It should come as no surprise to anyone who follows the debate over gun control that anti-gun messaging has not changed much over the years. Once a particular “problem” is invented by anti-gun extremists, they generally settle in on a flawed argument to “correct” it, then just keep hammering away at it.
When Florida started the modern movement to expand the carrying of firearms by law-abiding citizens for personal protection in 1987, those opposed to the Second Amendment and the right to self-defense immediately began wailing about simple disagreements exploding into shoot-outs on the streets.
They predicted Florida would devolve into Hollywood’s depiction of the Wild West, but that never happened.
As the Right to Carry movement spread across the country, extremists still screeched about impending Wild West scenarios unfolding in each state, but these predictions proved overwrought. In fact, when self-defense options were expanded for law-abiding citizens, states saw either a decline in violent crime or no significant change.
Then came the transition from expanding access to carry permits—or removing unconstitutional restrictions on who may obtain one or what they must do to be granted a permit—to promoting Constitutional Carry, where law-abiding citizens were simply presumed to remain law-abiding if the government did not first require they get a permission slip to carry a firearm for self-defense.
We now sit at 29 states with some form of Constitutional Carry, and in virtually every state where there has been a legislative push for such a law, those opposed repeated the same doom-and-gloom predictions they rolled out for the push to make carry permits more easily obtained.
“Our state will return to the days of the Wild West!”
“Simple arguments will explode into violent shoot-outs!”
“The streets will become a war zone!”
But none of that happened, just like it didn’t happen during the carry permit reforms.
With the expansion of law-abiding citizens being able to carry firearms for self-defense, recent efforts to enhance that ability have focused on eliminating “gun-free zones.” These areas are, of course, only “gun-free” if criminals decide they will suddenly start obeying the law because they saw a sign depicting a firearm contained within a circle and a prominent slash across the gun.
That’s obviously a ridiculous premise, as criminals have always ignored the laws prohibiting them from possessing and carrying firearms, as well as the laws restricting where firearms can be carried.
But it’s not just the average violent criminal who ignores the restrictions on “gun-free zones.” The crazed lunatics that want to do nothing but create carnage and infamy are especially drawn to these areas.
The horrific unintended consequence of madmen targeting disarmed citizens in “gun-free zones” was pointed out in an April op-ed in the New Hampshire Union Leader. The piece, co-authored by economist and noted expert on crime Dr. John Lott and New Hampshire state Representative Samuel Farrington (R), points out, “[M]ass public shooters have repeatedly explained in their manifestos that they seek to attack ‘gun-free zones.’”
To drive this point home, the piece states, “It’s no accident that 93% of mass public shootings occur in gun free zones in which civilians are not allowed to carry firearms.”
The op-ed was written to defend HB1793, NRA-supported legislation in New Hampshire that would eliminate “gun-free zones” for the state’s public colleges and universities. Lott and Farrington write, “Opponents (of the bill) are repeating the same warnings made when the state adopted right-to-carry, later expanded it, and enacted Constitutional Carry. Each time, critics predicted disaster—and each time, they were wrong.”
The authors also refer to some of the specific claims made by opponents of the bill that are strikingly similar to, if not simply the same as, the arguments that have been made since the modern Right to Carry movement started in Florida.
Those who object to expanding the right to self-defense on campus in New Hampshire, notes the op-ed, raise the specter of college kids getting drunk and being negligent with their firearms—which is a similar argument people made when they opposed removing prohibitions on carrying firearms into restaurants where alcohol is served.
Then there is the ridiculous claim that an armed student may draw a gun over a disagreement with a professor or over a particularly heated academic debate. This is similar to the claims people made during early discussions over expanding carry laws, when they alleged simple arguments or minor traffic incidents would lead to gunshots.
Others feel college students “are too immature and not fully developed,” which is not much different than the allegation that law-abiding citizens should not be allowed to carry firearms because they lack the training and mental preparedness that police officers have.
Lott and Farrington even mention that some opponents raise the same hysterical proclamation that “New Hampshire would become a ‘wild west shootout’” if restrictions on carrying firearms on campus are removed.
The authors also point out, however, that for every outlandish claim of pending catastrophe should the bill become law, those making such claims offer no evidence in support.
In fact, Lot and Farrington point out there is plenty of evidence to the contrary.
“We can look to other states to dismiss the unfounded opposition to HB1793,” the op-ed explains. “Eleven states currently prohibit public universities from being ‘gun-free zones’, and we now have decades of data.”
Sadly, hysterical fear mongering will always be the standard argument that anti-gun extremists use to oppose our right to arms. Fortunately, their fears never come to fruition, and as that continues to be the case in perpetuity, more and more people who are not avid Second Amendment advocates will see through the ruse of the fallacious arguments of those opposed to our liberty and the right to self-defense.
We will, of course, post any updates on efforts to expand the Second Amendment in New Hampshire, and anywhere else freedom is moving forward.
More Like This From Around The NRA
