By Selwyn Duke

If there’s anything the Newtown massacre has proven, it’s
that school zones billed as “gun-free” cannot be guaranteed to thus be.

They’re only virtually certain to be good-guy-gun-free.

And it’s time for this symbolism-over-substance policy to
end.

The fact is that we’re making the good easy prey for the
wicked, and this has been acknowledged by some current and former
law-enforcement officials. As Vice President and Public Information Officer of
the National Association of Chiefs of Police Jim Kouri writes:

[F]ormer police detective Mike
Snopes believes that gun free zones invite killers.

"The killer in [Newtown] came
armed for bear and couldn't care less about some gun law. The school's anti-gun
law prevented any adults working at the school from having access to a firearm.
If the school's principal had been armed and trained, she might have saved many
lives. Had several people been armed at that school, the shooter, suspect Adam
Lanza, would have possibly been stopped at the front door by a hale [sic] of
bullets," said the former NYPD detective.

[…]According to former Arizona
Sheriff Richard Mack, “The [Newtown] suspect goes to the principal's office
while the announcements are playing, over the PA, to the whole school. Everyone
in the school hears shots being fired. Had teachers or school employees been
armed, instead of fleeing and allowing the killer to walk around the facility
unimpeded, the school staff could have surrounded the madman and ended the
attack….

Adding to the case against gun-free zones is NYPD Detective
John Baeza, who “noted that the location of the Colorado movie theater
shootings occurred at a large shopping mall that was a gun free zone,” writes
Kouri.

Of course, as is the case with any individual incident, there’s
no way to know precisely what would have transpired in Connecticut had the good
guys not been declawed. Maybe Adam Lanza would have been stopped; maybe not.
But it doesn’t matter because good policy isn’t based on individual incidents,
but on what makes sense considering the full scope of an issue.

And answer me this: how can “gun-free” zones have any
positive effect at all on average? People planning mass murder won’t care about
a law prohibiting firearm possession in their target area. Outlawing guns in
schools guarantees that only outlaws will have guns in schools.

Having gun-free zones is foolish and, to me, frankly,
irritating. Why? Because they’re a prime example of the liberal tendency to
subordinate substance to symbolism. Gun-free-zone prohibitions are feel-good
laws. They make about as much sense as having the U.N. declare Afghanistan a
war-and-Sharia-free zone or the Congo a rape-and-child-soldier-free zone and
thinking we’ve accomplished something. And for this reason they aren’t just
wrong-headed, but morally wrong. For
there is nothing virtuous about harming society with bad policy simply because
it makes you feel better about yourself.

Of course, rescinding gun-free-zone laws wouldn’t be a
panacea, but it would be a move in the right direction. And advocating such
helps to counter the activism of people such as Little Big Gulp (a.k.a. Mayor
Michael Bloomberg), who are using the Newtown tragedy to move us in the wrong
direction and further curtail Second Amendment rights. Remember that the best
defense is a good offense.

Whatever we do, however, it’s seldom wise to make policy in
an emotionally charged atmosphere. When passions have been stoked, it’s prudent
to abide by that age-old advice to take a deep breath and count to 10 before
acting. For if something truly is a good idea today, it was also a good idea
six months ago — and will be six months from now.   

                                 
Contact Selwyn Duke or follow him on Twitter

                                    © 2012 Selwyn Duke — All Rights Reserved