One news broadcast, two stories with entirely different outcomes...

[ezkl2230]

I'm sure the irony was lost on the WOOD TV talent this morning. On the one hand, they reported on the brave 11 year old girl who used a shotgun to drive off two adult attackers from her home (Link Removed). On the other hand, they reported on the college student who was robbed at gunpoint in his dorm room (Link Removed). Both stories were covered in the same broadcast.


The similarity between the two stories? In both cases, attackers ignored laws intended to keep people safe and the police failed to stop either attack.


The difference? The eleven year old had the means to mount an effective defense, while the college student became a victim.


Gun free zones failed to keep armed robbers off a college campus, and the threat of jail time failed to keep two other attackers from breaking into a home. As is so often true, it was a good guy (or GIRL, in this case) with a gun who stopped two bad guys with evil intent.

 

[nogods]

I agree that both victims should have the right to carry a firearm for self defense - but you devalue the logical and rational argument for that right by premising inane gun free zone argument.

Even on property where guns are allowed, it is still necessary for the victim to be armed, otherwise they are in no different position than a victim on property where guns are not allowed.

Rep Giffords was not in a gun free zone when she was shot. She was, however, unarmed, as were all of the other victims who were unable to defend themselves even though they were not in a gun free zone.

 

[BigSlick]

I agree that both victims should have the right to carry a firearm for self defense - but you devalue the logical and rational argument for that right by premising inane gun free zone argument.

Even on property where guns are allowed, it is still necessary for the victim to be armed, otherwise they are in no different position than a victim on property where guns are not allowed.

Rep Giffords was not in a gun free zone when she was shot. She was, however, unarmed, as were all of the other victims who were unable to defend themselves even though they were not in a gun free zone.

You raise a valid point. However, in a designated gun free zone the odds are in the criminals favor.

 

[Leader]

I agree that both victims should have the right to carry a firearm for self defense - but you devalue the logical and rational argument for that right by premising inane gun free zone argument.

Even on property where guns are allowed, it is still necessary for the victim to be armed, otherwise they are in no different position than a victim on property where guns are not allowed.

Rep Giffords was not in a gun free zone when she was shot. She was, however, unarmed, as were all of the other victims who were unable to defend themselves even though they were not in a gun free zone.

Then wouldn't it make sense for the government to educate the public of the advantages of being armed & fighting back?
Imagine if you will.... Classes on firearm safety starting in the 1st or 2nd grade at school. Actual marksmanship starting by the 3rd grade. Advanced tactical training from 6th grade on....
No firearm free zones, ..anywhere...... No license to carry anything, anyway.

 

[nogods]

You raise a valid point. However, in a designated gun free zone the odds are in the criminals favor.

Unless, of course the victim is also armed (and thereby a criminal just for being prepared to defend himself.)

I think the distinction between a gun free zone rationale versus an individual right rational is critical.

First, the gun free zone issue is a communal one - it is focused on society as a whole, and in our society majority rules on non-constitutional issues. Second it is not a "sure thing" because of the numerous gun crimes committed everyday in non-gun free zones, so it is easily dismissed by those who oppose firearm possession by law abiding citizens. Third, it often has attached to it the secondary argument that if it wasn't a gun free zone, maybe some wannabe self-appointed sheriff would have been there to help, which is something even many firearm owners have some concerns about.

Focusing the argument on the individual's right to self defense (wherever the individual may be) avoids those pitfalls. I'm not armed to protect you. As a law abiding citizen with no disqualification characteristics, my choice to carry a firearm for self protection is of no concern to you. It doesn't expose you to any greater chance of being a victim of a crime but it does decreases my chance of being seriously injured or killed by a criminal. Any benefit you might derive from me defending myself against a criminal is secondary and not on the same plane as my individual right to self defense regardless of whether I'm in a school or a NASCAR event.

Moreover, my individual right to self defense is not as easily compromised by the desires of the majority. A social-political desire to reduce firearm ownership, even if a legitimate debatable issue, cannot so easily trump my individual right to self defense. "We don't want guns in schools" can be conceded without argument, so long as each individual's right to self defense is not compromised. We aren't allowing guns in schools, but rather we are allowing non-disqualified individuals to possess firearms for self defense regardless of whether or not they are in a school at the time. All other people are still prohibited by law from possessing firearms - in schools or otherwise.

 

[Capt. Frank]

Any establishment, which declares itself to be gun free, should be held respondsible for their customer's safety.

 

[ezkl2230]

Any establishment, which declares itself to be gun free, should be held respondsible for their customer's safety.

I have made this same argument several times on this forum. You will hear from some business owners here that they have no such responsibility.

 

[maybejim]

First, the gun free zone issue is a communal one - it is focused on society as a whole,

It is a misguided leftist idea that is not only a failure but flies in the face of the Constitution.

and in our society majority rules on non-constitutional issues

No, majority rules rarely is the fact in our society and to top it off in many if not most cases "gun free zones" are a Constitutional issue.
.

Second it is not a "sure thing" because of the numerous gun crimes committed everyday in non-gun free zones

Yet virtually all (with a few exceptions) mass shootings are taking place in "gun free zones" and most gun crimes are committed with illegally possessed guns which points out that gun control laws don't work and very possibly encourage crime.

 

[ezkl2230]

I'm still trying to figure out how anyone could construe what I said as even remotely positive about so-called gun free zones or demeaning to the individual right to bear arms and protect one's self. I was simply pointing out that gun free zones, which gun grabbers instituted based on the wildly ignorant notion that declaring an area "gun free" was somehow going to keep someone who, by definition, has already chosen to break the law from carrying out an attack and keep people safe, once again failed on both accounts.

As to my own position, I have posted it many times before - although this will be the first time I have said it quite like this. The SCOTUS case Roe v Wade expressed it well (being an unapologetic pro-lifer I NEVER thought I would ever say that!). To quote from Tom Clancy's Executive orders, "...the Court acted improperly on point, I believe, but properly in a procedural sense." The court acted improperly on point in Roe v Wade to manufacture a "right" to abortion where none exists in the Constitution (a "right" that also violates the private property right of the pre-born infant), but in the procedural sense, it also properly confirmed the precept that one's body is their private property. We have the right to protect our property, and one's body is the highest expression of private property - meaning that one's right to protect it goes EVERYWHERE one goes.

So as I said in my OP, the news broadcast made it clear: the one who allowed a university to strip him of his right to protect himself became a victim, while the young girl who used a shotgun to protect herself did not. There is nothing else to read into my OP, and this is one of the main reasons why I ignored nogods a long time ago.