Last year, a man ran amok in a mental health facility in Pennsylvania. He murdered one victim and wounded a doctor before the doc drew his own small caliber pistol and shot the guy, stopping what might well have been a mass murder.  The doc was not in compliance with the gun-free zone policy of the clinic.  After the police pointed out how many lives he had saved, that problem sort of went away…

John Gavazzi runs an excellent podcast for ethicists and psychologists, called – appropriately enough – Ethics and Psychology.

http://www.ethicalpsychology.com/2014/12/episode-18-critical-incidents-and.html.

 

I appeared on there recently when the topic in the first paragraph above was on the menu.  As a subject matter expert on deadly force, I was the only one on the podcast panel who was not a psychologist.  Yes, you could say I was…shrink-wrapped. The podcast linked above runs about an hour.

I thought the topic was covered well; if you have an hour to spare, you can find it here:

I was one of three speakers who addressed the gun-free zone issue last September at the Gun Rights Policy Conference in Chicago, hosted by Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, and the Second Amendment foundation.  If you have 40-45 minutes, those presentations can be found here:

http://www.saf.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/2014_GRPC_Targeting_Gun_Free_Zones_24_kpbs.mp3.

And yes, I still say “gun-free zone” translates into “hunting preserve for psychopaths who hunt humans.”

24 COMMENTS

  1. No law, no policy, should ever prevent a person from taking measures, that protect him/herself from being murdered in a place that allows public access or accommodation. Since these gun free Zones (only to the law abiding) don’t provide adequate security for the most part, a law abiding concealed carry license holder should not be barred from carrying concealed in those places. I applaud the good Doctor. Facing certain death with no means to defend yourself, should never happen, when you can change the odds by being armed.

  3. Im just going to copy paste what Mike so eloquently stated above. Spot on:

    No law, no policy, should ever prevent a person from taking measures, that protect him/herself from being murdered in a place that allows public access or accommodation. Since these gun free Zones (only to the law abiding) don’t provide adequate security for the most part, a law abiding concealed carry license holder should not be barred from carrying concealed in those places. I applaud the good Doctor. Facing certain death with no means to defend yourself, should never happen, when you can change the odds by being armed.

  4. ” And yes, I still say “gun-free zone” translates into “hunting preserve for psychopaths who hunt humans.””

    Truer words have never been spoken!

  5. I still stick with that old “better judged by 12 than carried by 6” mentality.

    If they don’t have guards and metal detectors actively keeping me from carrying my pistol, I ignore those signs and carry on carrying on. If they do, I turn around and spend my money somewhere else. The only time I have done anything different in recent memory was at a college football game (2 HBCU teams with a history of violence at their games.) that I was being paid to attend. I walked a mile back to my car and dropped off my pistol. Got back to the gate and explained that I was a private investigator working a case (only way to get my camera into the game.) and the guard didn’t even wand me down. I was SO upset. Told him I had just walked 2 miles to drop my pistol off and if he wasn’t going to wand me fully, I was going to go back and get it. He laughed, I laughed, he did a better job from then on from what I could tell.

  7. Great article concerning “gun free zones.” Recently, Wholefoods changed their policy which only allowed law enforcement officers or security persons to conceal carry in their facilities to “no open carry.”

  8. I had a private practice in psychology for several decades. I brought a .380 Walther to the office twice, once after a paranoid patient stormed out, fortunately never to return, and once when I feared that drug dealers would track a patient to my office who had refused to smuggle a huge shipment of MJ by sea for them. Perhaps I would generally have kept it in a drawer while there but I didn’t have a locked drawer. It’s not really a good mind set for a mental health provider to CCW IMO I. I felt much more vulnerable working in a public mental health clinic but was only there one day per week. The facts are that one is much more likely be be killed on the road than providing mental health services to a general population. If I had treated a huge number of couples or abused women, I might have been more concerned.

  9. I still believe that the best way to rid ourselves of “gun free zones” is to hold those responsible for them personally liable for any injuries which are sustained there as the result of not being allowed to defend ourselves with firearms when necessary. Those who have been injured should sue the property owners for damages, claiming that by denying the means to protect oneself to the public, the owners have morally & legally assumed the responsibility to protect all those within the “gun free zones” themselves.

    In order to ensure the success of those lawsuits, we also need to pressure our federal, state, & local lawmakers to pass laws which specifically state that all property owners of “gun free zones” are personally liable for any injuries or deaths which occur there as a result of denying gun owners the right to defend themselves. Any such ordinance or law would force the elimination of “gun free zones” by making them prohibitively expensive to insure. I would very much like to see the NRA, GOA, CCRKBA, & The 2nd Amendment Foundation lobby for this kind of legislation in the way that they did for concealed carry. This is a strategy which might also succeed against states that deny concealed carry reciprocity to residents of other states.

