Kasmar 1 Cameron Kasmar Professor Kelle Sills English 104 April 27, 2014 Gun Free Zones and the Right to Self-Defense Abstract This research paper calls into question the effectiveness and validity of gun-free school zones. The author analyzes the arguments in favor and against banning guns from schools, and provides an explanation in favor of the latter. Supporting arguments used to justify the thesis include discussing gun-free school zones as targets for mass-shootings, the ineffectiveness of gun-free zones in preventing criminal activity, the notion that gun-free zones only penalize lawabiding gun owners, and how conceal-carry permit holders can be used as the solution to preventing future school shootings. Using examples, including the 2007 Trolley Square Mall, the 2007 Virginia Tech, and the 2012 Sandy Hook elementary shootings, the author attempts to persuade the reader of the dangers posed by gun-free zones. Introduction The issue of gun violence has taken center stage in recent years. From gang violence in the cities to mass shootings in schools, the centuries old Constitutional right to bear arms has been called into question. Recent events, however, have narrowed the issue further to what have been called gun-free school zones. Both federal and state governments have facilitated the creation of these zones through the 1990 Gun-Free School Zones Act, among other pieces of legislation. Since the 2012 Newtown, CN shooting, over 1,500 new gun regulation laws have
Kasmar 2 been put into place throughout the United States. These laws include added requirements for background checks, stricter regulations when obtaining Firearm Owner Identification (FOID) cards and concealed-carry permits, and the creation of more gun-free zones, all in an effort to reduce gun violence. (Yourish, Andrews, Buchannan, McClean) There are a few key terms to note when discussing the issue of school shootings that are repeated throughout this commentary. The term used to describe the perpetrator of a school shooting is referred to as an active shooter. An active shooter is defined by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security as an individual actively engaged in killing or attempting to kill people in a confined and populated area. In most cases, active shooters use firearms and there is no pattern or method to their selection of victims (DHS, pg. 2). Another key term to note is the definition of a conceal-carry weapon, which is the possession of a firearm in public in a concealed manner by a licensed owner. Conceal-carried weapons can be either present on the individual or in close proximity. When discussing gun-free zones it is important to note that they are being discussed in the context of their use in self-defense. For example, Virginia Tech s gun-free zone policy did not originally prevent gun-owners from bringing their gun on campus. It did, however, state that the weapon must be in a locked container with no ammunition nearby. What gun-free school zones in the context of this research paper imply is that guns cannot be carried in a manner that could be used for self-defense, in other words, easily accessible and loaded. (Desmond) It is also important to note the training and requirements that individuals must meet before acquiring conceal-carry permits. While conceal-carry permit requirements vary by state, I will be using the state of Illinois as an example for the purpose of this commentary. In order for a resident of Illinois to obtain a conceal-carry permit, he/she must be 21 years of age, have a valid
Kasmar 3 FOID card, have not been convicted of a misdemeanor involving physical violence within five years, not have two or more intoxicated violations related to driving within five years, not currently be subject to an arrest warrant, and have not been in a court-ordered treatment program for alcoholism or drug addiction for five years. If these requirements are met, the applicant is then subjected to further investigation by their local police department which includes fingerprinting, submission of a photo ID taken within 30 days, and background checks. In addition to the eligibility criteria, training for conceal-carry permits totals sixteen hours which is comprised of; firearms safety, basic principles of marksmanship, cleaning and loading a concealcarry weapon, review of all applicable state and federal laws pertaining to firearms, and a weapons handling course consisting of live firing. The state requirements for Illinois are designed to filter out undesired applicants and familiarize accepted applicants with their weapons and how to use them. (Illinois State Police) As