The Aurora, Colo., movie theatre [sic]; the Sandy Hook, Conn., kindergarten, the Columbine, Colo., high school and dozens of other sites throughout the world, have two things in common: 1) they were “gun free zones”; and 2) consequently they were the sites of massacres committed by gunmen who knew they alone would be armed.[Please forgive the lengthy quote. I only include it because it lists most of the 2nd Amendment talking points which I have discussed here over the past several months.]
It has even been suggested that “gun free zones” actually attract killers who know they will meet only helpless victims rather than anyone able to effectively oppose them. Whether or not gunmen so calculate, it is true as shown by massacres that have occurred in recent years in “gun free zones” not only in the United States, but in England, France, Germany, Sweden, Australia, Korea and Japan.
“Gun free zones” never work for they disarm only those who obey the law.
Gunmen just laugh at “gun free zones.” When confronted by armed police, gunmen sometimes surrender though more often they kill themselves. At the risk of belaboring the obvious, what neither terrorists nor lunatics ever do is kill themselves (or surrender) when faced by unarmed victims. Those they just kill.
Contrast an incident from the Clackamas Mall in Oregon. Having shot two unarmed victims the killer was confronted by an armed Oregon gun permit holder. Apparently fearing capture, the shooter killed himself,
Or consider the absence of school massacres in Israel. Years ago Israeli children were the first targets of the Palestinian intifada. Israel’s response was arming teachers and school bus drivers, as well as parent-volunteers, to guard the children. When a few terrorists were killed, attacks on schools and busses [sic] ended—and have never resumed.
The thing is ... this country has been inundated in recent years with "mass shootings". Never mind that more shootings and more fatalities have been the result of "individual shootings"; the mass shootings are the darlings of the press (I know that sounds callous, but it was the editorial choice of the editors of the MSM, not mine) and also they tend to prey upon the most vulnerable among us.
Or do they? Consider the January, 2013 "drive by" (actually a "Walk By") shooting in a Chicago park, documented here, in which a 15 year old girl was killed ... when she wasn't even the intended target? It doesn't get much more "innocent" than that. This was not a mass, shooting, it was an idiot out to just shoot "anyone" .. because he could. That is not an isolated example; it's a typical example of the shit that goes down EVERY DAY on our city streets. Actually, the Mass Murders are the "Isolated Examples"; yet they are the incidents which garner such extreme attention from the MSM.
And why is that?
No, we know why the mall and church and kindergarten shootings get so much attention. What we do not know is why the day-by-day "walk by" shootings don't get as much attention, since they account for more victims.
The answer is that America is essentially one gigantic Gun Free Zone. Perhaps not to the degree of England, for example, but still ... I have a Concealed Handgun License, and I am rarely allowed to take advantage of it because even in the small college town in which I live most of the place has laws restricting my right to carry a firearm on the premises.
Do I feel safer in these places? Decidedly not! I feel like a target there, and I am a target there. I am not permitted to defend myself in a Gun Free Zone, and (as the leading article suggests), that is precisely the "target rich environment" which crazy people so love.
Take for example the local college campus, where I worked every day for 15 years. I was legally permitted (by virtue of my CHL) to carry a concealed firearm there. However. the college had its own rules, and they included as a matter of policy that anyone who carried a firearm on campus was subject to termination (if an employee) or dismissal (if a student). Even if I legally had a firearm in my vehicle, unloaded and locked away, the university policy made me subject to termination.
Since I've been retired for a couple of years now, I can safely reveal that I carried a pistol on campus every damn day. It wasn't because I expected to be attacked (if I did, I would have carried a rifle!)
It was because it was a declared and dedicated Gun Free Zone!
Remember Virginia Tech?
The Virginia Tech massacre was a school shooting that took place on April 16, 2007, on the campus of Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University in Blacksburg, Virginia, United States. Seung-Hui Cho, a senior at Virginia Tech, shot and killed 32 people and wounded 17 others in two separate attacks, approximately two hours apart, before committing suicide (another six people were injured escaping from classroom windows).[1][2] The massacre is the deadliest shooting incident by a single gunman in U.S. history.[3] It was the worst act of mass murder of college students since Syracuse University lost 35 students in the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103,[4] and the second-deadliest act of mass murder at a U.S. school campus, behind the Bath School disaster of 1927.
Virginia Tech was a "Gun Free Zone", too. That didn't protect anybody, any more than did Columbine.
So ... yeah. I carried. Nobody ever knew, nobody every got freaked out when I showed up at the office. In fact, everybody in my office knew I was a "Gun Nut", but nobody seemed all that concerned; if anything. I suspect that they found some comfort there. Hell, I hadn't shot anybody in the15 years I was on campus; that's a pretty good record of "NOT going postal"!
_______________________________________________________________________
Researchers have found that the homicide rates at postal facilities were lower than at other workplaces. In major industries, the highest rate of 2.1 homicides per 100,000 workers was in retail. The next highest rate of 1.66 was in public administration, which includes police officers. The homicide rate for postal workers was 1.48 per 100,000.[14](I know .. not really very reassuring. Did you note that all post offices are "Gun Free Zones"?)\
However, not all murders on the job are directly comparable to "going postal". Taxi drivers, for example, are much more likely to be murdered by passengers than by their peers. Working in retail means one is exposed to store robberies. In 1993, the United States Congress conducted a joint hearing to review the violence in the U.S. Postal Service. In the hearing, it was noted that despite the postal service accounting for less than 1% of the full-time civilian labor force, 13% of workplace homicides were committed at postal facilities by current or former employees.
______________________________________________________________________
No, I'm not patting myself on the back for declining to descent into workplace rage. It's awkward to feel proud of oneself for not being a lunatic, or an evil person.
The point is that most people aren't evil.
The point is also that some people ARE evil. And those of us who are 'on the scene' have the best chance to protect ourselves, our children and others against those whack-jobs who are evil. Hence, my support for the concept that armed guards are NOT
I think Great Britain is on the right track, at long last. Sure, I think they should give up the whole "gun control" thingie, but they are at least recognizing that "Gun Free Zones" equate to "Target Rich Environments". That's a step that our own U.S. Federal Government has not yet had the testicular fortitude to acknowledge, which puts The Brits one giant step ahead of The Amies.
Perhaps it's time to look at the "Money Quote" from the original argument, and not merely dismiss it out of hand:
Gunmen just laugh at “gun free zones.” When confronted by armed police, gunmen sometimes surrender though more often they kill themselves. At the risk of belaboring the obvious, what neither terrorists nor lunatics ever do is kill themselves (or surrender) when faced by unarmed victims. Those they just kill.I think they might just have something there.
2 comments:
I've always felt that if a store, or other business declares themselves a "gun free zone", they take on the responsibility and liability of protecting those within their area.
In instances of shootings, such as the Colorado theater, it's strange there have not (to mu knowledge) been many lawsuits against the theater for their failure to offer protection of the patrons.
With liberals/progressives it's always the thought that counts, not the actual results.
Post a Comment