Gun-Free Zones: Why They Don’t Work

USCCA - 05/21/2019
Solutions to gun violence are often discussed in terms of what can be done at the institutional level. But to make a significant dent in mass shootings, we’re going to need to change public policy. We can achieve this by eliminating gun-free zones or by rethinking the obligation an institution owes to us if they choose disarmament.

Forty-eight mass shooting events occurred between Columbine and the terrorist attacks in San Bernardino and Orlando. Seventy-four percent of the events and 85 percent of the deaths occurred in gun-free zones, where civilians were either disarmed by state law, school policy, federal statutes or private policy.

The data shows that schools, houses of worship, public and private businesses, and other locations that advertise themselves as “gun-free” aren’t keeping themselves safe. Instead, they are doing the exact opposite. But that begs the question: Should anywhere be gun-free? If so, what responsibility does the governing body of that area or building have for keeping occupants and visitors safe?

Let’s look at a case study of what happens when an institution is not barred from concealed carry by federal or state law but determines to disarm all on its own.

Umpqua Community College

On Oct. 1, 2015, a 26-year-old enrolled at Umpqua Community College fatally shot an assistant professor and eight students. He also wounded nine others before committing suicide as police closed in. The state of Oregon allows colleges to decide for themselves whether they’ll allow students and/or staff to carry guns. The outcome at Umpqua — a self-declared “gun-free zone” — was really a foregone conclusion. But it didn’t have to be.

Oregon enjoys one of the highest rates of concealed carry permits per capita — 6.3 percent of all eligible adults hold permits. With nearly 14,000 students registered at Umpqua and an average student age of 38, there was an opportunity to have more than 800 students and staff members on campus capable of defending themselves and their peers. Instead, for nine long minutes (which, coincidentally, is the national average for how long these mass shootings last), the only armed individual on campus was the shooter.

Today, most of our nation’s colleges carry that same virtual blinking neon light stating, “No one here will stop you.” Allowing eligible students, parents and staff to be armed provides them with the same protection on school grounds that they enjoy off-campus. The simple fact is that removing school grounds from the “gun-free zone” list will deter the next deranged individual who is angry at the world from looking to take out his rage on innocent and unarmed victims.

The claim that more guns on campus will lead to accidental shootings or shootings of opportunity is without merit. Today, the states of Colorado, Idaho and Utah have laws on the books allowing concealed carry on campus by students who have applied for and received a permit (and passed a background check). No incidents have occurred involving these lawfully armed students.

Detractors of this solution have also claimed that allowing armed students will create an uncomfortable environment for those students who are unarmed. But ask yourself this: Are you uncomfortable when you relax at Starbucks enjoying your favorite latte or when you browse the aisles at Target? While you might not know it, one out of every 16 adults around you has a concealed carry permit. If a mass shooting were to erupt, what would you hope for? Would you pray that the shooter only had 10-round magazines rather than 30-round magazines? Or would you hope beyond hope that one or more of the 200,000 licensed Oregonians was by your side while you waited the nine long minutes for the police to arrive?

Umpqua Community College chose poorly. But as a public institution, should they have been given a choice at all? For that, let’s turn to Kansas as a model.

Kansas HB 2052

With the passage of House Bill 2052, Kansas forced the hand of public institutions that wanted to ban concealed carry on their premises but had no more security than signs declaring the ban. Today, those public institutions may still choose to restrict the rights of concealed carry license holders. However, they must provide “adequate security measures” to ensure that no one (license holders or criminals) may carry a firearm or any weapon into the building. The theory behind the passage of HB 2052 is best explained by Kansas State Sen. Forrest Knox (R-Altoona):

Following enactment of concealed carry in Kansas, many buildings were posted prohibiting concealed carry, even though no security was provided. The recent prevalence of mass shootings in public places, many of which have been posted “no concealed carry” and are often referred to as “gun-free zones,” has shown such areas to be attractive sites for criminals. Elected officials realize that there are liability concerns in posting unsecured buildings. The 2007 Virginia Tech shooting is an example of such an event. A jury found the school liable in a civil lawsuit and awarded family members of victims large cash settlements. In this case, the judge instructed the jury that a special relationship did exist between university officials and the victims and that the bond required officials to provide for their safety and security. The jury found that Virginia Tech’s actions contributed to the deaths of the students.