a result of school shootings and the creation of gun-free school zones, two opposing arguments have erupted. On one side, supporters of tighter gun regulations argue that gun-free zones increase the safety of students, educate them on the dangers associated with firearms, and create a learning environment free of violence. Studies have even been conducted which point to the negative psychological effects of guns present within classrooms. The opposition to tighter restrictions on guns argues that gun-free school zones are a magnet for criminals and active shooters, that they only penalize law-abiding gun owners, and that faculty and guards should be trained and armed with concealed-carry weapons to prevent future mass-shootings. For the purpose of this research paper, I will be defining the term law-abiding citizen as an individual who meets the criteria for obtaining a conceal-carry permit. After weeks of objective research and investigation, this research paper will finally lay to rest the debate regarding gun-free school
Kasmar 4 zones. Gun-free school zones create an unsafe environment for students and faculty and should be eliminated. Arguments in favor of gun-free zones The primary argument against guns is the availability guns, themselves. With over 300 million privately owned firearms in the country, the frequent and easy accessibility to them is of great concern. Though, one would expect that purchasing a gun is a process that involves thorough background checks, multiple forms of identification, and instruction on the handling of guns, this is sometimes not the case. Gun shows, which are common throughout the country, rarely require a background check or even identification to purchase a firearm. Easily accessible guns are also the cause of much of the rampant shootings and gang violence in American cities. Also, guns that are left loaded and outside of a locked safe often lead to accidental deaths when handled by children, such as the 2012 death of Steven Curtis. The 12 year old accidently shot himself in the head while mishandling his father s gun, despite possessing knowledge of gun safety. (Children s Defense Fund) The purpose of gun-free zones in schools is to promote a safe and positive learning environment free of the dangers associated with firearms. With the knowledge that their children are being educated in a gun-free zone, parents can be reassured that their children are safe from the risks posed by guns. Gun-free school zones work in much the same way as drug-free school zones in that there is a zero-tolerance policy for both. State legislation varies, but possession of a firearm within a gun-free zone will generally result in arrest and conviction followed by up to
Kasmar 5 five years in prison and a fine. Because of these penalties, gun-free school zones discourage students and faculty from possessing firearms on school grounds. (Children s Defense Fund) Gun-free school zones do not necessarily have to be eliminated in order to reduce the likelihood of school shootings. According to a 1985 study titled Children Traumatized by Catastrophic Situations, the presence of guns in schools has been proven to have a negative psychological effect on the students. Being aware that there are guns nearby often reduces the test scores of the students through stress, as well as creating cases of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). Putting armed guards in schools and allowing teachers to conceal-carry will create an environment which will reduce the learning capability of the student. Armed guards in schools, referred to as School Resource Officers, could also lead to an increased number of suspensions, expulsions, and juvenile arrests for minor offenses. Instead, schools can shift away from disciplinary policies that lead to suspensions and expulsions by putting more focus on the mental and academic needs of the students. This shift will eventually lead to an environment that encourages healthy attachments between students and their teachers and classmates, and will foster an atmosphere of nurturing, learning, and safety, free from the presence of firearms. (Caty, Heller, Guarino, Michael) In addition to creating a positive environment for students that will discourage violent acts, schools can develop contingency plans in the event a hostile situation occurs. Schools can create what is known as a Crisis Plan in the event of a shooting that will help prevent loss of life. The crisis plans will involve increased communication between school faculty and parents so that they are aware of the procedures the school will take in the event of an emergency.
