Introduction
Nowadays, mass murders, or massacres, are attracting the attention of politicians, journalists, and ordinary citizens of the United States with renewed vigor. Harder than ever, they have to seek for the solution to the severe issue of combating crimes committed with the use of firearms because recently there have been increasingly more such offenses. Primarily, there are two groups of people; some say that weapon is to be blamed for all the crimes.
Others highlight the weak following and compliance with existing gun laws and require a more thorough examination of the mental state of gun owners. Although some people believe in the effectiveness and safety of gun-free zones, they endanger the U.S. citizens instead of protecting them because criminals have no regard for the law and continue harming others with illegally owned firearms.
The Problem of the Ban on Firearms Selling
Most people believe that extremist statements contribute much to the will of committing a crime. However, political extremism, owners of firearms who have mental disabilities, and laws governing the possession and using of guns have existed before. If they were the only cause of the homicides, then probably the level of murders would not change so dramatically. Nevertheless, since the late 90s, there has been a noticeable increase in massacres, and it is crucial to find the reason for that (Fox & Fridel, 2016). It is believed that a sharp tightening of the rules on firearms keeping or the prohibition of their possession will lead to a drastic reduction in the level of crime.
Also, it may even result in the total disappearance of those crimes that involve the use of firearms. In other words, if all firearms held by ordinary citizens disappear, then the violence itself will disappear. However, criminals can do without firearms and commit their crimes with a baseball bat, a knife, a hammer, a brick, and everything that can cause other people’s suffering and pain.
The prohibition of selling any popular products always leads to the appearance of a number of black markets that are controlled by criminal leaders. The same situation occurred with the prohibition of the sale of drugs and alcohol when illegal selling started. Also, it is a well-known fact that the same happens with firearms as in those places where rather strict anti-weapons rules exist, there are black markets that are selling them. Unfortunately, there are always those who want to buy weapons and those who are ready to sell them despite the law and the endangered safety of ordinary people. Due to this fact, it is hard to disagree that individuals who want to possess and use firearms will find ways to get around the law and buy them. Hence, the ban on weapons will not lead to their total disappearance.
The Definition and Purposes of Gun-Free Zones
A gun-free zone is an area where possession and use of firearms are considered to be a crime. In other words, this is an area where an average person does not have the right to carry a weapon. It is believed that “gun-free zones are intended to reduce violent crimes, suicides, unintentional firearm injuries and deaths, and mass shootings in specific locations” (RAND Corporation, 2018, p. 199). There is no certain list of such places or gun-free zones, but typically it includes schools, jails, courthouses, sports arenas, and airports. In 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court left it to each state to decide who can carry guns and where. For instance, dozens of states permit guns in airport terminals, but Florida forbids them.
Also, more often than not, enterprises and businesses are allowed to decide whether they want to allow weapons on the territory of their property or not. Although many of them consider carrying weapons unsafely, however, a large number of companies do not want to ban weapons officially. This happens due to the fact that they associate such a prohibition with a potential reduction in the number of their customers. Another reason is that they have fears that this ban on guns may make employees responsible for a possible clash with armed clients.
The existence of gun-free zones means that there are certain reasons and purposes for that. The first states that such a zone “reduces or eliminates the presence of guns in these areas, thereby eliminating the risk of unintentional firearm injuries due to recklessness, escalatory conflicts, or criminal activity” (RAND Corporation, 2018, p. 199). The logic of this statement is that in those places where the carrying and use of weapons are officially prohibited, the likelihood of the appearing of this very weapon is as low as possible. Also, in such areas where it is forbidden to carry firearms, security guards and other law enforcement officers conduct a much more thorough search of visitors’ personal belongings and monitor people’s safety.
The Disadvantages of Gun-Free Zones and Firearms’ Prohibition
There are several severe reasons for believing that gun-free zones are totally ineffective and probably even dangerous for ordinary citizens. By some politicians, these zones are considered to be a right decision. Moreover, many scientists, public figures, and human rights activists study this phenomenon, compare the facts, collect statistics, and realize that gun-free zones are not as successful as were supposed to be. The first reason for the statement that firearms legislation does not protect citizens is that guns do not kill people. Society must not forget that humans are those who have to take responsibility for any crimes, including massacres.
The weapon itself does not shoot, it is the person who takes aim and pulls the trigger. Moreover, if someone has a desire to commit a crime, he or she may do that even without firearms. Consequently, weapons are not the root cause of the enormous level of violence that people have to face and fight; but those individuals who think that doing harm to others is a normal action are precisely this reason.
Undoubtedly, the reason explained above is not enough for some politicians to understand the inappropriateness of the gun-free zones and the prohibition of firearms. That is why there are some more proofs that guns legislation does not protect citizens, and one of them is that there are several legitimate reasons for ordinary people owning weapons, and foremost among them is self-defense. Self-defense is a severe measure of protecting someone’s own health, interests, and well-being from harm, especially through the use of physical force or weapon.
