“The truth is ‘gun-free zones’ are a red herring used by the gun lobby to blame victims for tragic experiences that are not their fault. It suggests that people who are seeing a movie or learning in a classroom are to blame for their own deaths because they were not armed in spaces where we should all feel safe.” – Moms Demand Action’s Sabine Browne in Poll Shows OK Voters Believe Gun Free Zones Are Dangerous [via newson6.com]
Where to begin?
How about: We don’t blame victims; we correctly blame democrats.
Which is blaming professional victims.
I always begin by asking them how Gun-Free Zones are enforced.
After they “hmmm” and “um” for a minute, I give them the answer:
Gun-Free Zones are enforced by people with guns (police).
There is no getting away from the power of guns, or the power of people that use guns (for both bad and good), no matter how cool the unicorn looks in the bright pink sky of their little world. Emphasize to the loonies that whenever they see a need to call police to protect themselves from violence, they are “using” guns. Rather than using a gun themselves, they are hiring someone else to use it on their behalf, but they are still getting the benefit of having a gun.
We just prefer to eliminate the middleman.
And the wait for service, which is really what kills you.
“Emphasize to the loonies that whenever they see a need to call police to protect themselves from violence, they are “using” guns. Rather than using a gun themselves, they are hiring someone else to use it on their behalf, but they are still getting the benefit of having a gun.”
I use the same argument about hunting — good call.
Also, ask them WHEN gun free zones are enforced. The answer is “After people have been killed”.
Or “never”.
R.e. the comment on enforcement of gun-free zones by GUNS: So hiring someone (Police/better trained and Sheriff/Cop) to “protect” makes them a bunch of MERCENARIES.
Albeit mostly better trained and with more “military-grade” stuff than an average armed citizen….
You can’t….just shake head and move on….
“Oklahoma Moms Demand Protection of “Gun-Free Zones””
Demand? Go on in there, no one’s stopping you.
Now, if you want a guarantee of successful protection from violent crime, I can’t help you. You can lie in your own blood (G-d forbid) and wonder how this GFZ could have possibly failed.
Or, there’s another possible course you can take.
Such a bright smile on her face hiding the fascist nature of her organization.
If she really worked at it she could be maybe sorta kinda cute, but wouldn’t really know what to do with it if she actually found it. Instead, she’s just going to annoy thinking people.
Sorta like that ‘Pam’ character from the absolutely horrid US version of The Office.
YES!!!
How naive! People are safe only because others are willing to sacrifice for others (think Police, Fire, Armed Forces)…not because all people are good but some are inherently evil (Cain) or others are ill (too many to list). Gun free zones are like a flame to a moth
“Security is mostly a superstition. It does not exist in nature, nor do the children of men as a whole experience it.” Even Helen Keller, the deaf & blind Socialist knew this. People are safer who choose to defend themselves and those around them. No offense, but 1st responders are almost always 2nd on the scene.
When a 1st responder is actually first on the scene, it’s because they’re the victim. In such cases, it becomes abundantly and belatedly clear to them that 1st responders cannot guarantee anyone’s protection.
Cessna’s, slow as they are, are often the first, by hours some times, to the scene of the crash.
Bet we beat the paramedics by a half hour….
https://youtu.be/HRJpRu2RsSs
“A small two-seater Cessna 152 crashed into a cemetery early this afternoon.
Search and rescue workers have found two survivors and have recovered 300 bodies so far. Officials expect that number to climb as digging continues into the evening.”
No it suggests that the idiotic politicans are to blame for allowing free fire zones. Most violent people are going to attack and victimize the softest targets. How many mass shootings have happened at gun stores, gun shows, firearms conventions, and shooting ranges?
And aside from the rare whack-job who is intentionally seeking police to shoot at (suicide by cop), How often does anyone enter a location where there is a uniformed police presence (open carry) to engage in any criminal activity? Gun free zones effectively remove the possibility of an open carry non-LEO in this defensive role, and severely reduce the possibility of a concealed carrier. Bad guys know this. Even the dumbest criminal intent on a few bucks for his next urgent drug purchase knows this much.
It’s almost as if Gun Free Zones were OSHA mandated areas for the protection of criminals engaged in their occupations. What’s next, unions?
