The Efficacy of Gun Free Zones

[Mudinyeri]

I thought our members would find this recent piece, that I wrote for Trek Tech Black, useful.

Link: http://trektechblack.com/the-efficacy-of-gun-free-zones/

Extract: A review of the 27 most deadly mass shootings in recent U.S. history reveals that 71% of those killed were killed in gun free zones or presumed gun free zones (based on state law). As a violence prevention methodology, gun free zones are an absolute failure. Unfortunately, those of us who support the Second Amendment are drawn into emotional arguments with those who wish to take away the right of law abiding citizens to defend themselves. This article will arm you with facts and figures to refute the efficacy of gun free zones.

[Dan W]

Good stuff! Thanks

[OnTheFly]

This is a double edged sword as are many discussions regarding the fallacies of gun control. I would say a vast majority of the people who whole heartedly believe in the benefits of such things as "gun free zones", are not 2A supporters. They may say they are, but do not truly understand the purpose and intent of the 2A. When we knock down their beliefs with facts, and discredit their "facts", they are only left with one course of action to achieve their goal of a society sterilized of any pointy objects...a complete ban of guns.

It will likely be the equivalent of discussing the virtues of marriage with a priest, but more important than proving them wrong about "gun free zones", is making them understand the purpose and importance of the 2A.

Fly

[Mudinyeri]

... but more important than proving them wrong about "gun free zones", is making them understand the purpose and importance of the 2A.

Fly

Agreed.

[depserv]

Good piece; thank you for compiling that information: it can be useful on deprogramming missions among liberal dupes and in educating low information voters.

[GreyGeek]

Toby, your article reminded me of the the Indian Ghost Shirt,   worn by Ghost Dancers and believed by them to make them bullet proof.  The Wounded Knee massacre proved otherwise.

Today, some folks believe that "No Guns" signs would prevent the carrying or use of firearms on premises located behind the sign.   

I wondered if they would reconsider their support of the 'No Guns" sign if they taped the sign to their shirt as protection against bullets.   Recent events have proven how foolish that notion is.   Of course, they wouldn't wear a "No Guns" sign on their shirt  because they know in reality that the signs are worthless protection against bullets, and they also know that if they put a sign out in their yard saying their home and property were "No Guns" zones they'd be broken into and robbed before sunrise.   So, the "No Guns" signs isn't about safety from bullets or protection of property, it is about infringing that which "shall not be infringed", our  2nd A rights. 

[farmerbob]