Why Aren't Gun Free Zones Gun Free?

Suppose for a moment that you are a homicidal maniac.  It’s a stretch, I know.  (Those of you who are, in fact, homicidal maniacs may skip the rest of this post, as it will not be news to you.)  You’ve decided to go on a murderous rampage, and want to shoot as many innocent people as possible.  Two questions for you:

First, as you are considering where to commit your crime, do you choose:

1. a place where your would-be targets may legally be armed
2. a place where your would-be targets may not be legally armed

Second, if you are intent on committing mass murder anyway, how likely are you to be deterred from your crime by the threat of a weapons charge against you?

Here is an indication of how actual mass murderers answer these questions:

There have been so many school shootings over the last 40 years that researchers have been able to develop a profile of the typical mass murderer.

…[The Columbine shooters] killed 15 people and themselves before the SWAT team was in position.

[Virginia Tech shooter Seung Hui Cho] shot 47 people, 30 fatally, in the university's Norris Hall in just 11 minutes.  That means every minute he killed more than three people and shot a total of four. Once again, the gunman continued shooting until a four-officer team made entry and then he killed himself.

Based on the Virginia Tech data, top tactics training facilities determined the first officer on scene should make entry immediately with an aggressive attack on the shooter. Every minute the officer waits for back-up, another three or more people could die.

The other statistic that emerged from a study of active killers is that they almost exclusively seek out "gun free" zones for their attacks.

Now some tacticians believe the signs themselves may be an invitation to the active killers.

The psychological profile of a mass murderer indicates he is looking to inflict the most casualties as quickly as possible. Also, the data show most active killers have no intention of surviving the event. They may select schools and shopping malls because of the large number of defenseless victims and the virtual guarantee no on the scene one is armed.

As soon as they're confronted by any armed resistance, the shooters typically turn the gun on themselves.

While the odds of any individual falling victim to this sort of attack are small, the presence of “gun free zone” laws suggests that policy makers and/or the public consider the issue serious enough to merit a specific response.  So what should be done?  How then can we ensure that attackers are confronted by armed resistance as quickly as possible? 

Given the absence of evidence that allowing licensed individuals to carry concealed handguns on campus would increase violence, perhaps a rational response would be to strike "gun free zone" laws, encourage licensed individuals to carry their weapons, and make sure that word gets around.