Kasmar 6 Increased communication also means working directly with local law enforcement to aid them in arriving quickly to the scene. Crisis plans will also involve the creation of site maps, which outline in detail the areas and neighborhoods surrounding the school. In the event of a shooting, faculty and parents who have been acquainted with the surrounding area through the site maps will know where to take the students if they are evacuated. Training and drilling are also key components of the crisis plan so as to quickly facilitate the response to a school shooting. (Shah) There are instances where guns in schools did nothing to stop shootings from occurring. The 1999 Columbine High School shooting in Jefferson County, CO had full-time school resource officer present during the shooting. The officer was eating lunch as the shooting began, and responded to the calls for help. Despite being armed with a handgun and trained to effectively use it, the officer exchanged fire with the shooters and missed, failing to incapacitate them. Had there been other students in the crossfire, casualties could have been sustained not only from the shooters, but from law enforcement personnel as well. (Caty, Heller, Guarino, Michael) Arguments against gun-free zones Guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens offer them a means to protect themselves. What gun-free zones attempt to accomplish is the discouragement of individuals from bringing their guns within the zone itself, penalized by fines and jail time. Since criminals and mass murderers care little for laws and regulations, the only thing gun-free zones accomplish is the disarming of law-abiding citizens, making them easy targets for active shooters. Every mass shooting that has ever occurred since 1950 with the exception of one, happened in a gun-free
Kasmar 7 zone. Gun-free zones are targets for mass shooters because of the simple knowledge that no one present within the area is legally allowed to possess a firearm. (Kleck) The 2007 Trolley Square Mall, Salt Lake City, Utah shooting began when the shooter walked past the sign which clearly read No weapons allowed on Trolley Square property and began shooting at shoppers. The shooting was cut short, however, by off-duty police officer Kenneth Hammond who also ignored the sign, but not before the shooter had killed five people. The Virginia Tech massacre which also occurred in 2007 saw a similar situation. As a gun-free school zone, the campus forbade the carrying of firearms on all sections of its grounds and in its buildings. When police arrived at the scene they found the body of the shooter, Cho Seung-Hui, who had committed suicide, but not before killing 30 of his classmates. Both the Virginia Tech and Trolley Square Mall gun-free policies only made it easier for the shooters to commit their massacres. It was only the law-abiding citizens that were prevented from having guns, not the criminals. (Kopel) Gun-free zones are targets for mass shootings because of the shooters knowledge that nobody within the area has a gun. Killers are attracted to victims who cannot easily defend themselves and gun-free zones create soft targets aplenty. The 2012 Aurora, CO shooting, which resulted in the deaths of 12 and the injuries of 70, occurred in a theater designated a gun-free zone. Out of the seven theaters in the 20 minute radius of the gunman s apartment, the chosen theater for the site of his attack was the only one that made it illegal to possess a conceal-carried weapon. Although the police arrived and apprehended the shooter 90 seconds after the first 911
Kasmar 8 call was made, it is likely that the casualty rate could have been considerably reduced had there been a conceal-carrying individual present with a gun. (Lott Jr.) One solution to quickly ending school shootings, and even preventing them from ever occurring, is the presence of conceal-carriers within the school who are armed with guns and who are trained to use them. The two ways of accomplishing this are: the removal of gun-free school zones entirely, and the arming of teachers and faculty. Roughly one out of every three states allows school faculty to have conceal-carry guns on school grounds so long as they have the principal s permission (Weldon). Current responses to school shootings involve procedures such as locking down the school, which confines all students to their classrooms with doors locked and lights turned off. However, these procedures do nothing to prevent a determined gunman from gaining access through locks and windows that are not bulletproof. Confining the students to single isolated locations instead of evacuating them from the building also creates a mass-murderer s dream. Instead, arming teachers and faculty with conceal-carried weapons will shorten the duration of school shootings if not deter them entirely. Since gun-free zones are targets for mass shooters, removing them will increase the number of armed law-abiding citizens in the vicinity, which will decrease loss of life, should those schools still become targets for killers. (Lott Jr., Reynolds) Conceal-carriers have also both shortened and ended school shootings in the past. One example is the 1997 Pearl, MS high school shooting. Joel Myrick, the school s assistant principal, had a conceal-carrier s permit and his revolver locked in his vehicle due to the high school s gun-free zone policy. When a student entered the school and started shooting his fellow classmates, Myrick ran out to his car, retrieved his gun, and proceeded to apprehend the shooter
