On the radio today, I heard the head of the National Education Association insist that the union did not want “any guns on school grounds,” and that they would resist any attempts to arm teachers. Schools, this union official said, should be “gun free.” The left, in the follow up to the Florida school shooting, has been proposing all sorts of various bans on guns, and places where those guns can be loaded, used, or carried. Listening to the anti-gun advocates this last week, I had an epiphany…Guns don’t deter violent offenders, they encourage them. How could I not see that before? Removing guns from the hands of law-abiding citizens is the only way to stop violent offenders from getting guns, and shooting people with them. It is so self-evident as to be indisputable. How could I contest that fact?
It only makes sense. If law abiding citizens came to a theater or a school or a park or…pick a place without a gun, violent or crazy people would know this, and not go there and shoot them. Why would crazy or violent people want to shoot unarmed people? It is human nature to want a fair fight. Bad guys won’t get their guns on the black market, or steal them, or make them. If they are illegal, or if there are signs saying don’t bring your guns here, bad guys will just walk away and forget about their guns.
All these years, I have been so wrong. So, it made me think, if gun free schools will stop nuts from going into schools and shooting up kids, then the right thing for Washington to do in the midst of the current gun controversies is to make more places “gun free zones.”
Don’t get me wrong, what happened in Florida is tragic, and I would never make light of that. Nor would I ever want to turn that tragedy into a political football, but we are there already, and so I thought my thoughts on the matter should be made public, particularly now that we are hearing all sorts of proposals being thrown out to stop gun violence in this country.
I have seen the signs, in malls, theaters, parks, office buildings and the like saying “This [name the place] is a gun free zone.” Before, I have always scoffed at these signs. What? I would think, are they stupid? Who reads these signs? I have to now say how foolish I was, for not seeing the persuasive power of those signs. It is clear from the arguments I have been hearing, that, upon seeing such a sign, the criminal, be he or she crazy or violent, would stop, take their gun back to their car, truck or van, then, if they wanted to kill people, they would enter the building and kill them with whatever other weapon they might have. Knowing that their victims would be unarmed, these bad actors would abandon their guns as well, just to make the fight fair.
So, since we know that these types of restrictions must be implemented gradually, we need to pick the buildings where the likelihood of gun use by civilians is the highest. Where is that? Banks, of course. We know that bank guards often have guns, and they stand near the door with that gun, scaring people and driving people away from the business. Making banks gun free zones would increase the banks’ business, and would make sure that bank robbers would not commit an armed robbery. They would see the guards without guns, put their guns back in the getaway car, walk into the bank, yell “GIVE US ALL YOUR MONEY.” No one would get shot, no one would be hurt, and the guards would have kept the peace while the robbers took the money.
So, to Congress, don’t start by banning guns, start by making banks “gun free zones” and guns will just go away. We know that to be true, the head of the NEA said so, and she is a teacher. She wouldn’t lie to us, would she?