UCC Was Not A 'Gun Free Zone'

UCC Was Not A 'Gun Free Zone' Because Public Colleges In Oregon Can't Ban Guns | ThinkProgress:

Yes, it was.
They're liberals, they lie .. but they are so sly and we are so stupid that sometimes we even tempted to believe them!

They say that we CAN carry guns on campus to defend ourselves, but they carefully don't mention the fly in the ointment:   Oregon State Colleges (Universities) can keep you from carrying a weapon on any campus by simply refusing you permission to "carry" inside any building (or all buildings) by simply denying you permission.  And it's legal.

Roseburg, Oregon is in Douglas County, and even the county sheriff  has said that he will not enforce certain Oregon laws which are, in his words, "not enforceable",  But that doesn't mean that the laws are not still in force.

THE PASSIVE/AGGRESSIVE EFFECT OF A NON-COMPLIANT BUREAUCRACY!

Think Progress made an effort to dispute the GUN FREE ZONE issue, which many pro-gun people have cited as the reason why the murderer chose that venue for his massacre,

On Thursday, a shooter reported killed at least 13 people and injured many others at a community college in Oregon. Just minutes after the incident, commentators sought to attribute the incident to the fact that Umpqua Community College was a “gun free zone.” “The gun free zones are the areas that tell licensed gun owners that you are not allowed to carry your weapon in this facility…If you’re going to perpetrate some act, you know that most people are not going to be armed,” CNN “military analyst” Rick Francona said a few minutes after the shooting. A retired Navy Seal, Jonathan Gilliam, also appearing on CNN, went even further. Blaming the “gun free zone” for the scope of the tragedy and adding “the only thing that’s going to stop a gun is another gun.”

Okay so far, but here's the unspoken hitch:  You NEED PERMISSION to carry a gun on campus, and you can get permission; but you have to ask for it.  Oh, like how long is THAT going to take?

Gun Free Zones: A Prevalent Delusion

Gun Free Zones: A Prevalent Delusion: Newsroom: The Independent Institute:

The Aurora, Colo., movie theatre [sic]; the Sandy Hook, Conn., kindergarten, the Columbine, Colo., high school and dozens of other sites throughout the world, have two things in common: 1) they were “gun free zones”; and 2) consequently they were the sites of massacres committed by gunmen who knew they alone would be armed. 

It has even been suggested that “gun free zones” actually attract killers who know they will meet only helpless victims rather than anyone able to effectively oppose them. Whether or not gunmen so calculate, it is true as shown by massacres that have occurred in recent years in “gun free zones” not only in the United States, but in England, France, Germany, Sweden, Australia, Korea and Japan. 
“Gun free zones” never work for they disarm only those who obey the law. 

Gunmen just laugh at “gun free zones.” When confronted by armed police, gunmen sometimes surrender though more often they kill themselves. At the risk of belaboring the obvious, what neither terrorists nor lunatics ever do is kill themselves (or surrender) when faced by unarmed victims. Those they just kill. 

Contrast an incident from the Clackamas Mall in Oregon. Having shot two unarmed victims the killer was confronted by an armed Oregon gun permit holder. Apparently fearing capture, the shooter killed himself,

Or consider the absence of school massacres in Israel. Years ago Israeli children were the first targets of the Palestinian intifada. Israel’s response was arming teachers and school bus drivers, as well as parent-volunteers, to guard the children. When a few terrorists were killed, attacks on schools and busses [sic] ended—and have never resumed.

 [Please forgive the lengthy quote.  I only include it because it lists most of the 2nd Amendment talking points which I have discussed here over the past several months.]

The thing is ... this country has been inundated in recent years with "mass shootings".   Never mind that more shootings and more fatalities have been the result of "individual shootings"; the mass shootings are the darlings of the press (I know that sounds callous, but it was the editorial choice of the editors of the MSM, not mine) and also they tend to prey upon the most vulnerable among us.

Or do they?   Consider the January, 2013 "drive by" (actually a "Walk By") shooting in a Chicago park, documented here, in which a 15 year old girl was killed ... when she wasn't even the intended target?   It doesn't get much more "innocent" than that.   This was not a mass, shooting, it was an idiot out to just shoot "anyone" .. because he could.  That is not an isolated example; it's a typical example of the shit that goes down EVERY DAY on our city streets.   Actually, the Mass Murders are the "Isolated Examples"; yet they are the incidents which garner such extreme attention from the MSM.

And why is that?

No, we know why the mall and church and kindergarten shootings get so much attention.  What we do not know is why the day-by-day "walk by" shootings don't get as much attention, since they account for more victims.

The answer is that America is essentially one gigantic Gun Free Zone.  Perhaps not to the degree of England, for example, but still ...  I have a Concealed Handgun License, and I am rarely allowed to take advantage of it because even in the small college town in which I live most of the place has laws  restricting my right to carry a firearm on the premises.

Do I feel safer in these places?  Decidedly not!  I feel like a target there, and I am a target there.  I am not permitted to defend myself in a Gun Free Zone, and (as the leading article suggests), that is precisely the "target rich environment" which crazy people so love.

Take for example the local college campus, where I worked every day for 15 years.  I was legally permitted (by virtue of my CHL) to carry a concealed firearm there.  However. the college had its own rules, and they included as a matter of policy that anyone who carried a firearm on campus was subject to termination (if an employee) or dismissal (if a student).  Even if I legally had a  firearm in my vehicle, unloaded and locked away, the university policy made me subject to termination.


Since I've been retired for a couple of years now, I can safely reveal that I carried a pistol on campus every damn day.    It wasn't because I expected to be attacked (if I did, I would have carried a rifle!)

It was because it was a declared and dedicated Gun Free Zone!

Remember Virginia Tech?

