4 ms·

I always thought school zone laws existed not for deterrence but to provide for stronger punishments, and that the signs are there to help law-abiding citizens

by badgar 14y ago

I always thought school zone laws existed not for deterrence but to provide for stronger punishments, and that the signs are there to help law-abiding citizens carrying weapons from unintentionally breaking the law.

smokeyj 14y ago
> school zone laws existed not for deterrence but to provide for stronger punishments I imagine stronger punishment is supposed to be deterrence. When your only tool is a hammer..
nthj 14y ago
That's really weird reasoning. If we applied that reasoning to highway construction areas, you'd see "vehicle-free zones" for fear of somebody speeding. But we don't, so instead, we just have "traffic fines double in construction zones." Which makes sense, and presumably people drive more carefully in construction zones. If you want to double the murder punishment in school zones, there is your deterrence. Preventing law-abiding citizens from protecting themselves & others in the statistically most-likely place for a mass-murder makes no sense whatsoever.
- scarecrowbob 14y ago
  Well, there are a lot of crimes that people engage in other than murder, and many of them involve weapons. It's a much different thing to be caught selling drugs, soliciting sex, etc. in a school zone from a punishment standpoint. All that aside, I don't trust other parents with handguns around my children, and am perfectly okay with laws preventing people from carrying around my kids. Most of the people I know who are deep enough in their fantasies about their handguns are, and this is just my belief, just as likely to accidentally shoot a child as they are to do any good with a weapon. You might disagree, but it isn't true that prohibiting weapons around a school has absolutely no sense about it.
  - Dove 14y ago
    just as likely to accidentally shoot a child as they are to do any good with a weapon You know, this isn't the first time I've heard this sentiment, and -- without meaning offense -- I think it reflects a simple ignorance of the practical realities of handling firearms. I don't know whether you're referring to someone trying to shoot an assailant and missing, or simple failure to follow safe handling, but . . . I think maybe an analogy will help. From my perspective, it's as if someone said, "I don't want strangers driving cars near schools, because I think there's a significant risk they'll run over children accidentally." From my perspective, I know how much control a driver has over a car, how well they pay attention, the rules pedestrians follow and how well drivers respect them . . . and I'm not really worried about it. Every morning, I see bazillions of children walking to school, passed by bazillions of strangers driving cars right next to them, and I just don't give it a second thought. The person I'm talking to does, though. He seems to think cars drive up on the sidewalk all on their own, all the time. Sure, a malicious person could run over a child. Sure, a crazy or drunk or just irresponsible person could get a hold of a car and do a lot of damage. But those are both rare problems and not really specific to cars (or helped by laws). A normal person, in a normal traffic situation, will spend their whole lives driving and absolutely never be danger of accidentally shooting a child. I hate it when people say, "Your opinion on a topic isn't valid if you haven't done X," but I'm going to say something really similar. Not as a way to invalidate your opinion, but . . . I really do think that folks who claim to have a serious opinion on gun issues should at least spend an afternoon at a range once. Spend $50, take a class, rent a gun, and work through a box of ammo. It's fun, and you'll learn what guns are, how they're safely handled, how dangerous they are (and aren't) when handled responsibly, and . . . well, for lack of a better way to say it, learn how much control even first-time shooters have over them. I know that comes off as a snarky, "I know more than you" post, and it's not intended that way, really. It's just that I really do think a lot of the fear of guns is fear of the unknown. I honestly wish a firearms safety course was routine, like driver's ed, and then maybe we'd all at least understand the object we're talking about.
    - wwweston 14y ago
      While I don't know exactly what the poster you were responding to meant, it's possible that rather than meaning: "I think it's possible someone carrying may choose to intentionally shoot a child at any moment." he meant: "I think that (a) accidents happen in general and (b) should a specific crisis situation emerge and someone carrying uses their gun to respond, they are likely enough to shoot an innocent bystander accidentally vs successfully using it to stop an assailant." As someone who has spent a few afternoons at the range and even in the hills shooting junk, I certainly don't think someone is a threat just because they've got a gun. But I'm less sanguine when I think about the increased accident/incident rate, and I'm not sure how well most people would do with a gun in a confrontation vs recreational situation.

