Opinion by Dan Wos
Author – Good Gun Bad Guy
When the Gun-Grabbers can’t win the debate, they change the rules.
USA – -(AmmoLand.com)- In yet another attempt to discredit lawful gun-ownership, radical anti-rights groups like Moms Demand Action, have re-defined “The Gun Free Zone” because apparently, you had it wrong this whole time. First, lets look into the minds of the anti-gun crowd so we can understand their madness.
In an article by Meg Kelly – Video Editor for “The Fact Checker,” published in the Washington Post, Kelly made the following claim: “gun-free zone” is subject to interpretation. Kelly’s claim is based on the notion that because Moms Demand Action has fabricated their own definition of “Gun Free Zone,” the term is now indiscernible. This is convenient for the anti-gun crowd because it muddy’s the waters and makes the measurement of “gun-free zone death” data nearly impossible.
Moms Demand Action “Gun Free Zone” Definition is as follows: “Areas where civilians are prohibited from carrying firearms and there is not a regular armed law enforcement presence.”
Well, this changes everything. At least in their minds and among those who aren’t paying attention. So, it looks like, based on the “new” definition, we are supposed to eliminate places like Sandy Hook, Parkland and others when trying to measure the death and destruction that occurs in areas where people are prohibited from defending themselves with a firearm. According to the leftist gun-grabbers, there’s nothing to see here because as long as there was a security guard on duty or law enforcement in the vicinity, it was not a Gun Free Zone.
Do we all remember Scot Peterson, the Sheriff’s Deputy at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, who ran and hid while students were being massacred? Don’t forget, civilians were prohibited from having guns on campus, leaving the safety of the students in the hands of Peterson, but because he was armed, and according to the new left-wing definition of GFZ, Parkland shouldn’t be counted as a GFZ. Keep in mind, according to the Anti-Gun Radicals, as long as a 500,000 square foot school has one armed security guard, even while prohibiting teachers, staff and lawful gun-owners from carrying a gun, it should not be considered a Gun Free Zone.
The anti-gun mob doesn’t want the “Gun Free Zone” being blamed for mass-killings because they support them. The creation of Gun-Free Zones are a political win for the left and another roadblock for lawful gun-owners. This is why the political left cheer in the streets when Walmart declares it’s stores gun-free. Should the public become wise to the dangers of the GFZ, the Anti-Gun Radicals would have to admit that they share responsibility for the loss of innocent lives. Denying the dangers of GFZ’s has become impossible, so rather than admit they support these “Killing Zones,” they attempt to change the definition so you can’t measure the data. They desperately scrub the blood off their hands, while simultaneously using school killings to support gun-control legislation. Yes, they want it both ways.
Kelly even said in her 2018 article: “Without a commonly accepted and uniform definition of “mass shooting” or agreement on what constitutes a “gun-free zone,” it’s difficult to settle this debate.”
Of course, it is. That’s the idea. The numbers show us that GFZ’s are deadly killing zones because the people are sitting ducks and the Bad Guys have zero opposition, but the gun-grabbers want desperately for that truth to be clouded in a dispute over the definition.
Regardless of the left’s interpretation, the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990, had a provision for schools to authorize designated people to carry a gun on campus. So let’s be clear. Just because an armed security guard is on the premises, does not disqualify the area as a GFZ. There should be no dispute about the definition of a Gun Free Zone. A Gun Free Zone is any area where citizens are prohibited from carrying a firearm.
Based on reported accounts in a study conducted by Gary Kleck and backed by CDC data, there are approximately 2.46 million defensive gun uses in America per year. In other words: “lives saved because of guns.” These are specific cases where the presence of a gun stopped or deterred a threat.
The anti-gun left desperately clings to the claim that armed citizens do not stop mass-killings. How do they measure something that hasn’t occurred? When the anti-gun crowd tries to claim armed citizens do not stop killers, they are trying to use a hypothetical argument as data. Unlike the Kleck study, the claim that “armed citizens do not stop mass-killings” is impossible to measure because the “killing” they are referring to never happened and the “armed citizen” they are referring to, never existed. The entire scenario they are creating, never occurred, therefore it is impossible to measure.
By changing the definition of Gun Free Zone, the anti-gun crowd is able to avoid responsibility for putting children in danger while continuing to portray themselves as virtuous.
About Dan Wos, Author – Good Gun Bad Guy
Dan Wos is an American entrepreneur, author, musician, and NRA member. He is the founder and President of House Detective Inc., a home inspection and appraisal company serving many markets across the United States. He is also an active real estate investor.
