Layton 1

Matthew Layton
Professor Dursema
English 1010
04 August 2016
Make America Safe Again: The Reality of Gun-Free Zones
Throughout the year 2015, 2,345 people became victims of mass shootings in the United
States. There were 372 mass shootings (defined as an incident in which four or more people are
killed or injured by gunfire at the same general time and location, not including the shooter)
resulted in 475 fatalities and 1,870 people wounded (Guns in the US). There was, on average,
1.02 mass shootings resulting in 1.3 people killed and 5.12 people wounded each day of the year.
Clearly, something needs to be done to address the unacceptably high number of mass shootings
and casualties in the United States.
In order to effectively address the mass shooting problem, it is necessary to identify
common factors between mass shootings. The mass shooting problem is not new, nor is it
restricted to the United States. Numerous mass shootings have occurred across the country in
recent years. The common factor between them? With the exception of two incidents, every mass
shooting in the United States unrelated to some other type of crime (i.e. drugs) since 1950 has
taken place in a gun-free zone. In Europe, all such incidents have taken place where citizens are
banned from carrying firearms (Lott). The solution? Exceptions to gun-free zones should be
implemented for lawful permit holders because such exceptions uphold individuals right to bear
arms, enable self-defense, and limit the crime-permissive environment created by gun-free zones.
One of the most important criteria when addressing any issue regarding firearms is
ensuring that individuals right to bear arms not be infringed. Advocates of gun control often
suggest stricter laws and regulations concerning gun control and some will even go as far as to
propose disarming the American people. The Second Amendment is clear:
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State,
the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Layton 2

U.S. Const, Amend II

In the case of the District of Columbia (DC) v. Heller the Supreme Courts decision held
that the Second Amendment protects the peoples right to possess firearms and that total bans on
firearms are unconstitutional (District of Columbia v. Heller). In their deliberations of the case,
the Supreme Court examined the verbiage, the background, and the phrasing of the Second
Amendment to determine its intent. Their opinion clarified any disagreements concerning the
meaning and purpose of the Second Amendment.
The Supreme Court identified the Second Amendment as being constructed of two parts;
the prefatory clause and the operative clause. The prefatory clause of the Second Amendment, A
well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State states the purpose of the
amendment. The operative clause, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be
infringed, defines the operative effect of the amendment. (District of Columbia v. Heller)
Based upon the context and other uses of the terms right of the people and the people
in the Constitution and the amendments, the Supreme Court concluded that the Second
Amendment refers to an individual right applying to all members of the political community, not
to a collective right applied only to a subset (i.e. militia) of the people. Their examination of the
term bear arms led them to the decision that the phrase was meant to indicate the carrying of
weapons and armor for a particular purpose. The intended purpose in case of confrontation.
(District of Columbia v. Heller)
In their decision, the Supreme Court stated that There seems to us no doubt, on the basis
of both text and history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and
bear arms (DC v. Heller). In their decision, the Supreme court also expressed that the Second
Amendment was not without limit. Laws involving gun-free zones, prohibiting the possession of
firearms by felons and mentally ill individuals, and conditions and qualifications on the
commercial sale of firearms all fall within the constitutional limits to the Second Amendment.

Layton 3

The case of DC v. Heller clarifies that while gun-free zones are not unconstitutional, the
government does not have the power to disarm the people (Grant, 481-506). When examining the
issue of gun-control, it is imperative that the rights of the people are considered. Disarming the
American people is not an option. Conversely, allowing lawful permit holders to carry firearms,
including in gun-free zones, upholds the spirit of the Second Amendment: self-defense.
In a 2012 review of defensive gun use, the Cato Institute compiled a collection of nearly
5,000 randomly selected armed self-defense incidents reported from October 2003 to November
2011. The incidents included successful and unsuccessful defense attempts in which the victim
was armed. Of the incidents reviewed (approx. 10% of the incidents) 488 involved the successful
use of a firearm in response to a home burglary (Cramer and Burnett). In 1,227 of the nearly
5,000 incidents (approx. 25% of the incidents), a firearm was used to intimidate home intruders
into fleeing the home, preventing potential sexual assaults, homicides, and other crimes without
shots being fired (Cramer and Burnett). While results of national surveys range from as few as
108,000 to as many as 3 million annual instances of defensive gun uses, Cramer and Burnetts
findings published by the Cato institute provide an accurate representation of the percent of selfdefense incidents in which firearms are successfully used to defend individuals and their homes
(Cramer and Burnett; Cook, Ludwig, and Hemenway, 463-469).
The percentages of incidents requiring self-defense in which victims were able to
successfully exercise their right to bear arms to protect themselves, defend their homes, and
prevent crime stand in stark contrast to the fact that every mass shooting in the United States
since 1950, except for two, has taken place in areas where citizens are prohibited from carrying
firearms. While approximately 35% of incidents requiring self-defense are responded to by the
successful defensive use of firearms, the victims of mass public shootings are found unarmed

Layton 4

and helpless in their moment of need (Lott; Cramer and Burnett). This disturbing fact is the
unnecessary result of the crime-permissive nature of gun-free zones.
The fundamental problem with gun-free zones is that only law-abiding citizens comply
with the restrictions regarding the possession of firearms in the area. The countless occurrences
of mass public shootings in gun-free zones throughout history are evident of the fact that
prohibiting firearms does not prevent all criminals from bringing firearms into gun-free zones. In
fact, there is evidence to support the theory that assailants take potential resistance from victims
into consideration when planning their attacks.
John Holmes, who killed 12 people and wounded 70 more at a movie theater in Colorado
during the premier of The Dark Knight in 2012, had originally planned to attack either an
airport or a movie theater. The first reason listed in his personal notebook for his decision against
conducting an attack on the airport was the substantial security he expected to encounter there.
On the night of the shooting, there were seven theaters within 20 minutes of his apartment
premiering The Dark Knight. Instead of conducting the attack at the theater closest to his home
or at the theater with the largest auditoriums, Holmes decided to carry out his attack at the only
theater where firearms were prohibited (Cramer and Burnett). Holmes notebook included an
underlined note to himself at the top of the page reminding himself to Case the Place (Lott). It
is reasonable to believe that Holmes was aware of, and that his decision was influenced by, the
theaters ban on firearms.
Although gun-free zones undoubtedly provide appealing targets to those planning to carry
out mass public shootings and other crimes, the easily targetable environment of the areas is not
the sole reason for the crime-permissive nature of gun-free zones. The compounding factor is
that law-abiding citizens are inhibited from defensively responding to crimes occurring in gunfree zones. The precluded responses could potentially prevent or limit the impact of the crimes.

Layton 5

Numerous examples show that lawful permit holders are capable of successfully intervening in
potential mass public shootings.
In December 2007, Jeanne Assam shot and killed Matthew Murray in the New Life
Church in Arvada, Colorado in defense of herself and other churchgoers. Murray had shot five
people, killing two, when Assam intervened. Assam, who was carrying a legally concealed
firearm, responded by shooting Murray, putting an end to his attack. Murray, who had over 1,000
rounds of ammunition in his possession at the time, could have potentially shot many more
people if not for the actions of a lawful permit holder exercising their right to bear arms (Lott).
Assams actions prevented Murrays attack from becoming a mass public shooting. Interventions
exemplified by the New Life Church shooting are often precluded by restrictions created by gunfree zones.
The most effective way to address the mass public shooting problem in the United States
is to implement exceptions allowing lawful permit holders to carry firearms in gun-free zones.
Such exceptions will uphold the peoples right to bear arms, enable self-defense, limit the extent
of the crime-permissive nature of gun-free zones, and prevent unnecessary injuries and loss of
life resulting from mass public shootings.

Layton 6

Works Cited
Arnold, Grant. Arming the Good Guys: School Zones and the Second Amendment. Brigham
Young University Education and Law Journal 2015.2 (1 Aug. 2015): 481-506. Education
Law Commons, and the Second Amendment Commons. Print. 6 Aug. 2016.
Cook, Philip J., Jens Ludwig, and David Hemenway. The Gun Debate's New Mythical Number:
How Many Defensive Uses Per Year? Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 16.3
(1997): 463-469. JSTOR. Web. 6 Aug. 2016.
The Constitution of the United States of America. Amend II.
Cramer, Clayton E. and David Burnett. Tough Targets: When Criminals Face Armed Resistance
from Citizens. Washington, D.C.: Cato Institute, 2012. Print.
District of Columbia v. Heller. No. 07-290. Supreme Ct. of the US. 26 Jun. 2008. Print.
Guns in the US: The statistics behind the violence. BBC.com. N.p., 5 Jan. 2016. Web. 6 Aug.
2016. Retrieved from www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-34996604
Kleck, Gary. Armed. New York: Prometheus Books, 2001. Print.
Lott Jr., John R. A Look at the Facts on Gun-Free Zones. NationalReview.com. N.p., 20 Oct.
2015. Web. 6 Aug. 2016. Retrieved from www.nationalreview.com/article/425802/gunfree-zones-don%27t-save-lives-right-to-carry-laws-do