Much has been said about so-called “gun-free zones” created in the name of protecting people from gun violence.
As anyone open to evaluating overwhelming evidence should now be able to see, this evil and misguided idea is a total failure.
That’s what Sandy Hook illustrates.
That’s what Aurora illustrates.
That’s what Columbine illustrates.
But let’s look at the other side of coin for a moment.
Even Barack Obama and those who want to disarm American citizens agree there are certain places and situations in our society that should not be “gun-free zones.”
Let’s look at those for the sake of comparison:
- Barack Obama and his family would never think of going anywhere in America without armed guards. That is a given. I do not begrudge him for that choice. I just want the same choice for me and my family. Barack Obama’s life and the safety of his family are precious to him. My life and the safety of my family are precious to me. Unlike Obama, I don’t expect taxpayers to provide a virtual army of guards equipped with fully automatic weapons to provide for my family’s safety. I just expect to be able to take protect myself and my family in the dangerous urban areas Obama and his friends have helped to create and anywhere else I sense a potential threat.
- Does there exist anywhere in the United States a bank that labels itself a “gun-free zone”? I don’t think so. I would be shocked if there were one. Why? Because it would make it easy for bad people with guns to enter and steal money without the fear of resistance. I haven’t even heard Obama suggest guns should be banned from banks. Does this suggest Obama cares more about money than he does about elementary school children? I’m just asking. Why is it that guns to protect the money in banks are fine, but guns in elementary schools to protect little children are bad?
- I live near Washington, D.C., and sometimes visit government offices. What I find, almost without exception, is that citizens like me are forced to enter those buildings by going through metal detectors not unlike those we face at airports these days. Once inside, you will see armed government agents stationed presumably to protect the government employees and government property. But if “gun-free zones” make people safer, why is it that the federal government doesn’t declare all of those edifices “gun-free zones”? I think you know the answer: “Gun-free zones” are the most dangerous places in America today. They literally invite murder and mayhem.
- While many gun-phobes choose not to arm themselves or protect their homes with firearms, I have never seen one of them label their dwelling as a “gun-free zone.” Have you? Have you ever seen any American put up a sign on their front door advertising the fact that the occupants of the home are unarmed? Of course not. Yet, these same people believe banning guns from entire cities will somehow make them safer. Go figure.
- Speaking of that, which are the most violent cities in America? Where does the most gun violence take place? Chicago? New York? Washington? What do these cities have in common? They all have the most restrictive gun laws in the country. Are they really “gun-free zones”? Of course not. In fact, they are teeming with guns – illegal guns. They are failed experiments in the utopian notion that making it harder for law-abiding citizens to arm themselves somehow makes us safer from gun violence.
So, without question, even the most ardent firearms-phobes see the absolute necessity of firearms in certain locations. They recognize that without armed guards in places where things of great value are kept, there is a need to protect them with guns. But those same people evidently don’t believe that private homes where precious human beings sleep, schools where hundreds of precious little children are taught for much of the day and ordinary private businesses where precious people work eight hours a day are worthy of protection.
What does that suggest to you about the values of those who detest guns?