The Virginia Tech massacre was a school shooting that took place on April 16, 2007, on the campus of Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University in Blacksburg, Virginia, United States. Seung-Hui Cho, a senior at Virginia Tech, shot and killed 32 people and wounded 17 others in two separate attacks, approximately two hours apart, before committing suicide (another six people were injured escaping from classroom windows).^[1][2] The massacre is the deadliest shooting incident by a single gunman in U.S. history.^[3] It was the worst act of mass murder of college students since Syracuse University lost 35 students in the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103,^[4] and the second-deadliest act of mass murder at a U.S. school campus, behind the Bath School disaster of 1927.

Virginia Tech was a "Gun Free Zone", too.  That didn't protect anybody, any more than did Columbine.

So ... yeah.  I carried.  Nobody ever knew, nobody every got freaked out when I showed up at the office.  In fact, everybody in my office knew I was a "Gun Nut", but nobody seemed all that concerned;  if anything. I suspect that they found some comfort there.  Hell, I hadn't shot anybody in the15 years I was on campus;  that's a pretty good record of "NOT going postal"!
 _______________________________________________________________________

Researchers have found that the homicide rates at postal facilities were lower than at other workplaces. In major industries, the highest rate of 2.1 homicides per 100,000 workers was in retail. The next highest rate of 1.66 was in public administration, which includes police officers. The homicide rate for postal workers was 1.48 per 100,000.^[14]
However, not all murders on the job are directly comparable to "going postal". Taxi drivers, for example, are much more likely to be murdered by passengers than by their peers. Working in retail means one is exposed to store robberies. In 1993, the United States Congress conducted a joint hearing to review the violence in the U.S. Postal Service. In the hearing, it was noted that despite the postal service accounting for less than 1% of the full-time civilian labor force, 13% of workplace homicides were committed at postal facilities by current or former employees.

 (I know .. not really very reassuring.  Did you note that all post offices are "Gun Free Zones"?)\

______________________________________________________________________

No, I'm not patting myself on the back for declining to descent into workplace rage.  It's awkward to feel proud of oneself for not being a lunatic, or an evil person.

The point is that most people aren't evil.

The point is also that some people ARE evil.  And those of us who are 'on the scene' have the best chance to protect ourselves, our children and others against those whack-jobs who are evil.  Hence, my support for the concept that armed guards are NOT an unacceptable a sufficient method of protecting people in Gun Free Zones.   Look what England has done to protect children's playgrounds, for example (even though I freely satirized it because ... hey, they're The Brits and by definition they are hypocritical!)

I think Great Britain is on the right track, at long last.  Sure, I think they should give up the whole "gun control" thingie, but they are at least recognizing that "Gun Free Zones" equate to "Target Rich Environments".   That's a step that our own U.S. Federal Government has not yet had the testicular fortitude to acknowledge, which puts The Brits one giant step ahead of The Amies.

Perhaps it's time to look at the "Money Quote" from the original argument, and not merely dismiss it out of hand:

Gunmen just laugh at “gun free zones.” When confronted by armed police, gunmen sometimes surrender though more often they kill themselves. At the risk of belaboring the obvious, what neither terrorists nor lunatics ever do is kill themselves (or surrender) when faced by unarmed victims. Those they just kill.

I think they might just have something there.

Shop in a "Gun Free Zone"? You may have legal options in case of injury:

Bill allows suits over gun-free zone incidents:

Sponsored by (Tennesee State) Sen. Dolores Gresham, R-Somerville, Senate Bill 1736 has a very specific purpose. “It is the intent of this section to balance the right of a handgun carry permit holder to carry a firearm in order to exercise the right of self-defense and the ability of a property owner or entity in charge of the property to exercise control over governmental or private property,” the bill states. 

 To accomplish that goal, the legislation allows any Tennessean with a valid gun permit to sue a property owner in the event of injury or death provided the incident occurred while in a gun-free zone. The legislation places responsibility on the business or property owner of the gun-free area to protect the gun owner from any incidents that occur with any “invitees,” trespassers and employees found on the property, as well as vicious and wild animals and “defensible man-made and natural hazards.” The bill does not define defensible man-made and natural hazards.

(NOTE: Also cited by bloggers "Conservative Tribune" and "GunsnFreedom", both of which  deserve credit for originally referencing this article.)

The legal option (in this unique Tennessee Bill) to sue only applies to legal gun owners who have a carry permit and were prohibited from carrying on the premises because of the property owners' posted restrictions.

OPINION:
I'm of two minds about this.

First, I rarely patronize any business which has a "no guns" sign posted;  if they don't trust me, I don't trust them.  Their business, their choice.  My money, I get to choose to whom I give it.   So, generally speaking, I don't care.


Second, this establishes an aggressive response to gun-free businesses, and because I'm a mild mannered person I choose non-aggression whenever I have a choice.

On the other hand, I don't patronize their businesses, I have no say in their business decisions, and I've already voted against them by refusing to do business with them.   Well, perhaps a certain degree of passive-aggression in that I respect their decision and take my business to people who trust me.

OH! WAIT A MINUTE!

John Farnham and "LAX"

3 Nov 13

LAX Incident of 31 Oct 13

Last week's shooting incident at LAX blatantly illustrates (once  more):

1) "Gun-free" zones are merely imaginary, symbolic barriers. The suspect in  this case was not deterred in the least.  He was eventually stopped, but only by the liberal application of lethal force (gunfire), not by wishful thinking on the part of naive liberals, nor by "gun-free-zone" signs on glass  doors!

2) The "start-to-harm" time was so short in this case that awareness, decisiveness, and a plan for immediate and dynamic exit will likely represent your only viable options.

3) We Sovereign Citizens are increasingly being involuntarily herded into  "

enforced helplessness."  We are progressively unable to remain legally armed, and therefore we are more and more unable to effectively protect ourselves.  Put another way, we are contemptuously regarded as "disposable"  by self-righteous socialists.

4) It is painfully obvious how much protection "gun-free-zone" signs provide.  Terrorists and lunatics are really impressed, as we see!

