GUN FREE ZONES ? Are they safer ?

Background for all Readers:  Connecticut BANNED so called “assault weapons” and this latest trajedy was in a “gun free zone”.

Since 1950, with one exception,

EVERY multiple victim shooting where more than 3 people were killed, in the U.S. and Europe,

ALL have occurred in a “Gun free zone”.

GET RID OF GUN FREE ZONES. (If you want to lower the number of multiple victim shooting attacks)

People choose Gun free zones (when planning these crimes).

?What can we do to save lives?

For example:  When Washington D.C. and Chicago banned handguns:  We saw big increases in Violent Crime.

Not only in D.C. and Chicago, we saw it around the World.

“I can’t find a place around the world, EVEN ISLAND NATIONS, the ideal test case, where there’s been a BAN on ALL handguns, or a BAN on ALL guns, where you have seen MURDER RATES FALL.

John R. Lott, Phd., economist, ( the ONLY economist statistician to study gun crime in EVERY COUNTY of the United STATES.  Additionally, Professor Lott was personally anti-gun.)

Go to the link here and watch the video where Mr. Lott explains for the Washington Post.

http://johnrlott.blogspot.com/2012/12/interview-with-washington-post-would.html

Then buy, THE definitive, unbiased, scientific study as explained in Professor Lott’s book,

 More Guns, Less Crime

Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws

here.

THOSE WHO ADVOCATE BANNING GUNS, really want to INCREASE the number of murder victims.  Those ARE THE FACTS FOLKS.  The last 60 years have exhibited this FACT.  (Additionally the “failed State” of Mexico has exhibited how disarming the populace merely made the country safe for the CARTELS to take over the entire nation.)

Ask yourself this simple question:

IF banning guns, RAISES crime rates, and IF legislating “gun free zones” creates a place SAFE for the criminal to murder defenseless people,

WHY THEN, do the STATIST politicians really want to ban guns?

For the same reason States have always disarmed their peasants throughout history, to SUBJUGATE.

5 thoughts on “GUN FREE ZONES ? Are they safer ?

  1. Pingback: GUN FREE ZONES? Are they safer!? |

  2. “Gun free zone” is, of course, a misnomer. The theater, mall, school, or whatever area that is supposed to be gun free depends on the honor system to ensure no one brings a gun into the area/business. There are no metal detectors at the mall or the theatres simply because it would harm those businesses to have customers empty their pockets and be subject to pat search if they couldn’t clear the metal detector, and the security staff (if there is any) are usually poorly trained, not diligent, and not armed. Who would want to go through that to see a movie or shop? Yes, some schools have utilized metal detectors at main entrances, but the typical school building/organization’s security is so full of holes one can usually, with little observation, find a way into the buildings. Even if the buildings are secured, the grounds are not and there are groups (hundreds) of children congregated outside these buildings at specific times of the day.

    Gun free zone designations are a lot like the locks on your home or automobile, they are there (signs posted) to keep honest people honest and promote a false sense of security. If someone wants to get into your home or auto, they will. If someone wants to bring a weapon, any kind of weapon, into a gun free zone, they will.

  3. Also, as a note, most of you are aware that my wife is a school teacher in Bay county. Yesterday they began a new policy of locking the classroom doors after student movement. While this might (again, “might”) deter someone intent on harming a teacher or child, it creates distractions and problems for teachers and students when students are late for class for whatever reason or an administrator wants to enter the classroom. Knee jerk reaction or safety measure?

    • FC,

      And now we’ll have something horrific like a fire and we’ll see deaths blamed on a locked door. I’m not saying or hoping this WILL happen, I am saying this is how these things always work out: we make irrational, knee-jerk policy designed to fix something that is actually an inherent flaw of human nature, then we wonder why that irrational decision actually results in contributing to future harm rather than preventing it.

      When you think about it, you have to wonder how mankind ever “evolved.” Heck, my dogs usually have more common sense than the majority of us — myself included.

Talk Amongst Yourselves:

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.