When I was a kid, there was a story in The Armed Citizen about a thug wannabe who decided to rob a gun store in Wyoming. Mr. Smart walked in, drew his weapon, and to get attention fired one round through the ceiling.
Talk about his last heroic deed on this Earth I bet.
Victim blaming is the strongest straw man the gun grabbers have. They refuse to see the difference between:
“If they’d have been armed they might have had a chance”
And
“They died because they were unarmed”
I think the problem is that, in seeking a perfect world, they want perfect solutions. Having gun free zones is not a perfect solution even to them, but it’s a step on the long path toward their perfect solution of banning all guns.
Allowing people to defend themselves also is not perfect because they might still die, but because it’s a step away from banning guns, they’re completely against it.
I think you are probably dead on for most of them. I also think there are those who fear armed individualists (i.e., Americans) more than they fear armed criminals.
PhilWilson,
“I also think there are those who fear armed individualists (i.e., Americans) more than they fear armed criminals.”
There is no “thinking” about it … it is a fact: several gun-grabbers have openly stated exactly that. In fact I am fighting one in my church right now in my effort to eliminate “gun-free zone” status at my church.
Neither case is really the correct one.
They both leave unsaid the fact that there are both crazies (who, in hindsight, are usually seen as such) and evil people.
We, as a society, have somehow managed to put ourselves in a position of leaving both to their own devices, citing “compassion” as the reason. Unfortunately, all too often, the left then professes to have “compassion” for the victims of those they have “compassion” for, while using those victims as an excuse to victimize those who had absolutely nothing to do with causing the victims in the first place. Out of “compassion,” of course.
Just so we’re clear, lady, we don’t blame the victims. We blame people like you who want to make sure they’re disarmed and helpless.
If I’m armed and someone walks into a theatre and starts shooting, I’m still a victim. Just not a helpless one.
Oh?
CNN’s page of the “Deadliest Mass Shootings” lists 30 incidents, with the earliest being 1949, and the latest being the Pulse Nightclub.
Of those 30, twelve were gun-free zones beyond a shadow of a doubt, as they were schools or government facilities, or places known to me to be “gun free,” like the Aurora theatre. (Note: I did not include Whitman at UT, because I don’t believe it was a “gun free zone” at the time.)
Four were workplace shootings, which presumably are also “gun free” zones, but since I don’t know for sure, I didn’t include them in the dozen above.
At least three on that list were killings of family members or people known to the shooter in their own homes, so they don’t pass the “public place” test.
That leaves somewhere between 8-10 that were (semi)-public and not verifiable gun-free zones.
Ms. Browne’s math doesn’t work.
Even if that statement were true, what difference does it make? The one thing you can be sure of is that people intent on mass murder (or one murder!) don’t just turn around and walk away because they see a “no guns” sign. Exactly what possible good do “gun free zones” do?
I know it’s a rhetorical question, but the answer is that gun free zones benefit only authoritarians who value control over people over the safety of people.
Exactly what possible good do “gun free zones” do?
Protect the criminal’s right to a trial by jury? /sarc
Your story is correct. There is no way to spin that. Can we agree, though, that the Chinese gamblers were an outlier, as are the guys who killed only family or co-workers, not at random.
Random spree killers show a marked tendency to target gun-free zones. Gun-free zones do nothing to decrease your chances of being killed by a random spree killer. They DO, however, drastically reduce your ability to fight back against a random spree killer. These are facts. You cannot spin these, either.
The number of shootings in GFZ’s vs those elsewhere doesn’t mean the GFZ creates the target. Correlation does not equal causation.
What the GFZ does is ensure that if there is a shooting the place is generally a one way range. But that doesn’t always matter either because people would have to be carrying at the time of the event and we know a lot of CCW permit holders don’t carry religiously.
James Holmes is actually a good example of this. That theater was not a “GFZ” because in Colorado to establish such a place, by law, requires a magnetometer at a security checkpoint. It merely had a “no weapons” policy, which means that if they caught you they could ask you to leave and put the gun in your car or remove it from the property.
In fact, I had carried in that theater more than once before I even noticed the itty bitty “no weapons” sign. I continued to carry there because that sign means nothing.
