Time for Gun Control or “Gun-Free Zone” Control?

Every time there’s a shooting, liberals want to know from conservatives how many more shootings we’re willing to endure before we finally agree to “do something” about the U.S.’s “lax” gun laws. Conservatives will ask a similar question from liberals, except that we’d want to know how many more shootings they’re willing to endure before they finally agree to “do something” about gun-free zones.

The problem is not that guns are too easy to come by. Part of the problem is that people have been conditioned by the media and political establishment to be too afraid of them. As a result, they don’t want to have anything to do with them. And that leaves criminals with quite an advantage. As has been pointed out countless times, criminals don’t care about gun laws. Even if we had the most stringent of gun control laws, criminals would still find a way to get a gun and as many rounds of ammo as they want, and use the gun to kill as many people as they can. Criminals, by definition, don’t follow the law.

So, here we are again at the same, familiar impasse we’ve found ourselves many times before. A criminal allegedly had 30-round magazines and an “AK-47 style” weapon, according to CNN. He opened fire from his car, shattering the glass doors of a military recruiting center and then later fatally shot four marines at a U.S. Navy facility. Predictably, the locations proudly sported “gun-free zone” signs.

Even a former NYPD detective has spoken out against gun-free military facilities:

After gunman Muhammad Youssef Abdulazeez, a Muslim immigrant from Kuwait, allegedly shot and killed four Marines in Chattanooga, Tennessee, former NYPD detective Harry Houck said the military’s “gun-free zone” mindset has to change.

Speaking to CNN Newsroom, Houck said, “I’m a Marine. And this really is hitting me a little harder here than normal that [these Marines] weren’t able to protect themselves at the time this occurred.”

“We need people that are armed,” he added. He also said that even if that means getting armed guards, then so be it; something has to change.

The Tennessean reports that Abdulazeez pulled in front of a recruiting location, shared by various military branches, and shot holes through the “doors and glass… [of] the… Air Force, Navy and Marine offices.” He allegedly did this while sitting in his car.

[…]

Houck pointed out that the police were in pursuit of the gunman when he began the second attack “and he still got… rounds off.” Houck praised the police for their bravery and commitment, but stressed again that the Marines inside the center simply had no way to respond to Abdulazeez’s attack; they had no means with which to defend themselves.

You can’t outlaw guns. I mean, legislators can make a law that makes guns illegal. But only an idiot would think that a criminal would care one bit about what the law says. If anything, a criminal would prefer harsh gun laws to make his job easier. That’s why they like “gun-free zones.”

I’d rather have too many people owning and carrying guns (preferably concealed) than too little. Criminals are going to have them by default. This guy had 30-round magazines and a semi-automatic rifle. Why make ourselves (and military members) sitting ducks by disarming them by law? It’s not time for gun control. It’s time for gun-free zone control.