Want Fewer Mass Shootings? Then Repeal Victim Zones
December 18, 2012
I’m seeing a number of people responding to the school shooting last week by calling for more gun control. I just want to point out that the public policy most likely to prevent massacres like this is, on the contrary, less gun control:
Let the law-abiding carry guns and protect themselves.
Why do you think these mass shootings are always in “gun-free zones” (i.e., victim zones)? As Dan Mitchell suggests, posting a sign at the entrance calling it a “gun-free zone” is tantamount to posting a sign saying, “ATTENTION CRIMINALS: This is a defense-free crime zone. All law-abiding persons have been disarmed for your convenience.”
If we really care about the children, we should do what works, not what’s politically correct or what feels good. What works is letting the law-abiding protect themselves and others.
Wintery Knight suggests that instead of gun control, we should try fatherlessness control, so to speak. Unlike gun control, this needn’t encroach on anyone’s liberty; we would simply repeal no-fault divorce and stop positively encouraging fatherlessness through our welfare spending.
Meanwhile the comic strip Day by Day suggests that by the reasoning of the people now calling for gun control, what we really need is Progressive control.