by badgar 14y ago

smokeyj 14y ago

> school zone laws existed not for deterrence but to provide for stronger punishments I imagine stronger punishment is supposed to be deterrence. When your only tool is a hammer..

nthj 14y ago

That's really weird reasoning. If we applied that reasoning to highway construction areas, you'd see "vehicle-free zones" for fear of somebody speeding. But we don't, so instead, we just have "traffic fines double in construction zones." Which makes sense, and presumably people drive more carefully in construction zones. If you want to double the murder punishment in school zones, there is your deterrence. Preventing law-abiding citizens from protecting themselves & others in the statistically most-likely place for a mass-murder makes no sense whatsoever.

scarecrowbob 14y ago
Well, there are a lot of crimes that people engage in other than murder, and many of them involve weapons. It's a much different thing to be caught selling drugs, soliciting sex, etc. in a school zone from a punishment standpoint. All that aside, I don't trust other parents with handguns around my children, and am perfectly okay with laws preventing people from carrying around my kids. Most of the people I know who are deep enough in their fantasies about their handguns are, and this is just my belief, just as likely to accidentally shoot a child as they are to do any good with a weapon. You might disagree, but it isn't true that prohibiting weapons around a school has absolutely no sense about it.
- Dove 14y ago
  just as likely to accidentally shoot a child as they are to do any good with a weapon You know, this isn't the first time I've heard this sentiment, and -- without meaning offense -- I think it reflects a simple ignorance of the practical realities of handling firearms. I don't know whether you're referring to someone trying to shoot an assailant and missing, or simple failure to follow safe handling, but . . . I think maybe an analogy will help. From my perspective, it's as if someone said, "I don't want strangers driving cars near schools, because I think there's a significant risk they'll run over children accidentally." From my perspective, I know how much control a driver has over a car, how well they pay attention, the rules pedestrians follow and how well drivers respect them . . . and I'm not really worried about it. Every morning, I see bazillions of children walking to school, passed by bazillions of strangers driving cars right next to them, and I just don't give it a second thought. The person I'm talking to does, though. He seems to think cars drive up on the sidewalk all on their own, all the time. Sure, a malicious person could run over a child. Sure, a crazy or drunk or just irresponsible person could get a hold of a car and do a lot of damage. But those are both rare problems and not really specific to cars (or helped by laws). A normal person, in a normal traffic situation, will spend their whole lives driving and absolutely never be danger of accidentally shooting a child. I hate it when people say, "Your opinion on a topic isn't valid if you haven't done X," but I'm going to say something really similar. Not as a way to invalidate your opinion, but . . . I really do think that folks who claim to have a serious opinion on gun issues should at least spend an afternoon at a range once. Spend $50, take a class, rent a gun, and work through a box of ammo. It's fun, and you'll learn what guns are, how they're safely handled, how dangerous they are (and aren't) when handled responsibly, and . . . well, for lack of a better way to say it, learn how much control even first-time shooters have over them. I know that comes off as a snarky, "I know more than you" post, and it's not intended that way, really. It's just that I really do think a lot of the fear of guns is fear of the unknown. I honestly wish a firearms safety course was routine, like driver's ed, and then maybe we'd all at least understand the object we're talking about.
  - wwweston 14y ago
    While I don't know exactly what the poster you were responding to meant, it's possible that rather than meaning: "I think it's possible someone carrying may choose to intentionally shoot a child at any moment." he meant: "I think that (a) accidents happen in general and (b) should a specific crisis situation emerge and someone carrying uses their gun to respond, they are likely enough to shoot an innocent bystander accidentally vs successfully using it to stop an assailant." As someone who has spent a few afternoons at the range and even in the hills shooting junk, I certainly don't think someone is a threat just because they've got a gun. But I'm less sanguine when I think about the increased accident/incident rate, and I'm not sure how well most people would do with a gun in a confrontation vs recreational situation.