Gun-Free Zones are Criminal Safe Spaces

From schools to military installations, gun-free zones have a long history of turning otherwise secure places into hunting grounds for criminals.

The recent active shooter incident at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) headquarters in Atlanta on August 8, 2025, resulted in the death of one police officer and the gunman himself. Like all federal facilities, the CDC bans firearms on its premises, creating the type of target-rich environment that attracts mass shooters. Although this shooting did not turn into a mass casualty event, that risk remains high when gun-free zones remain in place.

The shooting at Fort Stewart further demonstrates the absurdity of disarming trained military personnel on their own installations. When Army Sergeant Quornelius Radford opened fire on his colleagues with his handgun, fellow soldiers were forced to tackle him with their bare hands while he continued shooting. These are the same warriors we trust to defend America overseas with sophisticated weaponry, yet they cannot defend themselves or their comrades on American soil.

The data on gun-free zones presents an undeniable pattern that policymakers and pundits continue to overlook. Research from the Crime Prevention Research Center shows that an overwhelming majority of mass public shootings occur in areas where firearms are prohibited.

According to pro-gun researcher John Lott’s findings, “since 1950, 94% of the mass public shootings have taken place in areas where law-abiding citizens have been banned from having guns.” Even more damning, Lott’s research reveals that mass shooters often seek out gun-free environments because they understand these zones guarantee minimal resistance. This pattern demolishes the naive assumption that posted signs and regulations deter criminals who are hell-bent on committing dastardly deeds.

Gun-free zones are not an accident of circumstance. They are the product of deliberate public policy. The transformation of American schools into criminal safe havens began with the passage of the Gun-Free School Zone Act of 1990, signed into law by President George H.W. Bush on November 29, 1990. This federal legislation established criminal penalties for possessing or discharging a firearm within 1,000 feet of any public, private, or parochial school, thereby creating vast zones where lawful citizens face prosecution for exercising their constitutional rights while criminals face no meaningful deterrent.

The Gun-Free School Zone Act (GFSZA) was passed in the wake of school shootings in Winnetka, Illinois, and Stockton, California. However, the legislation fundamentally misunderstood criminal behavior by assuming that imposing additional firearms regulations would deter people from planning mass murder. The law instead created exactly what criminals desire: concentrated populations of defenseless victims in clearly marked locations.

Despite being ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in United States v. Lopez in 1995, Congress quickly amended the GFSZA to apply only to firearms that had moved in interstate commerce, effectively reinstating the gun-free zone framework that continues to endanger students and educators today.

Military installations became gun-free zones through Department of Defense Directive 5210.56, issued in February 1992 under President George H.W. Bush. The directive restricted the carrying of firearms to personnel engaged in law enforcement or security duties. In effect, this directive transformed military bases into soft targets for would-be killers. When President Clinton’s administration implemented Army Regulation 190-14 in March 1993, it further codified these restrictions.

The tragic irony is inescapable. As John Lott noted in his analysis of the Fort Stewart shooting, “soldiers with a concealed handgun permit can carry a concealed handgun whenever they are off base so that they can protect themselves and others. But on the base, they and their fellow soldiers are defenseless.” These restrictions created the very conditions that enabled the recent attack, where armed soldiers trained in handling weapons were prohibited from carrying the tools they needed for self-defense.

The Fort Stewart shooting joins a horrific pattern of attacks on military installations that gun-free zone policies have enabled. Major Nidal Hasan opened fire on unarmed soldiers in the 2009 Fort Hood massacre, killing 13 people and wounding 33 others. The 2013 Washington Navy Yard shooting resulted in 12 deaths when Aaron Alexis attacked defenseless personnel.

Gun control advocates consistently downplay the frequency of defensive gun use, but the evidence supporting armed self-defense is overwhelming. Even using the most conservative estimates from the National Crime Victimization Survey, defensive gun use occurs approximately 70,000 times per year.

More importantly, when civilians are armed and present during active shooter situations, they frequently stop attacks before police arrive at the scene. The Crime Prevention Research Center found that armed civilians ended 33.8% of active shooter incidents between 2014 and 2021 when they were present and legally able to respond. That said, gun-free zones systematically eliminate this possibility by ensuring that law-abiding citizens cannot be armed when attacks occur.

Gun-free zones represent a systematic violation of Second Amendment rights disguised as public safety policy. The Supreme Court’s recent decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen reinforced that the right to bear arms extends beyond the home and cannot be arbitrarily restricted in “sensitive places” without historical justification. Yet gun-free zones multiply across America based on the political whims of anti-gun politicians rather than constitutional requirements.

Ending the failed experiment of gun-free zones requires acknowledging that disarming victims does not protect them from criminals who ignore all laws. Representative Thomas Massie has repeatedly introduced legislation to repeal the Gun-Free School Zone Act, correctly arguing that “Gun-free school zones are ineffective. They make people less safe by inviting criminals into target-rich, no-risk environments.”

America must stop creating target-rich environments for violent predators and start empowering citizens to defend themselves. Schools, military bases, and federal facilities must transition from criminal safe havens to hardened targets where potential attackers face immediate armed resistance.

Only by eliminating gun-free zones can we stop providing criminals with the massive kill counts they deliberately seek.

Trump Asked to Remember Pledge about Military Base Victim Disarmament Policies

‘Gun-Free Zones’ Responsible For Increased Gun Thefts From Cars

About José Niño

José Niño is a freelance writer based in Austin, Texas. You can contact him via Facebook and X/Twitter. Subscribe to his Substack newsletter by visiting “Jose Nino Unfiltered” on Substack.com.