The Pros And Cons Of Gun-Free Zones

912 Words4 Pages
Imagine being in a public area such as a mall or a theater and some random nut-job comes in with a gun threatening to shoot everyone. Now imagine this in a school setting. People are in school and they hear the spontaneous gun fire. Consequently, bloodcurdling screams are littered throughout the building. As petrifying and daunting as this may sound, this kind of scene from horror movies is rampant throughout the United States. One may ask why this kind of act is happening in such harmless places such as schools. Mass shootings happen more frequently in gun-free zones than in areas where guns are authorized.
Blogger and professor of law at the University of Tennessee, Glenn Harlan Reynolds, eludes to the thought that gun-free zones are a “magnet for mass shooters” (Reynolds, 2015). Anti-gun activists believe that imposing “gun-free” areas will reduce the number of weapons, thereby, decreasing the number of violent and heinous acts. By keeping firearms out of the public people’s hands, they hope to eliminate the threat and if needed, they will rely on the police to ensure their safety. However, despite all the effort the anti-gun activists exuded to produce this proposal, their idea has shown to be unsuitable and unsustainable. Gun-free zones are soft targets, only law-abiding citizens adhere to the policies. Since gun-free zones have no positive effect on unstoppable, determined, homicidal intent, gun-free zones make the perfect target for mass murders (Proffitt & White,

More about The Pros And Cons Of Gun-Free Zones

Open Document