/John

John S. Farnam

_______________________________________________

Dtiquips mailing list

Dtiquips@clouds.com

Copyright 2013 by DTI, Inc. All rights reserved.

It's rare that I fully quote John Farnham .. in fact, this is perhaps the first time EVER.

But when he's right (which is "USUALLY"), he's right.

And I think that his take here is entirely correct.  No 'Thinking Person" who is aware of our cultural vulnerability could find much fault in his preposition.

Still, it raises questions that we might consider.

Should Airports be "Gun Free Zones"?  As much as I have proposed that GVZ proliferation encourages madmen to attack us, I'm uncomfortable in this specific instance.

The armed officers seem to have been present, and they acted quickly and aggressively.  The result is that the attacker was  taken down in a short period of time, and from the moment which the counter-attack began, it appears that the only other victims were among the resistors.

If the airport was NOT a "Gun Free Zone", is it likely that the attack would have been curtailed earlier?  Based on the reports, I don't think so.  The attack was actually initiated BEFORE the initial screening area, and so the madman identified, recognized, attacked, and overwhelmed the First Line of Defense quickly and efficiently.

It may have been helpful that he had already researched the defenses, and was prepared for them .. which may not be said for the defenders.

The established defense may have served one  purpose; it identified an attack before the attacker could infiltrate into the "No Defense Zone", where the public was not prepared to defend itself.  Instead, ready reaction forces (policemen) were alerted and promptly reacted to the attack.

We can reasonably be confident that the initial delay, the early alert, and the available of secondary forces lead to the early take-down of the attacker, before he was able to fully attack entirely defenseless citizens.

Essentially .. no private citizens, whatever their state if preparedness, were required to defend themselves or others.  

It's likely that no better solution was available.  We regret the loss of lives in this attack, but we must recognize that we (citizens, not officers) were protected almost as well as possible.  

How could this situation have been resolved more quickly?  We probably are all asking ourselves the same question.  The best answer is ... we WERE protected, if imperfectly.  A surprise attack of this sort is almost impossible to defend against.

My personal understanding (and I'm sure there will be a lot of "Monday Morning Quarterbacks" who will use hind-sight to critique the defenders) is that a lot of rough men put themselves deliberately in the way in order to prevent a greater loss of defenseless citizens.  I salute them all, as should you.

---

So .. what would have been the consequences if this had occurred in a shopping mall, a school, a church?

Chances are that there would have been NO first .. let alone Second .. line of defense.  The attacker would have assaulted defenseless citizens (children?) immediately, and would have run rampant.

He would have run rampant, slaughtering innocent defenseless people until (minutes or hours later) police appeared on the scene ... and then he would have killed himself.

That DOES seem to be the pattern.

The immediate solution seems to have both a first and second line of armed defense in any place of public gathering.

It's not going to happen.

Government at ANY level might semi-efficiently defend a "place" (airport, school, church, mall, etc.) but only at great expense to the tax base.  The American people are not willing, let alone able, to support this level of protection in most public areas.

LAX was fortunate, in a way, that it was so strongly defended.  And yet, still, people died there.

Insane and evil people exist.  We can't identify them until they actually attack us.  And then, it's too late for us.

The ONLY way we can defend ourselves in public areas is if the public is allowed to assume the defensive position.

No more "Gun Free Zones", please.  Allow "The People" to be armed, because we can't have armed TSA people at the front door of every school, church and shopping mall.

Or allow teachers to be voluntarily armed.  But no .. you don't want to allow guns in schools.

Allow preachers to be armed.  But no .. you don't want our spiritual leaders to be armed.

The only realistic solution to mass public murders is to allow the PUBLIC to be armed.

But no, you don't want your neighbors to be armed, either.

Okay. it appears that you are more comfortable with being murdered while shopping for a new leash for Rover, than to defend yourself.

Your choice.

For me?  I'll break the law, violated posted "NO WEAPONS ALLOWED" signs, rather than to go shopping without a firearm closely at hand.

Does that offend you?

Perhaps .. until the first sharp crack of gunshots.  

Then, I imagine you will be hoping that is a shot fired in defense of you, rather than a madman shooting at you, your family, or your neighbors.

You might be a Gun Nut. (Huge list) – Gun Free Zone

You might be a Gun Nut. (Huge list) – Gun Free Zone:

If your answer to the recent rec.guns newsgroup thread, “How many guns do you need?” is, “How many do you have room for in your house?” you just might be a gun nut.

I recently found a link to this 2010 mega-list of  "Gun Nut" characteristics.

It's fun, it's funny, and there's too much truth in it to be denied.

Actually, I remember reading this when it was published ... I was working then, and I spent an entire lunch hour at my desk reading it.   My co-workers asked me what I found so amusing, so I sent them all links to it.

Lunch our was over-extended; we all had to put in some unpaid overtime that evening.

Go, read.  Enjoy.   And thank the Gun Free Zone.

Gutting the Second Amendment: Fear and Loathing in Academia

There was a time, after I had graduated from high school, and after I had graduated from college, and after I had graduated from Viet Nam, when I was trying to decide what to do with the rest of my life.

I thought I would like to go back to school for an academic degree.  I thought perhaps I would like to teach, at a college level. I knew that I liked to teach.  I had the education, I had the experience, so perhaps I had something to offer to the next generation.

Seeking advice, I asked my Mom what she thought about it.

She said (not her exact words, although I present this as a quote:

"Well, Honey, you do what you think is best.  But when people ask me what my son is doing with his life, is it okay with you if I just tell them you're running a whore-house?"

Point well taken.  I got into computer systems analysis, and while I never thought I was leading an honest life, at least I could hold my head up among the relatives during the annual Summer Family Reunions.


Now I'm looking at an article in the New York Times titled "Guns and Racism" by Gary Guting.
 (H/T: David Codrea)

It starts out well:

Those of us in favor of stronger laws to abate gun violence mostly support our cause by arguing against the claims of the gun lobby (roughly, the N.R.A. and gun manufacturers). It should by now be obvious that this is a waste of time. The case for action is overwhelming, but there’s no chance of convincing the entrenched minority who are so personally (or financially) invested in gun ownership. Legislative efforts have failed because the opposition is more deeply committed — more energized, more organized, more persistent.

There are a few comments in this oh-so-fairly-reasoned article which I find disturbing.

Yes, those of us who are firm supporters of our Civil Rights are certainly "entrenched"; but it bothers me that the author suggests that we are minions of "the N.R.A. (sic) and gun manufacturers".

I'm not certain what incentives these nefarious groups are supposedly using to encourage firearms owners to support their evil actions, but I always thought that the NRA was an organization created by and for firearms owners .. and when the NRA doesn't speak for us, their membership plummets.

I don't particularly like the NRA .. I find them too liberal, usually; but I guess they have to tone down the rhetoric.  As far as the gun manufacturers .... when they don't do what we (firearms owners) want them to do, they lose business.

(There was a little contretemps with Smith &Wesson a few years ago, when they seemed to have kow-towed to gun-control influences; they lost a LOT of business from firearms owners over that one.  So it doesn't seem to me as if the firearms manufacturers are driving the Second Amendment dialogue in this country.)

So, who is driving the gun-owner rhetoric?  Certainly not the manufacturers!.  Might it be .. the gun owners?  Maybe the gun-owners are not puppets of industry or organizations, but are independently just really cranky people who don't want other people telling them that they are 'bad' because they stand up for their civil rights?


But wait!  There's more.

... the basic motivation of the pro-gun movement is freedom from government interference. They talk about guns for self-defense, but their core concern is their constitutional right to bear arms, which they see as the foundation of American freedom. The right to own a gun is, as the N.R.A. website puts it, “the right that protects all other rights.” Their galvanizing passion is a hatred of tyranny. Like many other powerful political movements, the gun lobby is driven by hatred of a fundamental evil that it sees as a threat to our way of life — an existential threat — quite apart from any specific local or occasional dangers.

It's so NICE to see that someone actually 'gets it', in the sense that ... firearms owners are not opposing gun-control measures out of 'fear', but out of a defense of the Constitution, civil liberties, and enumerated rights.

And yes, we do hate it when people tell us what to do.  Or not to do.  This is America, after all.

Then he goes and says something stupid; like playing the Racism Card:

But few of us actually see guns as existential threats to fundamental American values. In this, however, we are mistaken. Our permissive gun laws are a manifestation of racism, an evil that, in other contexts, most gun-control advocates see as a fundamental threat to American society.

Mr. Guting lives in Chicago, and his perception is:

I’m not particularly afraid, since — like most Chicagoans — I’m hardly ever where the violence occurs. There’s something to worry about only if you live in certain overwhelmingly black communities on the West and South sides of town. (The papers publish helpful maps showing how the killings are distributed.) These are where almost all the shootings occur, and the large majority of victims (and perpetrators) are black. 

[Mr. Guting decries the plight of Chicago's poor negro black, and avoids that part of town because (a) it's dangerous and (b) he can.  But he doesn't speak of his efforts to raise the socio-economic plight of the community.  Still, he feels free to criticize  the dreadful conditions in his community, which he attempts to alleviate by publishing an opinion article in the New York Times ... not the Chicago Trib!   He's not "part of the problem", but he still thinks it's a stinking rotten shame and it's not his fault even though he lives (and presumably votes) in the same city.  He's too proud to publish his criticism in the Chicago paper because, apparently, it's not a Chicago problem; it's an NRA problem.  Well, whatever ... it's not HIS problem!]

And that is the fault of Second Amendment defenders because ... what?


He goes on to decry the prevalence of gun violence in black parts of town.

The case for the racist effect of our permissive gun laws is especially powerful.  There’s no way of explaining away all these deaths as aberrations. If we fail to oppose with equal passion and vigor the relentless political pressure of (mostly white) gun advocates, we force a large number of black citizens to live with the constant threat of gun violence. We’re in effect letting the Second Amendment trump the Fourteenth Amendment, implicitly preferring the right of gun ownership to the right of black people to live free from fear.

I live in Oregon.  And this is MY fault?

Oh dear!
What is this "relentless political pressure of (mostly white) gun advocates" of which you speak?  Would it ... possibly ... be that we advocate for equal rights for all Americans, even if we (as you seem to imply) that 'some of us' seem to "force ... black citizens" to bear the onerous burden of living under their constitutional right to keep and bear arms?

Might part of the problem be that the EVIL Chicago Aldermen have decreed Chicago a city-wide Gun Free Zone, where honest citizens cannot defend themselves with the same (currently illegal) firearms that gang-bangers have?

[I know ... firearms ownership is strictly prohibited there ... which means that it is a GUN FREE ZONE to the criminals who have already demonstrated a total contempt for the Rule Of Law.   The only people who don't have guns are the law-abiding citizens.]

Isn't that a Chicago Gun Free Zones problem, and not an American Constitution problem?

What is the root cause of the "racist effect of our permissive gun laws"?

We ... legal firearms owners ... just want to protect our civil rights; rights which we support for ALL Americans. 

The NRA was started to counter the racist attitudes during post-civil war times, when "liberals" like you (Democrats) wanted to keep firearms out of the hands of black people.

Is it your contention, Mr. Guting, that Second Amendment Advocates are conspiring against black people?  Because that's the way it sounds, using your words.

"Permissive gun laws" are a reflection of the Constitutional rights of ALL Americans.  
What you consider "permissive", we consider "reasonable, common-sense gun rights".

NOBODY who cares about the Second Amendment would ever advocate any political stance which would undermine those rights; because if Black People can be denied their constitutional rights, then anybody would be threatened by the same kind of arbitrary infringement.

It seems to me, Mr. Guting, that you are the racist in the wood pile.   You are the one who has raised the proposition that one racial group would be accorded, and another denied, their rights.

