Criminals Suddenly Start Complying with Laws

In what can only be called amazingly unbelievable, criminals have suddendly started to comply with gun laws to obtain their weapons.

"I don't wanna have to kill myself after I go on a shooting spree in a gun-free zone," said Joe Killaman, "cuz that's really the only solution. Otherwise I'd get nailed with all kinds of other charges and they'd put me away longer. The bummer is I can't get a gun legally since I been locked up and stuff. But I've got some other ideas for weapons that are legal, that way if I get caught they can't get me for violating all them gun laws."

Miscreants like Killaman are realizing that strict gun laws put a damper on their plans of violence. This amazing feat accomplished by gun control lobbyists and legislators led to high spirits amongst many. In one town gun control activists were partying in the streets and many were heard saying "See we told you so, gun control laws work."

However, their party was cut short by a disgruntled criminal driving a stolen SUV through the crowd, weilding a chainsaw. Witnesses say the man was yelling "I hate your gun laws." He stopped in the middle of the crowd, after running over several dozen and hitting many with the chainsaw held out the window. He proceeded to chase down people, attacking them with the chainsaw.

It's unclear whether the chainsaw was stolen or borrowed from a neighbor. There are still no numbers on how many were killed and injured. Police arrived about fifteen minutes after someone in the crowd had dialed 911. Several minutes before they arrived a concerned citizen, not involved with the festivities, showed up and shot the killer. The gun he was carrying is being held as evidence and police are investigating to verify that his carry permit is valid.

This is, of course, not a true story and is complete satire, but this is the sort of thing I think of when I see things like this from legislators and others:

Sadly, gun violence is far too common in American society. I believe it is important to put in place measures that prevent criminals from accessing dangerous weapons. As such, I support vigorous enforcement of background checks and other measures that prevent gun violence.

I'd like to understand how such a rationale works. Do the people that say things like this really believe that criminals obtain firearms by legal means? Did I miss the news report on criminal types all of a sudden obeying laws?

The latest tragedy is the Westroads Mall incident in Omaha, Nebraska. This is a sad event. However, I think it's also quite sad that this will be, and already is being, used as fodder for gun control.

A spokesman from the gun control lobby, Peter Hamm, said Nebraska had some of the laxest firearms laws in the US.

"It's not a state that has very progressive gun laws and it doesn't have a very active gun control movement because, luckily, it hasn't had a huge gun violence problem," Mr Hamm said.

What gun laws the State has on the books has nothing to do with it. But this is done after pretty much any such mass shooting.

The interesting thing pointed out in an opinion column by John Lott is that the Mall was a "gun-free" zone.

Surely, with all the reporters who appear at these crime scenes and seemingly interview virtually everyone there, why didn’t one simply mention the signs that ban guns from the premises?

Nebraska allows people to carry permitted concealed handguns, but it allows property owners, such as the Westroads Mall, to post signs banning permit holders from legally carrying guns on their property.


The same was true for the attack at the Trolley Square Mall in Utah in February (a copy of the sign at the mall can be seen here). But again the media coverage ignored this fact. Possibly the ban there was even more noteworthy because the off-duty police officer who stopped the attack fortunately violated the ban by taking his gun in with him when he went shopping.

Yet even then, the officer "was at the opposite end and on a different floor of the convoluted Trolley Square complex when the shooting began. By the time he became aware of the shooting and managed to track down and confront Talovic [the killer], three minutes had elapsed."

There are plenty of cases every year where permit holders stop what would have been multiple victim shootings every year, but they rarely receive any news coverage. Take a case this year in Memphis, where WBIR-TV reported a gunman started "firing a pistol beside a busy city street" and was stopped by two permit holders before anyone was harmed.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,315563,00.html

Did the Nebraska law which allows property owners to bar guns on their property stop this horrible act of violence?
Of course not.
If a law allows for prohibiting gun carry in certain areas, it should also require that this policy be enforced by whatever entity makes that prohibition. So if a mall says no guns, they also have to provide controlled access (install metal detectors at every entrance, have guards to man them, etc.) just as most, if not all, courthouses do now. Otherwise the policy stance of "gun-free" is useless and is a threat to public safety.

One question that arises in my mind is - if the mall had signs stating "every store in this mall contains at least one employee carrying a firearm for your safety" (with a small print legal liability disclaimer of course) instead of a "No Guns" sign, would this incident still have occured? Possibly, though it may not have been at the mall. Whether such a policy was actually enforced or not, would it matter? The message that any store employee could foil any criminal intent would still be conveyed.
"Driver carries no cash."
"Store clerk does not have key to unlock safe."
"No more than $xx kept on hand for change."
Are such notices true? Not always. Do such notices work? Yes, they are effective at reducing robbery. They certainly don't eliminate the possibility and there are still people that will rob a convenience store plastered with security cameras for the $26.83 in the drawer.

Have "Gun Free Zone" notices reduced the occurence of guns used to commit violence in such an area or has it contributed to an increase of it? I haven't heard of a rash of shootings in courthouses or airport terminals, nor at police stations, gun shows, gun shops, or shooting ranges. They have been at malls, schools, universities.

The measures pushed by 'gun control' groups and like-minded legislators simply do not work. The words "shall not be infringed" come to mind. However, reasonable regulation does have its merits. It seems to be more a problem of enforcing laws against violent acts and crime in general that is the issue. Why do there need to be more laws relating to guns when there are already laws against theft, assault, murder, etc.?
Why are these not good enough? I think has already been answered with "you can't legislate morality."
I also think "an armed society is a peaceful/polite/friendly society," for the most part.

One thing that always gets me is the idea, frequently promoted, which states in some varying form - "only the police and military should have guns." There are several problems with this argument, but I will only expound on one. That one problem being that of personal responsibility. To state that only police/military should have guns removes one's responsibility to protect themselves, others, and State and projects it onto the government. This brings up two points.
1. Everyone or every family cannot have a personal protector provided by the government. It's just not possible financially or logistically, just to mention two reasons.
2. Courts have repeatedly stated that it is not the governments' responsibility to provide individual protection.

"...there is no constitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered by criminals or madmen. It is monstrous if the state fails to protect its residents against such predators but it does not violate the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment or, we suppose, any other provision of the Constitution. The Constitution is a charter of negative liberties: it tells the state to let people alone; it does not require the federal government or the state to provide services, even so elementary a service as maintaining law and order."
Bowers v. DeVito, U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit, 686 F.2d 616 (1882)

An individual must be responsible for their own protection, but seeing as how personal responsibility in many other areas are lacking amongst many today it's not surprising that people think someone else, namely government, should keep them safe. Figure out how to legislate personal responsibility without infringing on rights and you may be onto something, let me know.