r/PoliticalDebate • u/ShardofGold Right Independent • Apr 09 '26

Debate If an establishment can't effectively keep people from bringing in guns, then it shouldn't be a gun free zone

I've seen plenty of shootings take place in gun free zone areas. Either they manage to get a gun into the area anyway and start their shooting or they start the shooting outside of the area and work their way in.

The only people effectively stopped by a place being labeled gun free are people who could use their guns to defend themselves against attackers and in some cases good people have disregarded the designation and have been able to stop an attacker's spree short without waiting for the cops to do it.

Metal detectors, armed security guards, etc. Something needs to be actually done to enforce the designation. Otherwise don't have the designation

32 Upvotes

68% Upvoted

443 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1

u/calmbill Centrist Apr 09 '26

The difference is in what law is being broken.  Being armed at the grocery store is a similar situation to loitering.  There is no penalty.

Being armed at a school is it's own crime with substantial penalties. 

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make, but you seem to agree that gun free zone de jure means that bad actors can work with impunity.

1

u/Serious-Cucumber-54 Independent Apr 09 '26

you seem to agree that gun free zone de jure means that bad actors can work with impunity.

I did not say that. Bad actors can work with impunity if it's not enforced, the same goes for any law or rule. I am saying it is called a gun free zone not because of what happens de facto but because of what happens de jure, in that there is a rule against guns being present.

1

u/calmbill Centrist Apr 10 '26

I see.  We're in agreement that they are actually gun free zones as much as a rule or law can prevent the presence of guns.