Liberals have been masters of permitting businesses, institutions, etc. to “do” things, while at the same time taxing and regulating them to the point that those activities are no longer profitable. Most familiar with the energy industry are aware of how Obama boasts about the large number of drilling permits that are “out there,” but companies choose not to use them. Costly regulations that mitigate any chance of profits will have that affect on people.
Now the nation is dealing with terrible crimes like what happened at the Sandy Hook Elementary school, leading to the death of 20 small children and several adults, and are trying to determine a sensible policy going forward. Somehow, those on the Left have concluded that Sandy Hook happened because of restrictive gun laws, yet Connecticut and schools in that state have among the most stringent requirements in the country. In spite of that, liberals are advocating more gun control.
The reality is, “gun free zones” (like Sandy Hook) are warm invitations to evil individuals with perverse intentions. If a person wants to kill the largest number of individuals with the least amount of interference, the best place to go would be a “gun free zone.” The only way this is going to change is if we change the perception of such zones. Instead of being institutions that are under protected (and most cases, unprotected) that depend on the best intentions of law abiding citizens to be safe, they need to become places that those who would do harm, know they will face violent resistance.
Newly elected Congressman Steve Stockman (R-TX) has introduced a bill to simply prohibit any institution from being able to call them a “gun free zone.” This, he argues, isn’t only because the current law is an infringement of the Second Amendment of the Constitution, but because it is dangerous. Again, places where criminals know that there will not be guns are places they want to go to in order to commit crimes. It is common sense.
However, in this culture where common sense is held in such low regard, policy makers should consider an alternative… require entities that want to be “gun free” to protect themselves. The following are a few of some of the things that could and should be required:
· A minimum number of police trained (and armed) security. There should be a minimum of at least two or three at each entity and they should have heavier “artillery” available under lock and key. These guards should have sufficient experience.
· Several protective doors with video coverage for people to “process” through a place. These are not cheap, but they are sensible if you are going to claim to be “gun free.”
· For some institutions, like schools, allow teachers with concealed hand gun permits to bring them into school under lock and key. These teachers might be required to undergo additional psychiatric testing as part of the approval process.
These type of steps are not cheap, and many locations (e.g., movie theaters) will find themselves unable to comply and will be safer upon removing the “gun free zone” sign of wishful thinking. Others will have to be very practical on how to proceed. The bottom line is, no corporate entity, school, or other institution has any business claiming to be a place free of guns unless it has the personnel and technology to assure that is the case.
Syndicated columnist whose articles appear on a variety of media outlets.
Follow Kevin on Twitter at http://Twitter.com/KevinPriceLive
Like his new Facebook page at
Kevin Price's Profile: http://www.google.com/profiles/PriceofBusiness
Host of the Price Point Edition on EBC