Fallacy of “Gun-Free” Schools

Via email:

From: David Burnett [mailto:media@concealedcampus.org]
Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2012 8:23 AM
Subject: Shooting Highlights Fallacy of “Gun-Free” Schools

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Shooting Highlights Fallacy of “Gun-Free” Schools

April 3, 2012 — Seven students were gunned down yesterday morning in California on the same day that a national protest began to raise awareness about students being left helpless against such murderers.

The national Empty Holster Protest, organized by Students for Concealed Carry, involves students strapping on empty holsters to illustrate their defenselessness at the hands of college gun bans. The event runs through April 6 and involves hundreds of college campuses across the US.

“This is a poignant and ironic example of the very thing we’re protesting,” said David Burnett, the group’s spokesman.
“Colleges invite these shootings by guaranteeing criminals their victims will be disarmed. It takes more than signs to fend off killers.”

Although the details of the massacre are still unclear, it remains apparent that prohibitions against firearms were completely ineffective. Over 20 such college shootings have occurred on so-called “gun-free” campuses since 2001. At the same time, more than 200 campuses in six states allow students to carry handguns to class without experiencing any such rampages.

“Gun-free zones are defense-free zones,” said Burnett. “Since our colleges can’t guarantee our safety, it’s time for them to allow us a fighting chance and decriminalize self-defense.”

A PDF version of this press release is available at:
http://scc.gs/HEXF5S

Media resources available at: http://concealedcampus.org/media

CONTACT:

David Burnett, Director of Public Relations

Students for Concealed Carry

david.burnett@concealedcampus.org

859-576-7522

ABOUT:

Students for Concealed Carry is a national, non-partisan, grassroots organization comprised of over 40,000 supporters which advocates for legal concealed carry on college campuses.

I don’t have anything to add other than I think the college administrators and state legislators that created these victim disarmament zones should be prosecuted for conspiracy to deny civil rights under the color of law with particular attention paid to the following:

…if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section … shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

Perhaps if a few of these people are in jail awaiting trial with the possibility of a death sentence others will be a little less eager to infringe upon the specific enumerated rights guaranteed by our Bill of Rights.

19 thoughts on “Fallacy of “Gun-Free” Schools

  1. I like that idea of prosecuting school administrators. They are actively denying a civil right and should pay a price for it.

    Supporting a “gun free zone” shows that you believe a “Level 10 Force Field” is put up by posting a sign with a red slash mark through a gun icon.
    This is clear proof that they are imbeciles and unfit to be administrators (or any other job that could ever put them in a leadership position).

    As has been tirelessly stated, a sign is not going to deter an individual hell-bent on mass murder. It just gives them a “target-rich” environment.
    It is time to end this non-sense and allow people to defend themselves.

  2. School administrators are particularly spineless examples of human beings. Imposing liability on them for the decisions they make may not give them spine, but it may induce them to look more closely at the rights they abrogate with such little thought as to consequences.

  3. @Phssthpok:
    Maybe the Students for Concealed Carry should stop trying to convince the closed-minded academic bigots (who think they know so much) and slap a law suit on them per the above?

    I am certainly not a lawyer, but I’m curious if this would be feasible? Would it be effective or counter-productive?

  4. @Braden Lynch
    Sadly, those are both federal CRIMINAL statutes, which means someone in the DOJ would have to decide to proceed against them as, to the best of my knowledge, there is currently no provision for we mere know-nothing plebes to do so. Something I highly doubt would occur given that it would set a precedent that would *not* be in the current interest of the fed-gov (IE: could be used in an attempt to compel similar actions, under ‘equal protection’ claims, against other government officials engaged in the same rights-depriving activity )

    For the civil side one would engage 42 USC 1983 Civil Action for Deprivation of Rights ( Civil action for deprivation of rights ), but again that would rely upon fed-gov to take a position against it’s current ‘anti-gun’ interests.

  5. @Phssthpok:

    Thank you, I suspected that it was something like this. With Holder in the DOJ, it’s never going to happen.

Comments are closed.