The Second Amendment doesn't work that way.

Americans don't work that way.

Well .. perhaps a few pie-in-the-sky Academics have their heads so firmly entrenched in their nether regions that they don't know what the meaning of the words  "Will Not Be Infringed" is.  It applies to everybody, equally, without regard to race, creed or religion.

The rest of us are QUITE clear in our understanding that the Constitution of the United States of America is NOT a "living document", which might be subject to various and changeable interpretations based on YOUR crappy attitude.

Sir.

Gary Gutting is a professor of philosophy at the University of Notre Dame, and an editor of Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews. His new book, “What Philosophy Can Do” (W. W. Norton) offers essays, expanded from his Stone columns, on politics, science, religion, education and art.

Omaha Mall Update

At the risk of 'glorifying' the mad dog shooter in Omaha, there are some updates which help place the massacre in perspective.

First (uncited) are later reports that the weapon was an AK-type, not an SKS type rifle.

Next, linked from the Michael Bane blog, a blogger named 'JoeMerchant24' has some first-person reports, and some fallout. I'll link the first four articles in case the articles drop off the 'current' list on his blog:

First-person #1

"A Modest Proposal", the Von Maur Drill

The notorious "Rules of Conduct" signs (#14 makes the mall a 'gun free zone') have been removed.

First-person #2: a First Responder report
(This also refers to the weapon as an "AK (NOT AN SKS)", and specifically describes "2-30 round magazines taped in reverse".)

There has been a lot of traffic in the Blogosphere, including RKBA websites, during the past few days talking about the "Gun Free Zones" which constitute much of our Public Areas. Schools and shopping malls are the most common locations cited.

When the Virginia Tech campus suffered from the predations of a Mad Dog Killer, there were 'some' complaints that a recent policy announcement from the V.T. Administration rejecting a proposal (that 'Concealed Carry Weapon' Licensees ... "CCW" ... should be allowed to carry on-campus) did not hold the well-being of the students, faculty and staff as a priority. Generally, the published comments supported this administrative 'theory'.

This incident, however, may lend more weight to the CCW argument.


What's new here?
I did an Internet search on "Omaha + gun free zone", expecting to report the usual finding that "the blogosphere is all over this, but the Main Stream Media remains silent".

To my surprise, I found this article from the Business Section of Omaha.com (website of the Omaha World-Herald) ... which, for this purpose I will consider the MSM:

Published Wednesday | March 28, 2007
Few merchants see need to post no-weapons sign
BY JOHN KEENAN
WORLD-HERALD STAFF WRITER

Signs you'll see at the entrance of O'Connor's Irish Pub in the Old Market:

"Restrooms are for customers only."

"City Council: Please Send in the Non-Smokers."

What you won't see is a "No Concealed Weapons" sign reminding customers that bars are among the few businesses in Nebraska where it is illegal to carry a gun.

Almost three months after the start of a state law allowing people to carry concealed weapons, signs banning guns from privately owned businesses haven't exactly popped up all over the Omaha area.

In fact, although some chains such as Bag 'N Save have posted signs and shopping malls such as Westroads Mall have added "no weapons" clauses to their posted codes of conduct, many small businesses haven't seen the need. And at least one that did later reconsidered.

Under the law, concealed handguns are banned from some businesses, including bars and financial institutions. Other businesses and employers can ban concealed weapons from their property by posting a sign that guns are not allowed.

O'Connor's Pub owner Katie O'Connor said she didn't think a sign was necessary.

"The ones you need to be afraid of don't have licenses for their guns anyway," she said.

At the Nebraska Clothing Co. in the Old Market, owner Brad Ashford said he intended to put up signs but never got around to it.

And now, he said, "It does not seem to be a problem."

If he saw a customer carrying a gun, he'd probably ask the person to leave the store, said Ashford, who also is a state senator.

"Of course," he added, "if I could see the gun, it wouldn't be concealed."

Note the date of this article: March 28, 2007 ... over eight months ago.

Also note the specific reference to the Westwood Mall, identified as one of the "... shopping malls ... [which] ... have added "no weapons" clauses to their posted codes of conduct...".

The article continues:

Greg Cutchall put up a "No Concealed Weapons" sign at his Famous Dave's barbecue restaurant at 71st Street and Ames Avenue, but a customer's reaction persuaded Cutchall to remove it within days.

"He wrote that he was no longer going to do business with us," Cutchall said. "He went on to say how difficult it is for an individual to actually obtain a concealed weapon permit, and that they're law-abiding citizens."

One of the customer's points, Cutchall said, really resonated: The sign wouldn't keep out someone who wanted to rob the place.

"Your business is more important to me than one of 1,000 ways people could sue us," Cutchall wrote back, adding that he would take down the sign.

After he removed the sign, Cutchall said, he received e-mails from other customers applauding his decision and telling him they planned to eat at the restaurant.

"It's a little controversial," Cutchall acknowledged. "There's a group of people who'll say, 'You're going to allow concealed weapons in your restaurant?'"

We can expect that the people who were in the Westwood Mall last week will be inclined to take their dinner guests to Cutchall's restaurant, which reinforces the idea that allowing honest people the legal means to protect themselves is just good business.

Perhaps I was wrong when I predicted a Liberal knee-jerk reaction to the Omaha Mall Shootings. Perhaps Nebraskans, who are proud of their recently enacted 'shall issue' legislation, will stand up to their elected politicians who may attempt to use this tragedy to re-establish gun-control laws which have now been proven to be contrary to the best interests of the public.

There may be other Unintended Consequences of this tragedy.

The Ledger.com (a "... New York Times Regional Media Group Florida site...") Lakeland (Polk County), Florida, has an online Forum feature. Visitors here are reading and commenting on John Lott's article which emphasizes the "Gun Free Zone" in the Omaha mall, and while the responses so far are minimal, they are 'not amused' by the concept.

