My response, of course, is simple: Can you explain how this exact same logic could not also be used against gun-free zones? After all, the needs of people in public spaces are certainly not uniform. Gun advocates have already pointed out something very similar to your “smokescreen” argument too — do you believe it applies there? And, of course, you could point out that removing firearms doesn’t eliminate violence in public spaces at all. For some reason, these are not considered meaningful objections to gun-free zone laws — perhaps because the need to ensure the existence of guns in those areas is not important to liberals, whereas their pathological need to ensure penises meet no boundaries is very important?