I’m not inclined to think that most people who support the idea of gun-free zones have anything but good intentions when it comes to them promoting that idea. Those people have the belief that by labeling an area as an area which guns are not allowed, this will make the area safer, and, after all, we can agree with anti-gunners that we want a safer world.
The problem is that believing that gun-free zones will be safer is the same kind of belief that thinks that if you can get to the end of a rainbow, you can collect a pot of gold from a leprechaun. It’s a nice thought, but it’s just not the way that reality works.
So, how does reality work when it comes to gun-free zones? It’s simple, really. Law-abiding gun owners won’t carry their guns in those places. And criminals will still carry their guns in those places. And active shooters will target those places to shoot people.
Don’t believe that this is the way that the world works? Well, here’s a real-world example of this playing out. And, sadly, the law-abiding gun owner was one of the people who paid the price of following a stupid law put into place by an anti-gunner living in fairy land (hat tip to here for the lead). Katherine Hafner writes,
Kate Nixon had considered taking a gun to work on May 31, the day a co-worker killed her and 11 others in the country’s deadliest mass shooting this year, a family attorney said on a radio show Monday.
The public utilities engineer was concerned about DeWayne Craddock “as well as one other person,” said Kevin Martingayle, an attorney working with Nixon’s family. So on the night of May 30, Nixon had discussed with her husband, Jason, “whether or not she should take a pistol and hide it in her handbag,” Martingayle said. She decided against it because of a city policy that prevents employees from bringing weapons to work.
The next day, Craddock, who had worked as a city public utilities engineer for nine years, used a .45-caliber handgun with a legally purchased silencer to fire at colleagues in Building 2 of the city’s Municipal Center in Princess Anne.
Yes, this lady died because she followed the rules. What makes this even sadder is that she very possibly could have saved the lives of some of the people who died that day because she would have been able to shoot back.
It’s clear that gun-free zones simply do not work and that they make the world a more dangerous place.
Never forget this: the road to hell is paved with good intentions, and, in the same way, the road to mass shootings is paved with gun-free zones. We need to end all gun-free zones now.
I am an old law man…(very old)I would rather be in a room with an honest man with a gun,,,an unarmed man who yells DUCK! I am an old law man.
I am 71 years old and I firmly believe responsible legal gun owners, teachers included are a benefit to us all as they can shoot back and save lives. I feel safer with someone who has a gun nowadays because they can and do save lives, gun free zones are the worst idea anyone ever came up with, they should be tried as accessories to murder for being so ignorant of how a criminal thinks!!! I trained my daughter from age 10 to shoot and learn gun safety and today she is a responsible concealed carry person and has a glock 17 9mm and can shoot very well!!
Living in Virginia Beach, and possessing a concealed carry permit, I had not heard that there was a victim in the recent shooting in Virginia Beach who was also a concealed carry permit holder. This could have been a case where many people could have been saved from a deranged employee apparently randomly taking out his frustrations on his fellow employees.
As an older American, I have trouble reading your blue text. I even have trouble with the text that is not as dark as the bold text.
I can honestly say that I have never open-carried in a gun-free zone.
Comments are closed.