In comments threads here at L&P, at Ralph Luker's blog, and at Volokh Conspiracy, I seem to have hit on a great new expression. Rather than passively accept the government euphemism "gun-free zones," I've started referring to "mandatory defenselessness zones." That's primarily for striking rhetorical effect, but it's basically truth: Calling something a "gun-free zone" doesn't mean that criminals and lunatics won't bring guns there- but it does mean that regular people will get in trouble if they do.