Further, there is no reason to think Holmes targeted that particular theater due to it’s policy. To say otherwise is to display ignorance of the area. The oft cited “closer theaters” were much smaller, not showing The Dark Knight film and closed. At about the same distance is a similar sized theater that’s harder to get to, which he may not have known about, and which has a heavy police presence because it’s in a bar district. It also has a no weapons policy. Further away are larger theaters, mostly with the same policy on weapons but a lengthy drive away. The only other largish theater in that immediate area is The Movie Tavern, which wasn’t showing his film of choice and is rarely crowded.
Very likely he picked the venue based on proximity to his apartment, showing that particular movie, the crowd that particular place generally attracted and maybe ease of access to a free standing structure. Since GFZ’s outside of government buildings and major sporting events don’t exist in Colorado it’s likely that wasn’t even on his list.
You may be correct but that assumes our side waves the bloody shirt and only argues the one point that GFZs are targeted. Whether they are or not does not change the fact that they may be. It doesn’t change the fact that a killer in a crowded building will face no armed resistance when none is present.
Just because we mention that possibility doesn’t mean our fight for restored gun rights hinges on that reasoning.
The fact is, there aren’t enough people exercising the RTKBA regardless of venue policy. I believe you pointed that out. But part of the reason is the general acceptance of such activity by the public. Not everyone is hard core like you and I. Call them “fair weather patriots” but we need them, but first, we need fair weather.
I don’t fight GFZs just to protect people in them. I fight GFZs so it isn’t such a pain in the ass for citizens to keep and bear arms everywhere they go. And that keeps more people safe inside and outside of all buildings.
“You may be correct but that assumes our side waves the bloody shirt and only argues the one point that GFZs are targeted. “
I won’t call it waving the bloody shirt and I don’t think it’s the only argument made. However, it is made and it’s made regularly. Even TTAG has recently referred to GFZ’s as a “dinner bell” for psychos.
I find the evidence that GFZ’s are targeted for being a GFZ scant at best. Therefore this argument should be discarded. The Left picks and chooses when it uses/recognizes evidence and you’re begging for them to ask you to prove something you can’t by saying this. So, stop saying it and rely on the arguments that cannot be broken. Yes, the Left will cherry pick and bullshit their way through the argument but most rational people will see what they’re doing and the Left will have lost the argument. We don’t want to end up looking like that ourselves.
The other arguments are solid. People have a natural right to self defense which is abrogated by a GFZ. Such a removal of rights, based not on the finding of a court, but rather the location of the individual at the time is odious to the Constitution except in very narrow circumstances where the government can legitimately claim a reasonable rationale for restricting the carrying of weapons due to the sensitive nature of an area.
I’ve never been shot and I don’t need to get shot to prove I am against it.
GFZs are easy picking for homocidal maniacs. Assuming no killer took the time to mull over his options and chose one location over another based on the likelihood of facing armed resistance, doesn’t negate that fact.
Motive aside, what are we going to do about it? GFZs make it harder for us to protect ourselves and drive up body counts when attacked.
How do we know no killers chose soft targets? Seems like most criminals do. Just because it wasn’t listed in a manifesto doesn’t mean it wasn’t considered. Maybe they never mentioned it because. ..duh!
We didn’t make up the term “gun free zone”. That is the literal wording on the signs. We protest GFZs because 1, they don’t prevent violence on such sites and 2, they make carrying a gun such a hassle that too many people decide to leave their guns at home. Targeting aside, these are reason enough to do away with gun restrictions. Oh, and there’s that whole Constitutional thingy.
Don’t really understand your Devil’s advocate stance on this issue. I bought and started carrying a gun soon after the Aurora CO shooting because the answer was clear to me how to deal with the situation. If I’m there, it ain’t no GFZ.
“How do we know no killers chose soft targets? Seems like most criminals do. Just because it wasn’t listed in a manifesto doesn’t mean it wasn’t considered.”
Well, we don’t know, but we act like we do. That’s the problem. I’m 100% for the elimination of GFZ’s, as I said with some very narrow restrictions like parts of a government bio weapons lab for example.
The difference between a criminal and a Jihadi or mass shooter is enormous. A criminal wants to get in, grab the booty and then get away so they can enjoy said booty. A mass shooter or Jihadi generally plans on dying in the attack. In my estimation they target groups of people, not GFZ’s.
Court houses are often GFZ’s but we don’t often see them attacked. We see crowded night clubs, malls, theaters. Places where large numbers of people gather. That’s the bait. GFZ or not you simply can’t shoot a shitload of people unless you have the people to shoot, preferably all in one place.
I’m not arguing for GFZ’s I’m arguing against them. However, I’m arguing against using an anti-GFZ argument for which we can marshal no evidence. Use the ones for which we have evidence and rock-solid arguments. It gives the anti’s less room to counter attack our arguments. That’s their number 1 tactic: counter attack with bullshit that muddies the issue to the point the general public can’t understand it and loses interest. They do that enough, we need to stop handing them even more chances to do it.
I don’t think it is an illogical conclusion to make that those who’s goal is to kill the most people don’t consider the odds of facing armed resistance. Of course they aren’t being killed for being unarmed as there is always another twisted motive.
So I agree with you that GFZs bear little responsibility for being attacked, that we can prove, but to ignore a weakness in our defenses isn’t prudent.
Though of this analogy while driving to work. Heard news reports of tornadoes hitting South GA. A dozen deaths occurred in a trailer park. Do tornadoes target trailer parks? Of course not. But if you live in a trailor, you are more vulnerable to severe weather.
Congregate in a GFZ, and you are more vulnerable. We can’t defend trailer parks from F5 tornadoes. But we absolutely can ban the GFZ. And we should.
Bless her little heart.
Bless her little bleeding heart.
Ain’t that Southern for “dumbass” ?
I despise any group that has to include it’s maternal status in it’s name in an effort to legitimize it’s goals. The word “mother/s” lets you know immediately that it embraces the Nanny State style of governance and that constant nagging will be combined with threats of punishment.
Sorry Moms, get the f**king hell out of my life ( …runs to bedroom and slams door ?)
“Mama’s gonna put all of her fears into you.”
I feel that Gun Free Zones help to reduce the chance that a coward who wants to make a name for himself will be confronted. I feel that they pick a place where they won’t have to deal with a good guy with a gun. If all places allowed a good guy with a gun(or their own security with guns), this might not be the turkey shoot the nutjob wants. Places like courthouses have LE in place and they check the public, so there are no bad guys with guns. The insurance of supplying armed guards cost plenty, so most businesses would be better served to allow concealed carry, just as a deterent. Many people conceal carry while doing thier banking, I don’t know if they are on the list of gun free zones, but I would feel much safer if I wasn’t carrying in there.
There is no prohibition from entering a bank while armed here in Nevada. So far as I know, while it might be a bad idea, open carry in to a bank is not illegal. Personally I NEVER enter bank (seldom do anyway) without my EDC and I would never even consider approaching an ATM without the Ruger on my hip and my head on a swivel.
Hell, in Nevada it is not even prohibited to carry concealed inside a casino, so long as you are willing to leave with alacrity should their security suggest it.
A small business owner in a heavily cash oriented shop would likely be armed when banking.
Guns and money go hand in hand. I never understood the no firearms allowed policy at many banks.
I’m always armed at my credit union and they have a sign that says “Remove Hats, Sunglasses, and Firearms before approaching counter”. I looked at my wife and said “I don’t really think they would like it if I removed my firearm right now”.
Remove your firearm and then what? Clear it and lay it on the counter so the teller can pick it up and admire it?
I’ve never seen a “No Firearms” sign at a bank in CO., or at a liquor store. Generally, though, the rule is OC on the range, the farm, the mountains, CC in town.
I never understood the no firearms allowed policy at many banks.
Whne they are robbing you, they don’t want to be interrupted.
The reason you don’t see “no firearms” signs at banks in Colorado is because Colorado law specifically states that to have a GFZ you must have a security checkpoint that has a magnetometer in use for everyone who enters.
OC is actually pretty common in towns in Colorado unless it’s Boulder or Denver. Denver has a law requiring a license to OC and Boulder is a place where you’ll attract attention you don’t want.
“Research has shown” and “experts agree” with “consensus” that these terms mean absolute f@ck all to anyone paying attention.
True. Though, with so few willing to fact check statements like this, and none in the mainstream media willing to do so, such statements continue to be effective.
“We can ignore reality, but we cannot ignore the consequences of ignoring reality.”
Ayn Rand
Also the reason this woman will die alone, despised by her paste eating children, and probably being eaten by her cats.
While I understand the sentiment, I hope the American left doesn’t suffer the consequences of their willful ignorance. If they do, they’ll probably be taking the rest of us along for the ride.
Shouldn’t her husband forbid her to make absurd statements to the press? And find a hair and makeup professional who can help her?
Empowering doesn’t come with instructions and without crucible, one wanders the logic wilderness.
What husband??? She is the type, that when dawn arrives and the alcohol has been processed through the kidneys, you look down, mutter “what was I thinking” and hope she won’t remember your name and face as you beat a hasty retreat.
In her world full of love, rainbows and unicorns, yeah we’re all safe in our environments. Unfortunately for her, most of us live in a little something called reality, and that reality is sometime dark and violent. The criminals that look to make our world dark and violent look for the easiest targets available, and what’s better than a large group that’s virtually guaranteed to be unarmed in law mandated “gun free zones”. It’s not about blaming the victim, it’s about protecting innocents against people looking to do them/us harm by denying deranged scum large easy targets.
Confirms prostitution of values knows no bounds…thought gingers were the smartest of the gender…sad.
Dunno if hair color really affects IQ, but they’re definitely the craziest.
A bullet trumps your “feelings” every time.
Wishful thinking is a really lousy survival strategy. Just ask a former Japanese soldier who was on Guadalcanal or New Guinea… if you can find one…
I’m more concerned about the extra pair of hands growing out of her shoulder.
People pick odd spots for a selfie.
Most likely a conjoined twin like that nurse on South Park.
I don’t blame customers / visitors for being unarmed in a gun free zone and becoming victims. I blame the idiotic management, politicians, and liberal activist groups that instituted the gun free zone.
I don’t blame the victims, Ms. Brown. I blame you, and the morons like you who insist on disarming them.
The words right before the QotD, ‘We understand that part of responsible gun ownership is making sure that guns stay out of sensitive places like schools and airports, as well as out of the hands of dangerous individuals.’
Problem is the only way to ‘make sure that guns stay out of sensitive places’ is to hire men with guns to guard them. Gun free zones are figments of the imagination.
Some of us don’t so much want to feel safe, as to be safe(r), in the world as it is.
When your “gun free zone” sign stops terrorists, thugs, whack-jobs and predators, let’s talk. Until then, some of us would like the option to do something ourselves, about a bad guy who saw your sign n decided to try to kill us anyway.
You are free to choose differently. Forcing your preference on us is something else.
And, unfortunately, nobody can escape the results of their own choices. Playing in traffic blindfolded is dumb, whether you want to feel safe doing that, or not. The difference is, your playing in traffic won’t get me killed, but your fake “gun free zones” might.
So, how about you leave us alone to look out for ourselves when you won’t? Meanwhile, you might want to work on owning your own power, and living in the world as it is.
Let me start by saying, I do not want to kill anyone.
I’ll leave the above statement as a stand alone paragraph and refer anyone back to it who will take the rest of this post out of context.
As NineShooter stated above, guns are used to enforce gun control. When are guns going to be used to enforce the Constitution and Inalienable rights?
I am afraid it will have to come to that before this war on freedom is checked.
I don’t want to shoot anyone, but if I do, it will be entirely the fault of the one receiving my bullet.
Let’s tell the whole truth shall we:
The Gun Lobby Platform
Promotes self reliance, personal and community responsibility, safety, and a proactive mindset.
Result
With access to a personal firearm, your counter-attack or escape response time is typically 5-10 seconds dependent on personal training and experience when reacting to a domestic terror attack scenario.
Compare that to:
The Left / Progressive / Anti-gun Platform
Promotes complete disarmament and reliance on police / government response for all personal and community needs, safety, and a subserviant reactive mindset.
Result
Victims have no plan, which makes escape difficult, and when escape is not readily available, they are at the mercy of their attackers while they wait for police. Police response time (as demonstrated in many attacks) ranges from minutes to 3 hours.
I know which scenario I would choose. Choose being the key word here.
The Left wants to force their platform on all Americans while tyrannically infringing on the 2nd Amendment completely. This puts everyone in danger and costs lives of people that would have otherwise had the means to defend themselves or others. That is the real crime here.
My response is no. Followed by those that practice and try to tyrannically destroy the Constitution should pay a price.
tjlarson2k,
You and Michael in GA are converging on the same idea. I touched upon the same idea as well today under the post about Tallahassee ignoring Florida firearms preemption law. In that post, I asked whether police who enforce improper/unconstitutional laws should be subject to prosecution and the corresponding penalties (including prison up to 10 years or even the death penalty in some instances) under United States Code 18 Section 242 Deprivation of Rights under Color of Law.
I think there should be, at the very least, a national discussion for any law that infinges on any part of the US Constitution, and then the resulting decision should be subject to checks and balances before any legislation becomes law. I know, crazy talk right?
It makes no sense to me that so many pieces of legislation that are blatantly contrary and treasonous in nature get passed so quickly and then have to be repealed later (or worse, they stay law for an extended period of time and cost American lives). What a waste of tax payer dollars and lives. And the same buffoons who are to blame aren’t punished and the cycle continues unabated over and over.
Where is the accountability when legislation is exposed as unconstitutional or treasonous? How does it even pass as law? It’s utterly non-nonsensical. And avoidable.
I’m 100% fine with taking the Constitution apart, arguing pros and cons, and having a discussion about any amendment (after all, all of these amendments were borne out of discussion). That’s how it was intended to be. A living document.
But you have to do it the right way. Due process. Intellectual debate by qualified participants. Anything less is insanity and doomed to failure (or worse the collapse of the entire premise).
“Victim blaming” – The name for pointing out that stupid people, stupidly doing stupid stuff might have contributed to their own problem. This is supposed to be a bad thing.
“The truth is ‘gun-free zones’ are a red herring used by the gun lobby to blame victims for tragic experiences that are not their fault.”
Okay, I’ll be “that guy”. Technically speaking, an attractive young woman wearing nothing but a skimpy bikini should be able to walk alone, unarmed, without a cell phone, at 11 p.m., shouting “I am horny!” through the ugliest part of Chicago or Los Angeles on a Summer night without someone raping her. And, technically speaking, it would not be her fault if someone did rape her.
Or is it? At what point IS a person responsible for the consequences of incredibly foolish choices?
Do you blame the lion, or the guy who jumped in its cage? Tough choices.
Neither. It’s the people that have to play the blame game that are at fault here. Aka the media and the people that fuel the “mystery”.
Allow me to explain (for the amusement of the Left):
The lion is a predator and born that way. Instincts and all that science stuff. Easy for society to comprehend and accept. Easier still because a lion is an animal and not a person.
Now, the guy or gal that jumps into the cage … wait for it …. is a moron. Born that way too. And here is where society has a sensitivity / reality break.
For some reason, for the declaration of the obvious to occur — in this case, stating people can, in fact, be stupid enough to jump into a cage with a wild animal and expecting the animal to behave like a wild animal — is socially unacceptable. Nay impossible! There must be some other reason for the tragedy that must be uncovered!
No. No, there isn’t. Some people are just stupid and in a rush to prove Darwin right.
Naturally, all the borderline idiots in the world don’t like this theory that they or others are stupid and the fact that their idiocy can be easily identified. Why? Well because they realize it could happen to them — someone could post a video of them on Youtube and they would have no response or anyone else to blame for their actions — and the social stigma and shame would be unbearable.
So the mission is now misdirection — they put on their detective hats and look for any and all clues to the contrary.
It’s so predictable and exhausting to watch. I just call it the News.
It’s similar to a situation that happened near here: There’s a cape made of sandstone sticking out into the surf, which is very nasty surf because the cape has inclusions of large basalt chunks, many of which broke off in the past several centuries and now sit there churning up the waves that rush over them. People hike across this cape from one beach to another, and there are signs stating it is forbidden to hike out onto the cape. For the reading-challenged, there’s a fence across the cape a bit father on, with signs saying DANGER — DO NOT CROSS. A few years ago, some tourist decided to ignore the signs, then ignore the second set of signs, climb over the fence, and go out to look over the edge of the cape down into the surf. Unsurprisingly, the edge broke and he plunged into the maelstrom below and got smashed to death on the rocks — meaning that responders had to risk their own lives to recover his body.
