post a sign saying, â€œThis is a gun-free zone”in your front window? You might as well post a sign to all criminals that says, â€œMy home is defenseless. Please come in and rob or kill me.â€

Gun-carrying bans only disarm law-abiding citizens. We are creating a scenario where only the criminal is armed, leaving everyone else helpless. If we want to do something about the growing violence in our society, the answer is certainly not to take away the only defense the victims may have, giving criminals the upper hand.

Nic Dunn is a columnist for The Nevada Sagebrush. He can be reached at editor@nevadasagebrush.com.

No Related Posts

Posted under: Opinion

2 Responses to “University shooting raises questions on effectiveness of gun-free zones”

David says: February 22nd, 2008 at 11:00 am

Good job, Nic. You are the first person on campus that I have heard who makes sense on this subject. The rest of the world (including the Regents) apparently wants to live in a fantasy land where everyone gets along and no one wants to hurt another human for any reason. Well, one look at the news on any given evening will put that fable to rest. There will ALWAYS be people who want to hurt, rob, and yes kill other people…and they don’t even need a good reason to do it.
This is one of the reasons (among many others) that our wonderful founding fathers gave the citizens of this country the RIGHT to carry weapons to defend themselves, their families, and if need be their country. The Nevada state constitution also gives us that right. Unfortunately, the people running this university think it’s ok to override both the state and the federal constitutions, and prevent us from defending ourselves against psychos such as the idiot from Virginia Tech. As you mentioned in your article, maybe some of those university administrators would enjoy putting a couple of “gun-free zone” signs on their own homes or offices, and then see what happens. They need to realize that our right to defend ourselves does not end when we cross to the east side of Virginia Street.
Another example of how this rediculous campus no-gun policy affects my life even off campus is the fact that, as long as I am on campus any part of any day, I cannot have my gun with me even off campus because I have no place to store it while I am in town. I work at UNR so I am here 8-9 hours a day, five days a week, and I live 20 miles away from campus. I have a state issued CCW permit. I cannot even have my gun with me on a work day because most of the time is spent at UNR. That leaves me and my wife unprotected every workday. How much sense does that make? NONE!!! UNR is not a high school full of immature kids. I would imagine that nearly half (if not more) of the people here are old enough to legally own and carry a firearm (21+).
WAKE UP PEOPLE!!! The UNR police cannot protect you from everything that goes on here. They can only react after an incident has occurred. Think about it. 20-30 cops to protect over 15,000 students, staff and faculty? Give me a break! The university should consider that fact that they could possibly be sued if someone got shot in a VTech type incident because they didn’t follow what the constitution says we are all allowed to do…protect ourselves with weapons.
Remember, if you outlaw guns, then only the outlaws will have guns.

Report this comment

Ian says: February 29th, 2008 at 2:21 pm

The whole concept of “firearms free zones” reminds me of part of a Chris Rock show I caught on DVD one time.

“Never go to clubs with metal detectors. Sure it feels safe inside. But what about all those niggas waiting outside with guns? They know you ain’t got one.” – Chris Rock

Firearms free zones are nothing more then advertisements for disaster. If you abide by the law, you have to leave yourself open and exposed to those who choose not to, which is the exact opposite of the reasoning behind the CCW laws.

Nevada, along with many other states, has recognized that the State does not have the man power to assign every person their own personal cop and protector. They decided to put this power in the hands of the populace, correctly figuring that if the State did this that violent crime would drop. Criminals prefer easy targets, and if there is a better then average chance that you’re armed, you’re not an easy target.

One of the more interesting things in Nevada law revolving around the idea of CCW’s is the concept that if somewhere by mandate of a ban on CCW’s does not allow you to carry your weapon that they are in point of fact responsible for your safety. Hell, the law goes so far as to allow you to bring a legal action against a place that forces you to leave your weapon at home if you’re a CCW carrier. Due to public hysteria the University is exempt from this as a “public school” but its inherently obvious that UNR is not a middle school

Its kind of a joke. UNR wants your money and your work, but they don’t want to take care of you. You are not safe there, and Glick and his people don’t care.