gun-Free Zones - It seems such a simple matter to evaluate the efficacy of "gun-free zones," but somehow liberals and much of the mainstream media seems patently averse to making that evaluation.
There should be absolutely no question regarding "gun-free zones": They simply serve as an open invitation to criminals, and there is no evidence whatever to support the inane postulation that such designations deter criminal activity.
A criminal is, after all, a criminal. By definition, a criminal is not law-abiding and has only contempt for laws. Why, then, would anyone be so ridiculous as to propose that gun-free zones by signage would serve as a deterrent to a criminal? Of course, it would not. It would, in fact, suggest to the criminal that he need not fear armed citizenry and is, therefore, invited to conduct his activities with no concern whatever that he will encounter armed resistance.
The creation of "gun-free zones" becomes truly obscene when it is applied to military properties!
The position that such zoning is rational is the position of a hapless dilettante with no grasp whatever of real-life conditions. How else could anyone find it sensible to deny trained military personnel the ability to protect themselves? It is not a tenable position to avow, certainly.
Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump said the four Marines who were killed in yesterday's shooting at a Navy reserves facility in Chattanooga "never had a chance" and called for an end to gun-free zones.
Mr. Trump said, "Get rid of gun free zones. The four great marines who were just shot never had a chance. They were highly trained but helpless without guns."
How do liberals propose to explain to military personnel that they can trusted to protect the country but cannot be trusted to protect themselves?
Friday, July 17, 2015
Gun-Free Zones