  10. Not even those who commit crimes with firearms and are later described as “mentally disturbed” have gone into a gun show or police station to do their foul deeds. Movie theaters, schools, college campuses, etc., that are known gun-free zones are the easy targets. More power to the mental health doctor who was brave enough and wise enough not to follow policy; and, therefore, was able to stop further harm to innocent people.

  11. Ladies and gentlemen, to the unscrupulous aggressor, “Weapon-Free Zone” really equals “Violence Welcomed Here, Folks.” Many lately deceased people have been blind to the reality of the sign being an asset to fanatics. Aggression happens! Coincidentally, the most destructive aggressors have predominantly been male. I pray that men in general will acknowledge an inside comprehension of male thought, emotion, and behavior here, and DEMAND effective security versus violence, security that includes a legally armed public that is dedicated to safety and getting along peacefully, without living off crime. I do not mean to exclude women from input, I just want men to rise up judiciously and apply any special competence they have to improving things. In any event, a sense of security needs to manifest consciously and positively in each “zone,” so that aggressors are deterred. At least one shielded, armed, high-retention guard working in harmony with at least one clandestine, concealed-carry support person may be indicated. As a responsible public, let us protect our triggers while keeping our powder dry. And thank you Blue for what you do.

  12. I recently stopped a man who had been involved in a road rage incident. I stopped him as he was pulling into the mental health facility for a scheduled appt with his psychologist. He had a sawed off 12 gauge loaded with two rounds with him. His psychologist, as you can imagine, was not amused, and in fact appeared to be quite shaken by the incident. One would hope that he now carries a defensive weapon at work.

  13. Dave-VA: I would love to see such legislation. Aside from the difficulty of arguing a victim “would have” defended themselves or others, I am convinced fear or liability is exactly why institutions (corporations or others with deep enough pockets to entice liability lawyers) ban guns on their premises. I believe the institutions’ lawyers calculate the probability of a victim or his/her estate suing because the institution didn’t do enough to prevent the tragedy. So, rather than taking effective measures, they hang absurd signs. They can point to them and say “see? we did what we could” and shift the discussion to gun control. Ridiculous? Of course, but consider the world of liability litigation we live in.

    I applaud your idea of liability based on the usurpation of the unalienable right to life by the most efficient means available. We need the NRA to front this fight – no one else will have the funds. A high profile case might change the institutional lawyers’ calculations.

  14. “Gun-Free Zones” only work in the warped worldview of those who have never lived on a street with a “No Thru Trucks” sign at either end, which only told truck drivers that’s the “most direct” route. When I was a kid we lost count of the number of big rigs tying up traffic getting stuck at the turns at the ends of our street.

    And those signs worked just as well as the the former no-smoking sections in restaurants at keeping smoke at bay.

    Slight tangent: I recall when NY state shoved that stupid “SAFE Act” down everybody’s throats…then they realized that there was no exemption for LE agencies. One state “representative” in favor of said law actually said “We’ll have to revise the law so that police are not at a disadvantage only loading 7 rounds in their 15-round magazines”, which to anyone BUT a politician (ie those of us with functioning brains) says that it was unthinkable that criminals would disobey the law and carry weapons loaded with 15 rounds instead of the legally-mandated 7.

    Hang on, boys. Gonna be a bumpy year!

  15. There are no bigger travesties and sadly, as one horrific scene after another unfolds before us, tragedies – than the ones caused by the “gun-free zones.” If the anti-gunners really do believe in the power of a metal sign, they should be required to place those signs in front of their homes, businesses, and churches. It’s the same hypocrisy that convinces the cultural elite that it’s OK for THEM to be surrounded by armed guards (“we’re special/smarter/wealthier – we deserve to be protected”) while denying the folks who cannot afford that same armed presence – the right to defend themselves. Ladies and Gentlemen, America is not just going to wake up one day and “get it” – have the lights come on – we all know that is not going to happen – it is up to us to turn those lights on for them.

  17. Mas, normally you and I are on the same wavelength, however, in this case we will have to diverge slightly.
    I have worked in companies where summer tempertures, during the summer, can soar over 100 degrees.A bunch of guys and women working in close proximity, sometimes, tempers flare and some pushing and shoving can occur and once in a while a few punches are thrown. When working 8, 10, 12 hour shifts eventually who is and is not carrying would become common knowledge. Today, I deliver to several companies that have no firearms signs posted. I just leave my piece in the vehicle and conduct my business and leave.

