Friday, July 10, 2015

Scott Walker campaign recognizes the need for a “gun-free” event

Will Walker "stick to his guns" on the issue of gun safety, or will he act hypocritical in the months ahead?

Curiosity recently got the better of me, and I began to look closely at the event information for Scott Walker’s presidential announcement next week.

It was all pretty straightforward, but when I got to the “restricted items” list something struck me as peculiar.

It seems that Scott Walker’s event is a “gun-free” zone.
No large bags, sharp objects, signs, umbrellas, liquids, aerosol containers, guns, ammunition, fireworks, electric stun guns, mace, selfie-sticks, martial arts weapons/devices, or knives of any size will be allowed in the venue.
Emphasis in bold added.

To be honest, this policy is perfectly acceptable and reasonable to me. At an event where a highly controversial political speaker is going to be present, his safety and the safety of his attendees ought to be of highest concern.

But all the gun proponents that support Scott Walker, including the NRA which gave him an A+ rating, might find problems with his event’s rules.

They'll ask, "Aren’t gun-free zones unsafe?" Or at least they should, if they want to remain consistent with criticisms they've made of liberals in the past.

In actuality, however, there’s substantial evidence that suggests otherwise. From Mother Jones:
Among the 62 mass shootings over the last 30 years that we studied, not a single case includes evidence that the killer chose to target a place because it banned guns.
The article goes on to say that the idea of “armed civilians” somehow saving the day is also “a fantasy,” adding that, “not one of the 62 mass shootings we documented was stopped this way.”

Indeed, the old theme that more guns means less crime in a given geographical area is getting a new look, and research indicates that it has been wrong all along: more guns really does mean more crime.

It’s great that Scott Walker and his presidential campaign recognizes the need for a “gun-free” zone. The evidence that suggests such zones are unsafe is flimsy at best, and at worst totally made up.

Hopefully, his campaign rhetoric down the line can match these moves to provide safety in the months ahead. But given his recent history de-regulating gun laws in the state (after which there were higher violent crime rates), I have few doubts that Walker will be anything but hypocritical on the issue.

1 comment: