Over at thestranger.com, socialist and freelance journalist Charles Mudede offers Why Mass Shootings and Gun Accidents Happen Rarely (If at All) at Airports. The answer’s pretty obvious: there are a whole lot of armed police and their TSA watchdogs on site. It takes Mr. Mudede a while to get there. And where he goes from there is where all arguments for gun control end . . .
. . . the right is right: Gun-free zones are pretty stupid. We should not even bother with them. No one who has it in their mind to pop people before popping themselves is going to notice, let alone be dissuaded by, a sign that says you’re in a gun-free zone. Those are just words on a wall.
But what would happen if a gun-free zone was rigorously, actively, physically enforced? Would it have more substance than mere words? Would it be effective?
Prison is the ultimate example of a “gun-free zone,” a place where a firearms prohibition is “rigorously, actively, physically enforced.” While there are examples of prisoners getting a gun while behind bars, the more you make the outside world like a “gun free” prison, the less likely it is that someone will shoot themselves and/or others.
This is what gun control advocates seek: a society where only police have firearms and [supposedly] no one gets shot. Gun rights advocates see this “utopia” for what it is: a prison state. The strange thing is, gun control advocates don’t see the logical endpoint of their agenda even when they do. Like this:
So, the kind of thing that happened yesterday at the Renton movie theater (a woman was shot while watching Michael Bay’s new Benghazi movie, 13 Hours) appears to never happen in gun-free zones that enforce their words.
I don’t like living in a world where stupid and/or evil people hurt others. But I prefer it to the world where the state proactively limits my freedom in the name of safety — and stupid and/or evil bureaucrats and police hurt others. Because that’s the world that murdered my grandparents and made my father a slave. Never again.