Here's another article from the Omaha World-Herald, dated August 12, 2007:

Omaha Housing Authority to ban guns in homes
BY ERIN GRACE
WORLD-HERALD STAFF WRITER

Residents of Omaha Housing Authority properties will not be allowed to have guns - even if they own them legally - in their homes under a new policy due to take effect in October.

The state's largest provider of public housing adopted the new rule in June. It followed the passage of a separate rule in April that prohibits anyone other than sanctioned OHA employees or police officers from carrying concealed weapons in shared spaces such as lobbies and elevators or OHA offices.

Executive Director Stan Timm said the rules are "one more tool in trying to be ahead of and prevent crime."

"We're always looking for ways to improve safety," Timm said.

Obviously, Nebraska has been working to fit the new Concealed Carry laws into the preconceived notion that private ownership of firearms is 'bad'. The politicians are looking for more places to ban guns. The small-business owners (at least) are accepting current law 'as written', and when they discover that private citizens are unwilling to 'give up an essential liberty for temporary security', they yield to whatever measure best attracts their customers.

We have been shown that Gun Free Zones are decidedly NOT what the public wants. We have seen this in the marketplace, surely the best measure of a Capitalistic society. And we have seen demonstrated in the Real World that Gun Free Zones not only do nothing to secure the safety of patrons, but rather makes targets of our families.

It may be that the politicians which we have elected might learn from this experience, and might be convinced that imposing draconian Gun Control laws neither protects the electorate or (mor important, to them) assures their re-election.

We don't expect them to learn this lesson, but it is an outcome devoutly to be wished.

Nota Bene:
Previous Geek posts on Nebraska Concealed Handgun Carry act:

CCW in Nebraska? (January 8, 2006)

Nebraska Joins RKBA America! (March 30, 2006)
Money-quote:

The political opposition to passage of this bill was evident even after passage of the bill, as the Journal Star reporting demonstrates:

“There is no justification for it which would be considered rational,” said Sen. Ernie Chambers of Omaha. “Nebraska is not engulfed in a crime wave.”

The Nebraska State Patrol did not take a stance on the bill. The Police Officers Association of Nebraska opposes the measure.

Sen. Joel Johnson of Kearney questioned why the “safest people in the safest place on Earth” — Nebraska — need to carry concealed guns.

More About Nebraska Shall Issue Law (March 31, 2006)

Summary:

H. L. Mencken:
The average man does not want to be free. He simply wants to be safe.

Should Teachers Be Allowed To Carry Guns?

Should Teachers Be Allowed To Carry Guns?, Tiny Texas District OKs It; Could It Prevent Columbines?; Issue Debated, On The Early Show - CBS News

This is news, but it isn't exactly "new news".

Yesterday, a school district in Texas announced that they were seriously considering allowing their teachers to carry guns.

Why? Because they are a very SMALL school district, and they are a half-hour away from any reasonable response time in case of an emergency. Having watched the news on television, the district Board of Education were aware that schools were typically considered a "Gun Free Zone", and that is interpreted by predatory types as meaning "a safe-to-shoot, target rich environment zone". (cf: Columbine)

(See link to CBS video here.)

Knowing that they couldn't count on 911 to save their students the BOE elected to adopt a down-home security solution. They can't afford the ability to lock down their school, and aren't certain it will provide reliable defensive capability, so they'll allow their faculty (and staff) to act as impromptu security guards.



Harold, Texas,School Board Superintendent David Thweat:

"The people who are going into these situations are evil ... I'm not going to be Politically Correct on this ... I don't care what their problems are, they've gone in and killed children. And if they come into our school, they are going to meet resistance. And I think if they did, these crack-pots would stop going into them."

Oh, there were some restrictions. The teachers (assumedly, also staff including administrators such as the school principal) must complete training to qualify, and must hold Concealed Weapons permits issued by the county sheriff after all requirements had been met. But Texas is a "Shall Issue state", and that mean exactly what it says. If the applicant meets the requirements, the sheriff shall issue the permit.

Also, of course, the teachers were required to keep the firearm completely concealed so that nobody knew who was and who wasn't packing. And one assumes that the individual was responsible for securing the firearms at all times. Also, they teachers who volunteered for this must be approved by the School Board.

Let's recap:

• Applicants work at schools in the district -- check.
• Applicants receive appropriate training -- check.
• Applicants apply for, and receive, carry license from sheriff's office -- check.
• Applicants are all volunteers -- check.
• Applicants are pre-approved by the School Board -- check.
  
• Applicants are responsible -- check.

So we have a bunch of certifiably responsible citizens with guns, who are voluntarily willing to put their lives on the line to defend their students. Where's the down side?

Oh my, let me count the ways.

No, that's not necessary. According to the CBS news story, which has so far received 381 comments on the original short article, there are at least three typical responses by the reading public:

One: "I think this is a wrong!"
Example from Isobel36:

To arm teachers is wrong! Their main duty is to educate not to think about a resonse to a dangerous student. There has to be a better way. If not, take your child out of the public schools!

Well, that was enlightening. But typical.

Two: "I think this a wonderful idea."
Example from behappy2-2:

I think it is a wonderful idea. Who would be in a better position to defend the kids from an armed intruder than the adult responsible for them while they are in school? The teachers (at least most of them) care about the children as if they were their own. That is why they teach, it surely isn''t for the money. Remember: when SECONDS count, the police are only MINUTES away!

This at least relates to reality.

Three: "I don't know if it's a good idea or not, but it's a sad commentary on our current society!"
Example from Gaye5:

If it has got to the stage where teachers have to wear guns to protect themselves and other students that is pathetic. It is about time that our authorities and families start to wonder why this is happening and when society started to get so bad.. I know why and many of you out there do also.
I am old enough now to remember when a child was well disciplined and sat in school and learnt, they grew up to be health, hard working well disciplined adults who brought up children the same.

