Gun-Free Zones

Some Thoughts

Gun Free Zones

While out and about, one enters a business with one of those signs showing a handgun in a circle with a line through it; the dreaded gun-free zone. One wonders why they didn't put a “No Crime” sign up instead, they would be that much safer. (Does the sign mean long guns are allowed?)

Nearly all mass shootings occur in gun-free zones, but the lawyers have not yet caught on to how they can make a bundle by suing the owners on behalf of the mass shooting victims. The legal system does not have to make sense, and I suspect the business persons have been told by their lawyers that they are safe from liability if they endanger their customers in this manner.

Why do we now have so many mass shootings? Controls on firearms are much stricter than they were before the mass shootings began. Probably, nearly all mass shooters are on psycho-active drugs, a fact generally missing from the news reports. (Guns are used as a sort of general blame shifter for Leftist generated problems.) Some of them could be done by operatives, with a patsy set up to take the fall, (but that is just a conspiracy theory, as is Mk Ultra. There do seem to sometimes be oddities that are quickly swept under the rug.) Mass shootings are constantly in effect promoted by the news media, who continually hype them, so if some are orchestrated, more will follow from the mentally disturbed.

Are the mass shootings intentional, or at least semi intentional? A cynical view is that the 1990 Gun Free School Zones Act was passed with the intention of allowing the occasional nut-case to find a target rich environment and proceed. (I don't believe that there were school shootings before 1990, at least not as we know them.) A kinder view is that it was really intended to keep children safe, and no one wanted to appear to be against children's safety, but if so, why was it not rescinded after the shootings started? Since most mass shootings occur in gun-free zones it's reasonable to suppose that their very purpose is to supply us with a constant supply of gruesome news stories.

We are assured that only the U.S. has any mass shootings to speak of, but that is not true. Here is John Lott writing in the Chicago Tribune:

https://www.chicagotribune.com/2018/11/20/how-gun-free-zones-invite-mass-shootings/

In the article, Lott shows that the U.S. is somewhere in the middle of countries regarding their prevalence.

There seem to be constant efforts to increase both the number and size of gun-free zones, presumably until the entire U.S is one. If you are not allowed to go within so many feet of such and such a place while armed, it becomes difficult just to drive around town.

Those who follow the efforts of the elites to reduce the population may believe it's a way to get more people killed, but a straightforward explanation is that it's part of the effort to control all weapons, and mostly disarm the American people.

We might undermine their efforts the way the left does; through language. We might call a gun-free zone a self defense free zone, a Constitution free zone, even a death trap zone, etc.

Many people seem to in fact believe that being in a gun-free zone makes them safer, even when there is no mechanism in place to assure compliance. In the case of a business you'll have a clientele made up of disarmed law abiding patrons mixing with the criminal element. In places like government buildings you are indeed safer from the guns of criminals (and safer generally if you are better than the average criminal at hand to hand combat) when they have metal detectors, and in the case of your local court house or post office probably not in danger from the government. Of course your gun is not very safe if you have to leave it in the car. If the parking lot is a gun- free zone as well you either do all of your driving around that day unarmed to be truly legal, or risk it.

It seems more likely that things like this are intended to increase the hassle factor. You have to waste so much time dealing with the inconveniences that maybe you'll give up and not bother being armed. That's true as well of all the various licensing and permitting schemes.

Look at what happens in zones that are not gun-free. Feral groups of mostly youths show up to ransack a not gun free town and are unable to burn, loot and murder. Communists are unable to ravage the countryside and drive the populace into the cities to be placed under communist control, as has happened in various third world countries. Thugs are unable to have their way as petty criminals, driving up the crime rate so that the new authoritarians can solidify their control. It's a real problem. The other protections of the bill of rights are nice, but they will not keep your town from being burned down.

We need to keep our mind-sets and speech in a little more of an offensive rather that a defensive mode, without being outright rude. One should not allow oneself to feel defensive since leftist propaganda is designed to do just that. The modern gestalt, somewhat depending on where you are, is that we must explain our beliefs since of course they are radical and not believed by normal people. (General Michael Flynn explains in his book on fifth generation warfare that a standard technique is to make it appear that a minority opinion is a majority opinion, if it is advantageous.) While maintaining a civilized demeanor, it is appropriate to question the assumptions and beliefs of others. Why is your business subjecting us to extra danger by posting that sign? Are you not concerned about the risk of a mass shooting here? What about being sued by the victims of said mass shooting? Set the tone that says “Of course these zones are dangerous, everyone knows that.” Possibly ask your local political candidate what he can do to eliminate them. Will he work toward eliminating gun free school zones? Do not allow opponents the luxury of claiming the moral or intellectual high ground, they use that as a standard tactic, so call them on it and let them know that they have the low ground.

I don't know where the lawyers have been, you'd think that their natural greed would kick in, but there might be problems that I don't know about.

It may seem that I spend an inordinate amount of type on the issue of weapons. They are the last line of defense when all else is lost. Who would think that politically powerful groups would send thugs to burn down cities?

Stay Brave, Stay Free