Today, once again, yet another dozen people were unnecessarily and callously sacrificed upon the gun-control altar known as the “Gun-Free Zone.” This latest mass shooting was the second in four years at a military installation — this time the Washington, D.C., Naval Yard. The previous military mass shooting occurred at Fort Hood, Texas, just shy of four full years ago. The Fort Hood toll was thirteen dead, another thirty wounded; and it occurred, ironically enough, at an installation filled with people who were trained in small arms, yet were precluded by regulation from carrying them because they were in a “Gun-Free Zone” that wasn’t quite gun-free enough.
Since 1950, every single mass shooting resulting in four or more deaths save just one example has occurred in a supposedly “Gun-Free Zone.” You would have to be an absolute loon to believe that correlation is mere happenstance. And while the gun-control crowd would like nothing more than to distract attention from this failed Gun-Free Zone social experiment by making a circus of the tragic Zimmerman case, I would point out that they sole reason George Zimmerman received so much attention was not because licensed, responsible, concealed licensees are a substantive danger to the public. Rather, the focus on Mr. Zimmerman stemmed from the fact that such reckless behavior by a concealed carry licensee is so rare as to be newsworthy when it does occur.
Despite the ever-growing mountain of evidence accumulated over the past 63 years, gun-control advocates continue to insist upon implementation of yet more failed “Gun-Free Zone” killing fields. Considering that weapons in the possession of private citizens successfully deter almost one-million crimes a year — usually without a shot being fired with the perpetrator retreating more often than not at the mere sudden brandishing of a defensive weapon — it is time for gun-control advocates to admit that their social experiment has failed, failed miserably, and is doomed to fail repeatedly in the future.
Example: There were within twenty-minute’s drive of James Eagan Holmes‘ home a total of seven theaters from which to choose for his massacre in Aurora, Colorado, on July 20, 2012. The one upon which Mr. Holmes eventually settled was not the closest. Rather, it was the only one out of the seven that had posted on the entrance door a sign designating that theater a “Gun-Free Zone.” Again, you would have to be an absolute loon to believe that was coincidental. It most assuredly was not.
If gun-control advocates insist upon continuing with not-so-gun-free “Gun-Free Zones,” then it is time to hold them personally accountable for the inevitable results. A theater owner who so designates his premises, and who then fails to protect his patrons with armed guards, should be held civilly liable for the resulting carnage. A governmental entity — whether it be local, state, or federal — should be compelled to compensate victims and relatives of victims when they are wounded, maimed, or killed by what we now know to be a failed social experiment based more upon wishful thinking rather than empirical evidence of effectiveness. Under no circumstance should that governmental entity be allowed to proclaim sovereign immunity for creating an environment where law abiding citizens are denied the inalienable right of self-defense.
It’s way past time to start holding responsible the people who make such mass killings possible.