This idea is pushed by Bloombergs School at John Hopkins. https://www.jhsph.edu/research/centers-and-institutes/johns-hopkins-center-for-gun-policy-and-research/ I took this course, it truly is a learning experience is being talked down to like some 1st grader, mind bending and just out right lies. I encourage every body to take it. It is free – be active and post on the boards as that is confirmation just what we are up against.
@31 That’s a really good idea! Thanks for the info.
The SCOTUS ruled many decades ago that no license or fee may be required for Americans to enjoy their Rights.
It is a sorry thing that so many will quietly kneel to the tyrant.
But then they (SCOTUS) allowed the NFA to be passed and to impose significant “license and fee.”
@Bowser, The S. Ct. does not allow laws to be passed. Perhaps you are referring to some case in which the Constitutionality of the NFA was tested. Can I have the citation, please?
The 1939 SCOTUS ruling on Miller that declared short-barreled shotguns to have no military purpose and therefore illegal under the NFA.
Well if they can redefine them so can I; From now on GFZs shall be known as “Killing Zones.”
The anti-America activist democrats are claiming it would have been better had NO ONE stopped the shooter at West Freeway Church. On CNN they exclaimed “How DARE they bring guns to church” say the atheist communist democrats as they turn a blind eye to the muslim shooting unarmed church-goers. After all, communist democrats despise church-goers because people with faith cannot be conquered. Ditto with the killing of muslim terrorist General Qasem Soleimani: “HOW DARE Trump kill this man! Why, we could have a WAR!!” “This is destabilizing!” Yet, the communist democrats said NOT A WORD as General Qasem Soleimani slaughtered… Read more »
What I see about the GFZ’s is the fact that the lefties and democrats love killing people, if they didn’t they would do away with all these crazy things they are doing and working hard to cover up. Bloomberg and all the gun-grabbers and their satellites don’t have enough common sense among them to fill a thimble. But that is what happens when people believe the left is actually out to be a “force of good” for humanity. They cover their agenda to kill off all but less than one billion people on this planet with more false agendas because… Read more »
Luck the Feft!
ENOUGH!!! I am right back to my original statement. Who gives a tinker’s damn WHAT those circus-clown waste-of-human-skin piles of Liberal manure want, don’t want, claim to “need,” like, dislike, think, or say? Lying Liberals (that’s actually all one word) have no – zero, zip, nada, shinola – credence or credibility. As we used to say in the old brown-boot Army, “fornicate ’em and feed ’em fish!” (Well, that is the sanitized version.) Let them just drive themselves to ecstasy writing proposed legislation (putting ink on paper)… let them get ‘frenzied to climax’ by passing all the unconstitutional “laws” they… Read more »
It is certainly possible to measure the general casualty count difference between shootings where an armed citizen intercedes, in comparison to shootings where people are required to wait for the Lone Ranger and Tonto to arrive and fix everything. That is strong evidence of what should be already obvious, that if you want quick resolution, it happens better when someone can immediately take action, rather than waiting for Congress to vote on it, assign a committee to study the matter, and at last agree that it is okay to have a duly authorized agent of the government speed across town… Read more »
I think I’ll stick with the FBI definitions of Mass Shootings (three or more innocents dead, not counting the perp(s), in one incident.). I think it was later changed to four or more dead). gun free zones, areas where civilians may not, under existing laws, possess firearms or ammunition. Note well, places like Starbux, WalMart, Costco, which express a preference that their patrons not be armed, but such requests do not have force of law, are NOT included. The closest thing we have in this country to a truly gun free zone is the TSA Steril AReas at airports, where… Read more »
The Mommies Demanding Attention have simply reinterpreted State Laws on Gun Free Zones. AFAIK, every State exempts Law Enforcement and the Military from the places designated as Gun Free Zones in State Law. Example, South Carolina. SECTION 16-23-20. Unlawful carrying of handgun; exceptions. It is unlawful for anyone to carry about the person any handgun, whether concealed or not, except as follows, unless otherwise specifically prohibited by law: (1) regular, salaried law enforcement officers, and reserve police officers of a state agency, municipality, or county of the State, uncompensated Governor’s constables, law enforcement officers of the federal government or other… Read more »
@RF – Interesting that (1) seems to cover LEO who work in the state but specifically does not include off duty officers from other states. My understanding is that LEOSA allows off duty or retired officers to concealed carry anywhere in any state wherever that states officers may carry off duty. As federal law trumps state law, seems that (1) should just say “law enforcement officers”. Skip the rest of the boiler plate.
Funky, LEOSA only covers retired LEOs, not off-duty officers. They must apply for the permit, and pass an annual “proficiency” shooting requirement. We all know how shooting a box of ammo only once per maintains one’s skills.