Self-defense is used in special cases as an excuse for a charge of a violent crime if it is possible to prove that the person did not have any other choice but to use force while defending. According to Smith (2018b), “millions of people protect themselves and their families with guns every day in the United States” (para. 1). Many people prefer possessing a firearm and may not use it for decades, but then, in a dangerous situation, it helps them and their families to survive.
There are quite impressive statistics that show the number of people to whom the presence of weapons in their house saved their lives during an attack of a criminal. According to Smith (2018b), in 2007–2011, “the Department of Justice confirmed a total of 338,700 defensive gun uses in both violent attacks and property crimes where a victim was involved” (para. 2). If to change numbers and take just a one-year period, “67,740 people a year do not become victims because they own a gun” (Smith, 2018b, para. 2). Hence, thanks to these statistics, a terrifying thought occurs: if those people did not possess firearms, at least half of them could have died because of not being able to defend themselves. This very idea proves the necessity of weapons in self-defense.
The third reason that proves the idea of gun legislation not protecting the citizens of the United States is that criminals have no regard for the law and will continue to hurt others with illegally owned firearms. It is possible to suggest that almost everyone either has heard of or faced at least one illegal action personally, and this is why it may be said that, nowadays, the crime level is rather high. Those people who want to do harm to the others, steal something, or rob someone will find a possibility to purchase guns illegally and commit their crimes. In other words, buying a firearm while it is forbidden will be just another point in their list of breaking the law actions.
Unfortunately, the practice shows that the gun-free zones are not only ineffective but also unsafe. According to Smith (2018a), the politicians try to solve the problem of crimes by declaring some areas gun-free but, in fact, they just make the perceived problem more dangerous. The hazard of such areas is that they “could serve as more attractive targets to violent criminals or mass shooters because perpetrators will be less likely to encounter armed resistance in these areas” (RAND Corporation, 2018, p. 199). Kirby, Anklam, and Dietz (2016) also agree with the statement that most of the criminals find gun-free zones the most attractive and easy targets. The explanation for that, again, is the fact that in such places, the likelihood of ordinary people having weapons that would help them to stop the criminals is very low.
However, it is always necessary to support proofs and evidence with certain numbers. This is where some more terrifying statistics will be demonstrated in order to prove the unexpected danger of such places. According to Wheeler (2019), “ninety-eight percent of mass shootings in the United States in the past sixty years have occurred in areas where the firearms are prohibited” (p. 50). Hence, those places where ordinary people cannot carry weapons usually attract more criminals. While planning their actions, they realize that, in such areas, there will be no one who could possibly fight back. The inability of having firearms in gun-free zones makes people easy targets for criminals.
Apart from the fact that gun-free zones attract most of the criminals, there is another proof of their unsafety. According to the words of Hsiao (2017), “if there is a right to carry firearms outside of one’s home, then the state cannot prohibit gun owners from carrying their firearms into certain areas” (p. 659). However, if the state does forbid this, it has to assume a special responsibility of defending those people whom it forcedly disarms.
In other words, the government must fully guarantee and ensure people’s safety in those places where it forbids them to carry weapons, which means that it takes away their possibility of self-defense. Unfortunately, it is not easy and rather impossible than possible. When there are huge crowds of people, it is more likely that the workers make minor or fatal mistakes, do not notice something, and accidentally lets the criminal put the lives of the American citizens in danger. In such places, it is necessary and important to let ordinary citizens feel safe and be able to protect themselves and their families from dangerous intentions.
Conclusion
To draw a conclusion, one may say that, at all times, there are such issues that do not have a clear solution. People are always divided into several groups that support different possible solutions to the problem. All the ways have their own advantages and disadvantages, and sometimes it is pretty hard to decide what side to choose and what choice to make. The same happens to the question of effectiveness or ineffectiveness of gun-free zones and ordinary people possessing and using firearms. As it was mentioned above and proved several times throughout the whole paper, gun-free zones are rather dangerous areas.
Unfortunately, instead of providing the citizens of the United States with safety, they attract more criminals than the usual places do. It is known that most of the ordinary people do not know how to defend themselves correctly. However, they still need to have the right and possibility to make their own choice of whether to carry a firearm with them or not because gun-free zones are ineffective and do not protect anyone.
References
Fox, J. A., & Fridel, E. E. (2016). The tenuous connections involving mass shootings, mental illness, and gun laws. Violence and Gender, 3(1), 14-19.
Hsiao, T. (2017). The ethics of gun-free zones. Philosophia, 45(2), 659-676.
Kirby, A., Anklam, C. E., & Dietz, J. E. (2016). Active shooter mitigation for gun-free zones. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, 1-6.
RAND Corporation. (2018). The science of gun policy: A critical synthesis of research evidence on the effects of gun policies in the United States. Santa Monica, CA: Author.
Smith, M. W. (2018a). Duped: How the anti-gun lobby exploits the parkland school shooting—and how gun owners can fight back. Brentwood, TN: Bombardier Books.
Smith, M. W. (2018b). More people use a gun in self-defense each year than die in car accidents. Web.
Wheeler, L. (2019). Tipping points: How to topple the left’s house of cards. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster.