The misguided logic of gun-free zones

Any argument built on a false premise leads to an unsound conclusion

For those unfamiliar, in formal logic, arguments are generally arranged in what are called syllogisms. A syllogism is simply a way of aligning your premises in a logical format to support a conclusion. A sample syllogism may appear as follows:

All mammals are animals               (major premise)
All dogs are mammals                    (minor premise)
Therefore, all dogs are animals     (conclusion)

There are many fallacies that may cause a syllogism to be invalid. In general, if the conclusion must be true when both premises are true, the argument is said to be valid. It is possible, however, for an argument to be logically valid, yet still not be sound. If one of the premises is not true (or both are not true), then the argument is not sound.

This brings us to the idea of gun free zones. The argument can be stated in a syllogism:

Major premise: Having a “no guns allowed” sign posted will prevent people bringing guns into a location.

Minor premise: People not bringing guns into a location will prevent shootings.

Conclusion: Therefore, posting “no guns allowed” at a location will prevent shootings at that location.

Though the premises could be stated in other ways, the syllogism gets the idea across; and, this is a valid syllogism. Unfortunately, the syllogism is not sound. While the minor premise is true that, people not having guns in a location can prevent shootings in that location, the major premise, that posting signs, or declaring a place a “gun free zone” will prevent people carrying guns, is flawed.

The underlying assumption is that the “no guns allowed” sign expresses the letter of the law, and that, seeing the law so posted will deter people from carrying guns into the area bearing the signage. While such a sign may deter the typical law-abiding citizen, this major premise ignores a problem of definition: criminals don’t obey the law - this is why they are called “criminals.” If someone is intent on breaking the law, does anyone really think some letters emblazoned on a metal plate or glass window is going to have any effect on that person?

There are laws against running stop signs (stop signs are letters emblazoned on a metal plate that express a law), yet there are people who still drive through intersections without stopping at posted stop signs. No trespassing signs stop many, but not all. No fishing signs do not deter poachers. I could go on and on about signs and their effectiveness, but the point should be clear - a criminal will not be stopped by some vinyl or ink lettering.

Several examples may be cited where such signs, and laws, have failed. In June of this year, seven people were shot (two killed) after a high school graduation ceremony that was held on the campus of Virginia Commonwealth University. According to Virginia law, the carrying of weapons on the campus of this university, other than by a police officer, “is expressly forbidden” - Virginia Administrative Code 8VAC90-60-20. So how did the shooting take place? Guns are prohibited on campus. In March of this year, a person who identified as transgender, entered The Covenant School in Nashville, TN shooting and killing three students and three staff members during the incursion. Tennessee statute 39-17-1309 prohibits the carrying of weapons on public and private school property. How could this person simply enter the school guns blazing? In fairness, Tennessee has a provision under statute 49-50-803 whereby a private school may permit faculty to carry handguns, but I am unaware whether The Covenant School had such provision - it is clear that if any on the faculty were carrying, they were not in a position or state of mind to stop the perpetrator; regardless, the perpetrator still brought weapons onto the campus of a private school despite doing so being prohibited by law. February 13, 2023, Michigan State University (Michigan code section 28.425o prohibits carry on campus); Nov. 13, 2022, University of Virginia (Virginia Administrative Code 8VAC110-10-20 https://law.lis.virginia.gov/admincode/title8/agency110/chapter10/section20/); May 24, 2022, Robb Elementary School, Uvalde, TX (Texas Penal Code Title 10, Section 46.03 )… Multitude more examples are available.

The point is, a person intent on breaking the law will not be stopped by a law or a sign. Carrying this line of thought a little further exemplifies the fact that, by definition, laws do no stop criminals. After all, the most potent of these would presumably stop all shootings, right? It’s illegal to murder, therefore, if laws stop crimes, outlawing murder will prevent killings. But…murder is illegal, yet it happens all the time. Theft is illegal, yet it happens all the time. Kidnapping, breaking and entering, rape, speeding…there is not a single law on the books that has not been broken. Why? Because criminals break laws, they commit crimes. This is the definition of a criminal.

“Well then, we need more gun control!” Actually, many shootings (Uvalde is a perfect example) are committed with firearms that are obtained legally. Forms were filled out. Background checks were passed. More background checks will not help. More paperwork will not mitigate. Waiting periods only delay (if that). Again, criminals will not be stopped by laws. An ironic twist to this is that even reporters who have attempted to show how easy it is to get guns often break the law in doing so (by committing straw purchases, illegally transferring ownership, having a third party complete an 80% lower receiver).

This is why further (illegally and unconstitutionally) restricting the rights of citizens to keep and bear arms, no matter the nature of the arms (the founding fathers were intentionally vague here) or location of the bearing, cannot in any way make anyone more safe. Gun control, aside from proper aim and trigger discipline, does not make people safe - it puts them at risk. The only people affected by gun control laws are people who follow the law; such laws have zero effect on criminals. While law abiding citizens, with gun control enacted, find it harder to obtain arms for protection, criminals will simply skirt the laws, as criminals do, and obtain firearms illegally. Syllogisms to support gun control have very similar results to the one proposed here for gun-free zones.

Laws cannot prevent crime. They only serve to define crime, and to outline the punishments intended for those who commit crime. Any attempt to stop crime before it happens inevitably and invariably results in a violation of our rights and liberties without actually improving safety.

Unless an officer happens to be present at the time a shooting starts (or is about to start), the police cannot be counted on for protection. Even if an officer is present, he may not be able to (or willing to) protect those in danger. We alone are responsible for our own safety. Gun-free zones are no more safe, and likely less safe, than places where firearms are permitted. In order to insure their safety from those who may wish to do them harm (whether individuals or government), Americans need to return to the understanding that keeping and bearing firearms is a right to be protected, not a privilege to be regulated. I’ll leave you with this valid and sound syllogism:

Main premise: The Constitution (Second Amendment) prohibits the government from infringing the right to keep and bear arms.

Minor premise: Laws preventing ownership of any particular type of arms or the carrying thereof infringe on the right to keep and bear arms.

Conclusion: Laws preventing ownership of any particular type of arms or the carrying thereof violate the Constitution.