Actually, there's a fourth category of responses: "I don't really like it, but I can't think of a better idea, either."
Example from patriot12436:

I have mixed feelings about this. I see the need for protection because of the violence from students against teachers and bus drivers, but i would want very strict training required before they start carrying in schools. Having lived in Texas i understand where they are coming from and the point that the nearest police station is 30 minutes from the school is also a factor.

Apparently, the middle-of-the-road veers toward the right.

Oh, I almost forgot the sneering, dismissive, ad hominem attacking group.
Example from Joe Transit:

Of course teachers should carry guns, students should wear full body armor, the principals office a gun turret. The school bus replaced with a tank. The caulk board should have little ducks moving back and forth. Any student making less then a B, shot in the head right between the eyes. No more Ritalin. That way if Bush needs to look for WMD''s he can find it in his Texas backyard.

(Actually, I agree with the "no more Ritalin" part.)

and ...
Example from cbs3200:

The American Idiots Association (AKA the NRA) fully supports guns in the classroom.

There's always the greviously misinformed:
Example from IDDNSG:

Gun owners KILL THEMSELVES with their guns MORE OFTEN than they kill anybody else. I supose [sic] that''s a good thing!

... continued with another post from the same source:

"Guns dont kill people,it takes someone to aim and pull the trigger."

And EVERY SINGLE TIME, that "someone" is a GUN OWNER!

Conclusion: Guns don''t kill people. Gun Owners Kill People! Obviously, we should OUTLAW Gun Owners!

They''re all a bunch of re.tards anyway! Case in point: they all think that a gun can PROTECT them, when a gun, by design, can only KILL. Killing someone is NOT the same thing as protecting yourself.

Besides, if a Gun Nut can have a gun, so can EVERYBODY else. Whoever shoots first wins (''cause the other person is DEAD!). Everybody shoots everybody. Everybody dies. That''s NOT safety! It''s INS.AN.ITY! The END of civilization.

Gun Nutz are anarchists!

Well, geez, it's really hard to shoot a gun if you don't have one.
______________________________________________

What do _I_ think?

Frankly, I think it's worth trying. No other security measure which has been attempted in this country has so far stopped the crazies from killing innocents in Gun Free Zones (eg: schools, churches, shopping malls, restaurants, etc.)

On the other hand there have been instances when in these SAME "Gun Free Zones", one or two armed responders have been seen to stop, or significantly reduce the number of casualties, in the same venues.

But there have been very few times when Schools have been willing to have armed citizens on-site.

Isn't it about time to try it? If nothing else, the publicity might be sufficient to warn predators that they won't have a free shot at their victims.
____________________________________________

Surely someone will, eventually, suggest that this policy, the arming of people in a usually Gun Free Zone, will attract a predator. Just to try their luck, and thumb their nose at the audacity of peaceful honest citizens to protect themselves.

I think that if the predators are so sick that they consider this a "challenge", they are already predisposed to shoot up their local school. At least this way, there's a chance that they may be thwarted.

I repeat: Where's the down-side?

"Oh, Canada ..." How's that "Pretty tight gun control laws" thingie working for you?

Canadian Press Correspondent: Gun Control Discussion Imminent In Coming Days:
(October 22, 2014)

 As news about the attack on Canada's Parliament Hill continues to unfold, Canadian Press correspondent Lee-Anne Goodman says these kinds of things weren't suppose to happen in Ottawa where there are "pretty tight gun control laws" and suggested a talk on gun control is imminent in the coming days.

[emphasis added]
(H/T: New Jovian Thunderbolt: More Gun Control)

The funny thing about Gun Control is .. it only works to infringe upon the rights of legal, responsible citizens.  They just want to protect themselves, but since they're ... you know .. "Law Abiding"?

.. they give up their guns in accordance with the gun-control-laws-de monde?  Which doesn't do YOU much good, does it?  Think about it.

Xavier Thoughts: When Seconds Count

One of my favorite (and daily "must read") blogs is Xavier Thoughts ... the link will always be available on my sidebar under "Websites That I Read Every Day".

Today (yesterday, now ... it's very late) he presented a video link to a newscast which discussed "Gun Free Zones". Incredibally, WCPO Television in Ohio (not to be confused with WCRP in Cincinatti, which was a very funny late-1970's television show) seems to understand that the "Gun Free Zones" sign is the same as posting a sign saying: "I don't have a gun; please come kill me".

The WCPO piece (transcript available here, along with a link to the article on "Active Shooters") emphasizes that

"While it use to be considered 'suicide' for a lone officer to take on an Active Shooter, it's now considered 'statistical homicide' not to, because the longer officers wait for backup, the more people die".

This may be considered only common sense by some of you, but it has taken a long time for the Main Stream Media (MSM) to catch up with this "Common Sense Solution to Gun Violence".

(Another approach to the same topic may be found here., as defined by Roger Fulton - a retired New York State Police Captain, )

I watched the video the samy way many of you may; it was final acknowledgement that the difference between Gunman and Unarmed Citizen in a Gun-Free Zone is the same as the difference between Wolf and Sheep.

And I thought: "This could be good. It may not appeal to the authorities who declare shopping malls, schools and churches Gun Free Zones, but perhaps it will encourage our Law Enforcement Officers (LEOs) and their administrators to train the nation's police to more aggressively.

Then I went to read the comments by Xavier's readers, where I found this cheerful reinforcement of my faith in LEOs:

All I can ask is are any of the commentors [sic] so far LEOs. Are you? I ask because I am one. I would not place my life at unecessary [sic] extreme risk in such a situation where there are multiple shooters without back-up because I am not suicidal, nor am I an idiot. Sure I might try to stop such an incident from getting worse, but you can bet your bottom dolalr [sic] that no officer should be trained to seek out and engage multiple assailants in such a scenario without back-up. If you really think it is about time some dopey stuff like that is taught to officers, well all I can say is what has happened to all the talk about arming the students. Unbelieveable. [sic] Why not think long and hard about putting yourselves in one of the multiple attacker scenarios as described, or even in a one assailant situation when you have a 9MM pistol and the other guy has a rifle with large capacity magazines. There is such as thing as bravery, and such a thing as absolute foolishness, and another thing as absolute stupidity. I choose to avoid the later two, it keeps me alive. Mind you, I have been there and done that several times when it has come to dangerous duty, even when badly oputnumbered, [sic] and I have had the injuries and some scars to prove it - but I cannot call upon anyone to be an idiot when it comes to such things.

