This morning we reported on the horrific shooting that claimed the lives of at least three people, including a child, and injured more than 18 others when a gunman opened fire on the Gilroy Garlic Festival in a California park on Sunday.
While few details are actually known about what transpired and the reasons behind the deadly attack, what we do know is that the park where the massive food festival was taking place was, in fact, a gun-free zone.
That means that every single person inside the park was unarmed and ill-prepared to deal with any sort of hostile situation.
— KPIX 5 (@KPIXtv) July 29, 2019
Attendees had their bags searched as a security measure before entering the event. But police say that the suspect(s) gained entry through the woods by cutting through a protective barrier. The scene erupted into chaos as gunfire rang out.
The tragic event once again pulls into question the actual strategy behind making a place a gun-free zone.
Does this actually make sense to people?
When did a criminal ever see a sign that says “Gun-Free Zone” and say “Oh, crap – I’d better go back and use a different weapon because there’s no guns allowed here,”?
Often times these zones aren’t doing anything to discourage a criminal, but are taking guns out of the hands of trained professionals like police officers and members of the military, as well as every day Americans who choose to carry.
Now when a bad guy shows up to the gun-free zone, he’s the only one that’s strapped.
Where is the logic in this?
Let’s look, for example, at schools such as Smith, Mount Holyoke, and Hampshire College in Massachusetts.
Did you know that their police departments are unarmed?
That’s right. The campus police are special state officers and yet they’re not allowed to carry anything more than batons.
Oh, did we forget to mention that this “impenetrable zone” includes an elementary school on one of the campuses?
So if a kid is stabbing another kid … or, God forbid, someone came onto campus and began shooting … campus police would have to call the municipal police department and wait for them to respond.
You know what that means? An increased likelihood that your child will not survive.
Did you know that Law Enforcement Today has a private new home for those who support emergency responders and veterans? It’s called LET Unity, and it’s where we share the untold stories of those patriotic Americans. Every penny gets reinvested into giving these heroes a voice. Check it out today.
If these “leaders” really did care about saving children’s lives, they’d be allowing highly trained police officers and combat vets to carry. They would be trying to eliminate “gun-free” zones.
Instead, this flawed logic by those who hate guns has dictated that we should hope criminals care about signs and laws. We’re seeing the passing of feel-good legislation designed to fool you into thinking they’re addressing a problem when they’re doing no such thing.
If only we made murder illegal… that would solve everything, right?
We’re not making schools safer for our children. We’re turning them into target practice and removing any way we have of protecting them in an active shooter situation.
Your kids … your teens … your young adults … are not safe. And you have the politics of a misguided mindset built around “Utopia” to thank for that.
But it’s not just schools.
We hear the term daily in the gun debate in America.
We heard it again from Richmond, Virginia Mayor Levar Stoney as he called upon the Virginia General Assembly to pass a bill that would allow localities such as the City of Richmond to make its facilities Gun Free Zones.
NBC12 News’s Kelly Avellino reports that Stoney claimed, “I am sick and tired of spineless leadership out of the General Assembly. If they are not willing to [pass gun laws], then at least give local governments the authority to safeguard their communities. Simply put, move out of the way because localities like ours are ready to act.”
These laws that Stoney has been pushing for are exactly the type of legislation that prevented Virginia Beach city engineer Kate Nixon from potentially protecting herself and others against a mass shooter.
Nixon opted not to carry her legally owned firearm despite her fears of a co-worker who had begun acting erratically. According to The Virginian-Pilot’s Katherine Hafner, the night before Nixon died, she had discussed with her husband her desire to bring her firearm for self-defense.
Hafner quoted Kevin Martingayle (the Nixon’s family attorney) that the couple had discussed “whether or not she should take a pistol and hide it in her handbag.”
Ultimately, Kate Nixon opted not to bring the firearm solely due to a city policy prohibiting employees from bringing weapons to work. Nixon’s fears played out before her as her co-worker DeWayne Craddock committed the deadliest mass shooting of 2019… in the very space deemed gun free for employees.
Wake up, America. Gun-free zones aren’t doing anything to help discourage these kinds of horrific events. They’re only making those areas more dangerous. For us. For you. For our children.