    After reading about this well educated mother in a Walmart in Idaho leaving her 2 year old son in the shopping cart, together with her ccw in her purse, and the mother is shot and killed by her 2 year old, perhaps some rethinking needs to be done. I haven’t heard how much training she had or what make and model firearm she had, but, working in a nuclear lab at a university means that she wasn’t unaware of danger and to act accordingly.

    Locally, we have had several retail companies take down their no firearms allowed signs. They haven’t said why. I suspect that the signs just alert sheeple to the possibility that firearms do exist. Better to let sleeping dogs lie, so to speak.

  19. Dennis, as I sit here, drinking my morning coffee, you have started me off in a great frame of mind! Whenever I’m feeling low, a story like that makes me really appreciate living in Pa.! Thanks!

  21. In my state, if I carry a firearm to my campus workplace, I would be a felon and banned from possessing guns.

    Unfortunately, I have had confrontations with several emotionally disturbed students–one involving stalking allegations of other students by a former student who reportedly bragged about bringing knives and firearms on campus. I also teach at times quite late in the evening when few people are around. My wife faces even more issues as she teaches part time at a urban university in a known area of high crime where students and faculty have been targeted for street robberies.

    rant/on
    The glib answer from many is that one should quit their job and do something else if they value their life. However, I have trained for this job for many years and enjoy doing it, I have acquired tenure, and furthermore cannot afford financially to do something else.

    So–what to do about it. At least in my state, we have an active, well respected, and effected statewide organization dedicated to changing the laws. Bit by bit, my state legislature has broadened carry options and found that the buckets of blood hyperbole is simply not true. Campus carry by permit holders has not been achieved yet–but every legislative session appears that the opposition is weakening. Campus carry has made it through one chamber of the legislature last year and the governor had to resort to back room dealing to stall it. Eventually, it will pass and prove that it was an unwise law and that most people can be trusted to behave responsibly.

    Each incremental step that has increased freedom has led to exposing how “gun free” zones do not work. Idealists who hate the very idea of guns will never waver in their opposition, but over time, it appears that Americans in the middle are pragmatists and increasingly aware that symbolic laws do not deter killers and other miscreants.

    What to take from this–political apathy kills. Many people carp and complain about laws but have you ever joined an organization that seeks to overturn those laws? If no organization exists–have you though about creating one. Look at a map of the U.S. from the 1980’s that reflects carry laws and compare that with todays. Note, these changes were fought state by state in most cases, usually through the legislature but sometimes through the courts if necessary. No massive amount of money has been involved but simply the persistent will to demonstrate that an armed citizenry can deter and prevent crime. Powerful opponents have been humbled time and time again during the last 30 years including the Media, wealthy elites such as Bloomberg, other countries, academia, politicians, wealthy foundations, etc. Public opinion has been changed favorably regarding gun rights–all because a stalwart small group of citizens have fought peaceably to restore their rights through the democratic and legal processes. Have there been some setbacks such as Washington state, CT, and New York–yes–even in the last generally favorable election. This simply means that work remains to be done.

    Make it your New Years resolution to join/or even create a political organization to work for gun rights. Legislative sessions are starting now throughout the U.S. Buttonhole your state legislators in person, be nice but persistent in providing them evidence about how firearms can save lives. One effective way is to start with buying your district politicians lunch if possible or a very short personal introduction. Be aware that incremental steps that demonstrate the truth in what you say brings about the trust to change the law wholesale at some time the future. Freedoms are usually taken away step by step–the only peaceable way to restore them is the same process. rant/off

    My personal committment for this year is to buttonhole my legislators this session regarding campus carry, support my state organization’s fight to broaden carry laws in general, acquire more training regarding concealed carry, compete in a IDPA match, and attend an Appleseed marksmanship training session.

  22. Mas,
    I live in northern Idaho about 5 miles from the Walmart where the young woman was killed by the 2 year old son. I spent 10 plus years as a Reserve Deputy and a Detention Deputy in northern Wyoming. At my training at the Wyoming Law Enforcement Academy in Douglas Wyoming it was hammered into our heads that when we had our duty weapons with us it was to be in a holster on our belts at all times.

    This was also included when we were off duty and carrying concealed. The firearms instructor said he approved of fanny packs but they had to be worn at all times when away from home. Just my opinion but I believe that the thumb break holster is the safest way to carry. My heart goes out to this young woman’s family. I spent 7 years as a District Court Bailiff in Northern Idaho before retiring in 2011.

  23. Sorry about the slip up in grammar on the previous comment. We do realize the difference between was and were.

Comments are closed.