Remember that many of the readers of this site, and others like it, endorse arming all of the public, and endorse CCW, or open carry by anyone who wishes to do so - as do I. One of the biggest reasons has always been because of poor response time by police in bad situations. Now you suddenly want to depend upon a lone officer to save the day - ala a John Wayne type to come in shooting. Well this is no John Wayne movie, this is real life, so why not get real. When seconds count the people should be allowed to defend themselves. That way they can at least hold the bad guy at bay until the other good guys arrive. Expecting someone to go in on a suicide mission is not the right thing to do even if they, as I, would probably do.

Sincerely,
Glenn B

The good part is, he mentions "...well all I can say is what has happened to all the talk about arming the students". I presume the commenter, Glenn, is in favor of allowing student to carry firearms.

Well and good, I say, as far as it goes. That would be an excellent response to one of my personal favorite topics: allow students on College and University campuses, who have been licensed to Concealed Carry, to actually carry the firearms as they have been certified to responsibly do.

As far as it goes.

Unfortunately in the context it sounds as if Glenn is willing for College Students to defend themselves only to absolve Glenn from having to interpose his precious flesh in their defense. He offers no solution to the problems in other Gun Free Zones, such as K-12 schools, shopping malls, and other private business establishments.

Until K-12 administrators recognize their vulnerability (and there are many stories which demonstrate that vulnerability), and until Private Businesses recognize their vulnerability more stories), and other organizations and businesses follow suit to the point at which they allow their visitors to carry firearms for protective purposes ... they must necessarily rely on the police "The Protect and To Serve".

Let's go back to the responsibility of LEOs to perform their primary duties:

All quotes here taken from the Protect and Serve link just above: in chapter 6 "Protection and Prevention of Crime" (pp:170 +) [Note that the cited materials commonly are directed to discusion in the context of international conflict and civil war; however, there are individual statements which do seem to apply to internal policing of civilians, especially in the context of the responsibility of Local Police Forces to defend civilians against violations of their civil rights ... including the right NOT to be shot by some wanna-be gunslinger in a Mall in Utah.)

‘‘To catch criminals’’ is, in most cases, still the first priority for law enforcement officials and their organizations. Service to the community, protection of victims and the prevention of further victimization present challenges to law enforcement that appear to have less appeal than the traditional game of cops and robbers."

...
(pg. 171)

"It is common knowledge that the number of crimes solved through law enforcement activity stands in stark contrast to the number of crimes actually committed. Furthermore, the interests of victims of crime are — at least from their own point of view — much better served when their actual victimization can be effectively prevented."

...

"The responsibility for the prevention and detection of crime is assigned primarily to law enforcement agencies. The full discharge of that responsibility, however, requires more than law enforcement input alone.

The effective prevention and detection of crime are critically dependent upon the existing levels and quality of cooperation between a law enforcement agency and the community it serves, and are as much a private responsibility as a public one. Politicians, members of the judiciary, community groups, public and private business corporations and individuals need to join forces if the results of efforts towards the prevention and detection of crime are to be better than the inevitably unsatisfactory results of merely attempting to enforce criminal laws."

This document reads like a United Nations declaration of principles, in that it is much more concerned with the rights of citizens to be protected from the depredation of citizens from their police. However, as is illustrated above, the document is sprinkled with the occasional comments which describe the obligation of police to Protect the citizens of a state.


I think this is significant. "Glenn", however, seems not to agree. His priority is his own personal safety, and in defense of his position he calls upon several suggestions which have already been made elsewhere ... because the Citizens of the United States of America have already learned that they cannot always rely on Law Enforcement Officers "To Protect, and To Serve".

Here, taken out of context, are a few of the positions which he espouses and which I support:

• "... what has happened to all the talk about arming the students?" [Ed: I like the concept, but what about K-12 students, Glenn? Who is going to protect them? How about shoppers in a public mall which declares itself a "Gun Free Zone?]
  
• "Remember that many of the readers of this site, and others like it, endorse arming all of the public, and endorse CCW, or open carry by anyone who wishes to do so - as do I." [Ed: fine, Glenn, we can live with that. But until it happens, we are obligated to depend on LEOs like you to defend us. What happens to us when police are unwilling to do their duty? Answer: we die, sometimes by the dozens.]
  
• "One of the biggest reasons has always been because of poor response time by police in bad situations." [Ed: this is one of the reasons, Glenn, why we citizens want the right to defend ourselves in all public venues.]
  
• Now you suddenly want to depend upon a lone officer to save the day - ala a John Wayne type to come in shooting. Well this is no John Wayne movie, this is real life, so why not get real. When seconds count the people should be allowed to defend themselves. That way they can at least hold the bad guy at bay until the other good guys arrive. [Ed: no, Glenn, this is not what we want. This is what we have had shoved down our throats for decades, with no recourse. If the Government, as you represent, is unable or UNWILLING to protect us, we want the right to protect ourselves. ]
  

Here's the single most dis-enchanting thing that Glenn has to say:

Expecting someone to go in on a suicide mission is not the right thing to do even if they, as I, would probably do.

This is not encouraging. This is the statement of a man who had just spent 300+ words describing how, and why, he would not attempt to come to the aid of civilians who were threatened by a gunman. Yet here, he positively states that he WOULD do exactly the thing which he has so vociferously averred that he would not do because, in his words, "I am not an idiot." How can a man so directly contradict himself, and believe that assertion to be accepted?


You, sir, are in the wrong profession.


Your sworn duty is ...


To Protect, and To Serve.