Dr. Michael S. Brown
August 8, 2000

An anti-gun story by J. Portner, an assistant editor at Education
Week, recently appeared in the Washington Post under the title,
“Loopholes Allow Guns in Schools”.

The well known federal law against bringing guns within 1,000 feet
of schools does not apply to police officers, citizens with a license
to carry a concealed weapon, or in some cases, to school
employees. Although the author could not cite any cases where this
had resulted in a death or injury, the premise was that this violates
the spirit of the law and is somehow wrong.

Like many other alarmist articles on guns and schools, the
obligatory reference to Columbine was used to heighten the sense of
panic in the reader, despite the fact that the Columbine example tells
us nothing about the behavior of armed adults. The article is short
on logic, but provides a good example of the visceral fear of guns
and distrust of gun owners that is deeply felt by many writers in the
elite media.

In spite of the fact that mass murders are very rare, Americans have
been force fed innumerable images of these terrible crimes. Each
media feeding frenzy includes a call for more laws. But do laws
prohibiting guns in certain places really prevent Columbine-type
tragedies? In a word, no.

A striking paradox is associated with these mass murders. They are
much more likely to occur in areas that have been designated as gun
free zones.

Post Offices were the first buildings associated by the media with
mass shootings, in this case by disgruntled workers who were said
to “go postal”. The fact that guns were prohibited in Post Offices
was well publicized.

Office buildings, hospitals, convenience stores, TV studios, chain
restaurants and day care centers have all been targets of crazed
killers intent on running up a large score of victims before they
finally kill themselves. All of these enterprises prevent employees
from arming themselves, even if they have a state-issued license
granting them that right.

Schools became popular targets for young mass murderers in the
mid 1990s, around the time that the Gun Free School Zones act of
1994 was enacted. This law and similar local laws were targeted at
gang related violence, but had the unfortunate consequence of
making schools a more attractive target for disturbed teens who
wanted to end their own lives with a dramatic killing spree.

In 1999, John Lott and William Landes published an extensive
statistical study of multiple shooting incidents. They showed that
mass shootings occur less often in areas where responsible citizens
are allowed permits to carry weapons discretely.

Have you ever heard of a mass shooting in a police station, at a
pistol range, or at a gun show? Suicidal mass murderers may be
insane, but they are not necessarily stupid. They always select a
soft target for their final acts of violence. This principle also applies
to many other types of crime.

Some corporate managers are aware of this situation and resist
pressure to put up the “no guns allowed” sign. Even if company
policy prevents employees from being armed, it is a mistake to
publicize that fact.

This is not a new concept. A classic case occurred in the late 1970′s
in the Washington D.C. area. A pizza delivery driver was fired after
he drove off a robber with his handgun. After this was publicized,
the area manager made the mistake of announcing on television that
the drivers were all unarmed. The company was then plagued by a
wave of robberies until the policy was changed, at which time
robberies dropped dramatically.

The emotional reaction of the gun haters after a mass shooting is
that we must further tighten the gun laws. Even if this response
makes some people feel good, reality tells us that it isn’t the best
answer. Expecting a deranged, suicidal individual to honor a law
prohibiting guns is sheer utopian fantasy. Creating and publicizing a
gun free zone will, in fact, increase the chances of the kind of
tragedy we seek to prevent.

How many of us, no matter how much we hate guns, would be
willing to put a sign stating, “We have no guns here”, on our home?
Common sense tells us that this is an invitation to criminals. This
same simple concept applies to schools and other public places.

Some people will always have an unreasonable fear of weapons and
a desire to impose their will on society. We must not let their phobia
cloud our thinking. Exploiting our school children and putting them
at risk to promote a misguided political agenda is criminally
negligent.