Some brave soul wrote to the local paper criticizing how they had called this a “tragedy”, pointing out that what it was in fact was an act of “danged foolishness”. Another letter-writer responded to that accusing the first writer of having no sympathy.
The paper got a couple of hundred responses to that, one of them mine, saying the second writer was correct: we did not in fact have any sympathy for a damned fool who quite purposefully and deliberately, with full knowledge and warning, play a version of Russian Roulette with nature.
The main point of comparison here is an attitude that despises taking personal responsibility — and expecting others to do so as well.
I wonder if it would make sense to carry GFZ policy to its logical conclusion. To illustrate, the US Postal Service makes its property a GFZ. And, USPS has its own armed guards called Postal Inspectors. Very well; let them eat their own cooking. The only armed people on their property should be their own Postal Inspectors. Should The Donald wish to buy some stamps, his Secret Service guards should remain off Postal Service property.
If a school is a GFZ it can only have its own employees, “Resource Officers” armed on the premises. The municipal police and county sheriff’s deputies must disarm before entering.
Starbucks can’t serve coffee to armed police as long as they maintain a GFZ policy.
Why should the proprietor of a GFZ discriminate between gun carriers dressed in blue vs. those dressed in other colors? I will grant that the proprietress of a GFZ can carry on her own property and arm her own employees. I do not see how she can admit one class of non-employees but reject another class based merely on the color of clothing and implied employer of those dressed in blue.
Governments can empower their employees to carry in public places; but that does not mean that they empower their employees to trespass on the property of a GFZ to attend a parent-teacher conference or buy coffee against the will of the proprietress.
Once State legislators begin to wrestle with the implications of enforcing a consistent GFZ policy they will consider reconsidering their laws.
Expecting consistency of ideologues is a lost cause.
Her left eye.
“The truth is ‘gun-free zones’ are a red herring used by the gun lobby to blame victims for tragic experiences that are not their fault.”
No, ‘gun free zones’ are a myth, a lie used by the Progressive Statists to make subjects “feel safe” while imposing tyrannical control over the populace.
“It suggests that people who are seeing a movie or learning in a classroom are to blame for their own deaths because they were not armed in spaces where we should all feel safe.”
No, it suggest…no, it points out the fact that disarming free, sovereign human beings within the confines of a school, church, or movie theater, puts them in grave danger from psychopaths hell bent on victimizing as many people as possible.
The “Gun Lobby” doesn’t blame the the victims for their deaths. We blame the murderer, the government, and people like you Ms. Browne who want to deny a God given right to a free people.
“It suggests that people who are seeing a movie or learning in a classroom are to blame for their own deaths because they were not armed in spaces where we should all feel safe.”
So much fail in so few words. It’s almost like she took a composition class on the subject.
The truth is that from High School on the most important thing any student should learn in the classroom is this:
“Not one single bit of what you learn here will be of any use to you or anyone else if you are foolish enough to not be responsible for your own safety and wind up DEAD.”
It suggests that people who …are to blame for their own deaths because they were not armed in spaces where we should all feel safe.”
No. It means people were not protected in these spaces. The blame is on those that create such spaces. They wrote a “feel good” rule and then take no responsibility for their action.
If I didn’t want to feel safe, I’d leave my gun at home.
If you want to feel safe, lady — stay home, where you’ll also benefit society by staying out of the way of civilized people.
Once again, who cares what a vagina says?
One of my favorite quotes from my Dad, and seems appropriate in response to the above:
“If you think sex is a pain in the ass, you’re doing it wrong.”
Once again, people seem to be confusing “pointing out flaws in a system” with “blaming the victim.
Suppose I were to walk into the bad part of town at 3:00 AM wearing expensive clothes, visibly carrying numerous tech gadgets, and shouting, “My wallet’s stuffed with $100 bills!” I don’t think anyone would argue against the people who stripped me of all valuables and left me bleeding in the gutter being evil men upon whom justice should be brought. That doesn’t mean someone would be wrong if they were to come into my hospital room and tell me, “You know, that may not have been the smartest idea…”