The Ineffectiveness of Gun-Free Zones: A Critical Examination

In the wake of tragic mass shootings, the debate over gun control and public safety intensifies. One of the most contentious aspects of this debate is the implementation of “gun-free zones.” Advocates of these areas believe they prevent violence by reducing the presence of firearms. However, real-world evidence suggests that gun-free zones may actually invite danger rather than deter it. This blog will explore why gun-free zones often fail to keep us safe and can, paradoxically, cause more harm than good.

Understanding Gun-Free Zones

Gun-free zones are designated areas where civilians are prohibited from carrying firearms. These zones include schools, certain businesses, government buildings, and various public spaces. The intention behind these zones is to create safe environments free from the threat of gun violence. Unfortunately, the reality is far more complex and troubling.

The Flawed Logic of Gun-Free Zones

The fundamental flaw in the logic of gun-free zones is the assumption that those intent on committing violence will respect these boundaries. In practice, individuals with malicious intent often target these zones precisely because they can be reasonably sure that potential victims are unarmed and unable to defend themselves.

Case Study Highlighting the Risks

1.      Virginia Tech Shooting (2007) One of the deadliest mass shootings in U.S. history occurred at Virgina Tech, a gun-free campus. Seung-Hui Cho was able to carry out his rampage with little resistance resulting in 32 deaths and numerous injuries. The shooter exploited the gun-free policy, knowing it would limit immediate defensive action from those on campus.

2.      Fort Hood Shooting (2009) On November 5, 2009, Major Nidal Hasan opened fire at Fort Hood, a military base in Texas with strict gun-free policies for most personnel. Hasan killed 13 people and wounded over 30 others. The shooter exploited the fact that soldiers on the base were unarmed, ensuring he could maximize casualties before being stopped by military police.

3.      Sandy Hook Elementary School Shooting (2012) The Sandy Hook Elementary School Shooting in Newtown, Connecticut, is a tragic example of a gun-free zone being exploited by a shooter. Adam Lanza, the perpetrator, knew that the school was a gun-free zone. The lack of armed resistance allowed him to carry out his attack without immediate threat of intervention. Resulting in the deaths of 20 children and 6 adults.

4.      Aurora, Colorado Theater Shooting (2012) The shooting at a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado, further illustrates the dangers of gun-free zones. James Holmes targeted the theater specifically because it was a gun-free zone, despite other theaters being closer to his home. Holmes was aware that patrons would be unarmed, enabling him to inflict maximum harm, killing 12 people and injuring 70 others.

5.      Westgate Mall Attack in Nairobi, Kenya (2013) Although not in the U.S., the attack on Westgate Mall in Nairobi is a stark reminder that gun-free zones are targets globally. Terrorists from Al-Shabaab attacked the mall, knowing that the security measures would prevent civilians from being armed. The attackers killed 67 people and injured over 200, with the lack of armed civilians contributing to the high casualty rate.

6.      Charleston Church Shooting (2015) On June 17, 2015, Dylann Roof attacked the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston, South Carolina. The church, a gun-free zone, was chosen by Roof for its defenseless congregation. Roof killed 9 people in the attack, fully aware that the church’s no-gun policy would prevent immediate armed defense.

7.      Pulse Nightclub Shooting (2016) The Pulse nightclub in Orlando, Florida, was another gun-free zone targeted by a shooter. On June 12, 2016, Omar Mateen killed 49 people and wounded 53 others. The nightclub’s no-gun policy ensured that Mateen faced no immediate armed opposition, allowing him to cause maximum casualties.

8.      Parkland School Shooting (2018) The Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School shooting in Parkland, Florida, on February 14, 2018, resulted in 17 deaths and 17 injuries. The shooter, Nikolas Cruz, knew the school was a gun-free zone, which enabled him to attack with little fear of armed resistance.

Statistical Evidence and Expert Opinions

Numerous studies and expert analyses support the argument that gun-free zones can be counterproductive. According to a study by the Crime Prevention Research Center, 94% of mass shootings in the United States between 1950 and 2019 occurred in gun-free zones. This staggering statistic indicates that shooters often seek out these areas knowing they will face minimal resistance.

John R. Lott, a prominent economist and gun rights advocate, has extensively researched the impact of gun-free zones. In his book, “More Guns, Less Crime,” Lott argues that armed civilians can deter mass shooting and reduce the number of casualties when such incidents occur.

The Case for Armed Civilians

Critics of gun-free zones argue that allowing responsible, law-abiding citizens to carry firearms can enhance public safety. Armed civilians can potentially stop a shooter before law enforcement arrives, minimizing the number of casualties. The presence of armed individuals may also serve as a deterrent, dissuading potential attackers from targeting these areas.

One notable example is the 2007 incident at New Life Church in Colorado Springs, where an armed volunteer security guard, Jeanne Assam, stopped a shooter who had already killed two people in the parking lot. Her quick action prevented further loss of life and demonstrated the potential effectiveness of armed intervention.

Another example is the 2019 incident at the West Freeway Church of Christ in the Fort Worth suburb of White Settlement, Texas. Jack Wilson, a former reserve sheriff’s deputy shot a gunman in the head. The gunman had pulled out a short barreled shotgun and killed two members of the church before Wilson was able to draw his firearm and shoot the assailant in the head. Wilson actions prevent further loss of life and a lot of potential injuries.

While the intention behind gun-free zones is to protect people, evidence from 2000 to 2024 suggests they often have the opposite effect. By creating environments where law-abiding citizens are disarmed, these zones can become attractive targets for those intent on committing violence. Real-world cases and statistical analyses highlight the vulnerability of gun-free zones and the potential benefits of allowing responsible individuals to carry firearms for self-defense. It is crucial to reevaluate the effectiveness of gun-free zones and consider alternative measures that genuinely enhance public safety.

Remember when seconds count and help is minutes away you are your own first responder.

Stay safe my friends.

Bart Goldbar

Goldbar Defense LLC