So, it’s not exactly a shock to most of us. It’s just common sense. Put yourself in a criminal’s position. You feel like shooting and killing a bunch of people, and you want to be met with as little opposition as possible. If you go to a place that allows concealed carry, there’s a risk that someone could take you out before you start shooting, and that’s a risk you don’t want to take.
Naturally, you’d go to a place that has heavy restrictions on gun-carriers. That’ll pretty much guarantee that no one will be able to fight back, and you’d be able to shoot and kill as many as you want. And then you’d get your 15 minutes of fame when the media give you nonstop coverage. So, probably more than “15 minutes,” but, you know, it’s just an expression.
The subject of gun-free zones is up again, because of the shooting that took place at Ft. Hood the other day. Many have already commented that the shooting occurred in a gun-free zone. Most of them do for reasons described above.
Here’s John Lott:
But if schools, theaters, and malls allowed for concealed carry, it would turn America into the Wild West, right? Matt Vespa referred to a National Review article that appeared not long after Newtown:
There is no evidence that private holders of concealed-carry permits (which are either easy to obtain or not even required in more than 40 states) are any more irresponsible with firearms than the police. According to a 2005 to 2007 study by researchers at the University of Wisconsin and Bowling Green State University, police nationwide were convicted of firearms violations at least at a 0.002 percent annual rate. That’s about the same rate as holders of carry permits in the states with “shall issue” laws.
The left would love to turn this entire country into one big gun-free zone, and they’d do it, all the while paying lip service to our 2nd Amendment “right to hunt.”