Forbes: Deadly force more of a deterrent than more gun laws

The Seacoast-area Moms Demand Action leaders including Portsmouth resident Kathleen Slover are calling for new laws to make New Hampshire schools "gun free." I know their hearts are in the right place, but their proposed solution is an emotional one, rather than a logical one.

In my opinion, declaring schools (or any area, for that matter) "gun free" is the stupidest idea ever. Someone willing to commit mass murder at a school will hardly be deterred by the possibility of a follow-on charge of also having been in the wrong zone. Does anyone really think that such a law would make any difference to a person so deranged that they would shoot innocent people? Mass shooters understand that when the event is over, they will be carried out in a body bag. Additional charges won't matter a bit. We already have laws banning the shooting of innocent people, do we not? If existing laws banning the shooting of innocent people doesn't sufficiently deter these people, how would passing another law make any difference? Such a ban would only affect law-abiding citizens, not mass murderers, and it could actually be counter to the goal of reducing school shootings by reducing the risk to the shooter.

It seems obvious to me that declared gun-free zones would be more attractive to crazed people than places where the presence or potential presence of armed civilians with the power to thwart their plans would be. The data support this.

According to the RAND Institute, one analysis of 133 mass shooting events between 2009 and 2016 found that 10 percent of incidents occurred in designated gun-free zones (Everytown for Gun Safety Support Fund, 2017b). However, another analysis focused on mass public shootings between 1998 and 2018 and reported that a WHOPPING 97.8 percent of incidents took place in gun-free zones (Crime Prevention Research Center, 2018a). If this second statistic is even directionally true, then gun-free zones are a total failure − a magnet for such events.

To me a better approach to reducing the likelihood of shootings at schools would be to embed electronic safes into the cement walls in prominent areas and let everyone know that there are loaded guns inside them. Further, let it be known that the teachers and staff who are properly trained to use the guns know the combinations. Whether there are actually guns in the safes or not, and whether any teachers or staff know the combinations or not is irrelevant and should be a very closely guarded secret, known to a few. Surely, some of our teachers are qualified but it doesn't matter as long as people think they might be. There is no need, nor do I advocate, that teachers carry guns on their persons. That could bring a different set of problems. Simply let it be known that our teachers have ready access to weapons, if needed, and make potential killers think twice about how easily our schools could be taken.

Imagine seeing a sign like this on the front door of our local schools: "Warning: Staff Members are ARMED and TRAINED. Any attempt to harm children will be met with deadly force." This exact sign is on the front door of Port St. Joe Elementary School in Port St. Joe, Florida. Or, as Ms. Slover suggests, our schools could have a sign stating, "Gun Free Zone." Which sign do you think would be more likely to deter a crazed person?

Alan Forbes is the chair of the Portsmouth Republican Committee, but opinions are his own.