Kasmar 9 well before police arrived. Another example is the 2002 Appalachian Law School shooting in Grundy, VA in which two students with law enforcement background ended a mass shooting in progress by retrieving their conceal-carry weapons from their vehicles. The similarity between these two shootings is that the people who stopped them had to first exit the school while the shooting was in progress, retrieve their weapons from their vehicles because of the law preventing them from having it on their person, and then stop the shooter. These conceal-carry weapon owners, while courageous, were forced to spend precious minutes getting their guns when simply having them on their person could have ended the shooting sooner. (Kopel) Rationale After careful consideration and extensive research I have come to the conclusion that my thesis is affirmed. When the two opposing arguments are taken into account, the side that favors gun-free school zones adopts hypothetical solutions that will very likely fail in practice. Strategies for reducing school shootings include increasing communication and relationships between students and faculty in order to create a positive environment that will reduce the chances of a student bringing a gun to school. This strategy is well-intended, but impossible. The only influence a school s faculty has on a student is within the school itself, and even then it is limited. The environmental factors that contribute to many school shootings involve situations that are out of the school s control, such as family issues at home. Inner city schools with students who are rival gang members will continue their feud within the classroom. Students with unknown and undiagnosed mental illnesses are prone to emotional outbursts. School bullying is also one of the major contributing motivations for school shootings. Teachers cannot
Kasmar 10 be everywhere at once, and the factors that lead to student on student shootings are inevitable. (Leary) One of the prevailing arguments in favor of gun-free school zones is tighter restrictions on the ownership of guns, the purchase of ammunition, and the applications for conceal-carry permits. These tighter restrictions appear like a logical first step in the reduction of school shootings. However, further increasing restrictions will only make it harder for law-abiding citizens to defend themselves. Tighter restrictions on gun ownership will do nothing to curb the illegal possession of firearms by criminals because of their disregard for the law. The most infamous shootings in recent years, including Columbine high school, Virginia Tech, Sandy Hook elementary, and the Aurora, CO theater shooting, all had two things in common: they were gun-free zones, and the shooters were not legally allowed to own and possess firearms. (Goldberg) Gun-free school zones create an unsafe environment for students and faculty because they do nothing to prevent criminals from committing mass shootings. Schools can ban guns, but anyone can walk into one with a bag full of weapons and ammunition and nobody would know until he started shooting. The Sandy Hook elementary school shooting is a prime example of how criminals care little for anti-gun laws. The shooter, Adam Lanza, was only 20 years old, making the possession and ownership of a firearm illegal in Connecticut where the legal age of owning a gun is 21. Before the Sandy Hook shooting, Adam Lanza killed his mother with a.22 caliber rifle committing first degree murder. He proceeded to steal three of his mother s guns, a Bushmaster.223, a 10mm Glock handgun, and a 9mm Sig Sauer, committing handgun theft. He
Kasmar 11 then drove to the school in a stolen vehicle while unlawfully carrying unlicensed, loaded guns. Before beginning his rampage, he carried a loaded gun into a gun-free zone which did nothing to stop him. Adam Lanza is one of the many examples of mass-murderers who care nothing for the law. (Weldon) There is also the question of the constitutionality of gun-free zones to take into account. According to J.D. Candidate Cameron Desmond of the McGeorge School of Law, the constitutionality of the right to bear arms can be divided into three categories; a purely individual right, a citizen-related individual right, and a citizen-militia individual right. The validity and constitutionality of a gun-control law, such as gun-free zones, depend on which version the law is referring to. The citizen-related individual right recognizes the Second Amendment as providing the states with the means to resist a tyrannical federal government. The citizen-militia individual right of the Second Amendment provides individual citizens with the means to resist an oppressive government. When discussing gun-free zones in the context described in the introduction, the purely individual s right to bear arms falls under the Bill of Rights as to be used for whatever reason, in this case self-defense. Since gun-free school zones prevent individuals from possessing a firearm in a manner that can be used for the defense of self and others, gunfree zones are inherently unconstitutional. (Desmond) Conclusion The solution to gun violence in schools is not the restriction on gun possession, but the increase of guns within the hands of law-abiding citizens. Since criminals and mass-shooters are attracted to victims that they know will not have the means to defend themselves, the most logical answer to the issue of gun violence in schools is to allow conceal-carry permit holders to
Kasmar 12 have their guns on school grounds. This can be achieved by both teachers and faculty with conceal-carry permits, as well as by non-faculty visitors and School Resource Officers. The fact that conceal-carried firearms are concealed, meaning hidden from view, implies that they will go unseen by students and other faculty rendering their presence completely unnoticeable. Teachers and faculty who have been instructed on the risks of handling guns and trained to use them as required by all conceal-carry permit holders can quickly and effectively respond to any violent threat upon the school. These individuals can also be incorporated into school active shooter procedures to conceivably end a shooting in progress during the time it takes for law enforcement personnel to arrive on scene. (Goldberg) In order to facilitate the removal of gun-free zones, both sides of the debate need to reach a common consensus. Conservative gun-rights activists must come to terms with the fact that a nationwide standardized system of training and eligibility requirements for the ownership of firearms must be implemented. Conceal-carry permit applications and training vary by state, and the only sure method of maximizing firearm skill for non-law enforcement conceal-carriers is by meeting a nationwide standard. Certain gun shows must also be held to the same standard as anyone applying for gun ownership through law enforcement facilities. Meanwhile, anti-gun activists must accept that legislation, such as gun-free school zones, are not the answer to reducing gun related school violence. Removing firearms from law-abiding citizens does nothing to remove them from criminals and murderers. It is true that guns are indeed a method of doing evil. However, what the proponents of gun control must realize is that they can also be used for good. (Goldberg)
Kasmar 13 The benefits of allowing conceal-carried guns in schools are evident. The removal of gun-free zones creates an environment that can no longer be considered a soft target for killers. The presence of law-abiding conceal-carriers is a deterrent to criminals. Gun owners who have both the knowledge and training to effectively use firearms can end shootings in progress much faster than it takes for law enforcement personnel to arrive on scene, preventing further loss of life. To answer the issue of gun violence in schools, the elimination of gun-free zones is the first step towards the solution.
Kasmar 14 Works Cited Caty, Caren, Tracy L. Heller, Anthony J. Guarino, and William Michael. "A "Safe" High School: Prevalence and Consequences of Students' Exposure to Firearms." Ebsco Host Eric, Oct. 1998. Web. Children's Defense Fund. "Protect Children, Not Guns." Children s Defense Fund. 2013, p2-66. Google Scholar. Web. Department of Homeland Security. Active Shooter: How to Respond. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Washington D.C. n.d. Google Scholar. Web. Desmond, Cameron. From Cities to Schoolyards: The Implications of an Individual Right to Bear Arms on the Constitutionality of Gun-Free Zones. University of the Pacific, McGeorge School of Law. 2008. Google Scholar. Web. Goldberg, Jeffrey. The Case for More Guns (and More Gun Control). Atlantic Monthly. Vol. 310.5, Dec. 2012, p68-78. Academic Search Premier. Web. Illinois State Police. Concealed Carry Licensing. Illinois State Police. n.d. Google Scholar. Web. Kleck, Gary. "Mass Shootings in Schools The Worst Possible Case for Gun Control." American Behavioral Scientist. Vol. 52.10. 2009, p.1447-1464. Academic Search Premier. Web. Kopel, David B. Gun-Free Zones. Wall Street Journal. 18 April, 2007. Google Scholar. Web. Leary, Mark R., et al. "Teasing, rejection, and violence: Case studies of the school shootings." Aggressive Behavior. Vol. 29.3, 2003: p202-214. Google Scholar. Web. Lott Jr., John and Glenn Harlan Reynolds. Gun-Free Zones Called Magnets for Mass
Kasmar 15 Shooters. New American. Vol. 29.2. 21 Jan. 2013, p6. Academic Search Premier. Web. Lott Jr., John R. Guns in Schools Can Save Lives USA Today. 26 Dec. 2012, p08a. Academic Search Premier. Web. McClurg, Andrew Jay. "The rhetoric of gun control." American University Law Review. 1992, p42. Google Scholar. Web. Shah, Nirvi. "Safety Plan for Schools: No Guns." Education Week, 2 Apr. 2013. Google Scholar. Web. Weldon, John. Targeting Schools. The New American. Vol. 29.6, 18 Mar. 2013, p17-22. Academic Search Premier. Web. Yourish, Karen, Wilson Andrews, Larry Buchannan, and Alan McClean. "State Gun Laws Enacted in the Year Since Newtown." The New York Times. 09 Dec. 2013. Google Scholar. Web.