Gun-free zones are deadly. It's been a simple fact of society since the 1950s, and yet not one Democrat wants to admit this because the "gun-free zone" is a concentrated area that represents their entire belief structure around firearms.
Again, this isn't news. The data has been around for ages. I wrote about it at The Blaze back in 2017 after the Fort Lauderdale shooting that took the lives of five people:
According to the Crime Prevention Research Center, from the 1950's through June 15th of 2018, 97.8 percent of mass shootings have occurred on gun-free zones, with just 2.2 percent occurring where citizens are allowed to have firearms with them.
The research was actually updated from a previous figure in response to an article written by the gun-control advocacy group Everytown.org, which attempted to dismiss the CPRC's research, saying "the gun lobby's claims that so-called “gun-free zones" endanger Americans are inconsistent with evidence." The CPRC says that Everytown.org used both incomplete information, and used criteria that falls outside of what the FBI considers as qualifications for mass shootings.
And the tradition continues even now in 2025. As Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) and John Lott — the man behind the CPRC research — wrote for the Wall Street Journal, the transgender Minneapolis shooter who targeted a Catholic school did so because he knew there would be no way to stop him:
The Annunciation Catholic School shooter in Minneapolis spelled it out in his manifesto: “I recently heard a rumor that James Holmes, the Aurora theater shooter, may have chosen venues that were ‘gun-free zones.’ I would probably aim the same way. . . . Holmes wanted to make sure his victims would be unarmed. That’s why I and many others like schools so much. At least for me, I am focused on them. Adam Lanza is my reason.” (Lanza committed a mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn.)
Massie and Lott go on in the WSJ article to point out that leftist media outlets like CNN and the Washington Post all read the same passages they did, yet they continue to blatantly skip over the fact that "gun-free zones" were mentioned as targets by not only this shooter, but previous shooters as well, including the Nashville Covenant School shooter, who was also gender confused.
As Massie and Lott point out, you could staff schools with more armed personnel, but there are still a ton of disadvantages with this, including the fact that a shooter looking to target a location can do so at a time and angle of their choosing, and those armed guards can't be everywhere at once. Moreover, they become the first targets due to their being the largest threat.
So the solution is simple, according to Massie and Lott:
Arming teachers and other employees with concealed firearms deprives an attacker of those tactical advantages. He can’t tell which teachers or staff are armed. More than 21 million people hold concealed handgun permits, and in the 29 constitutional-carry states no permit is even required. Across America when you stand in a grocery store, there’s a good chance someone nearby carries a concealed handgun. The same should be true of schools. More than 20 states and more than 10,000 public schools already allow armed teachers under various rules. Other than suicides and gang violence at night, not a single death or injury has occurred in a school that permits teachers to carry.
Massie has already been pushing the Safe Students Act to repeal the 1990 federal Gun-Free School Zones Act for some time, and yet Democrats continue to push it away as if it's a ludicrous idea.
It's not, and teachers are also ready and willing to participate in this. Back in 2013, over 1,000 teachers applied for armed training after the Sandy Hook Elementary school shooting. The trend continued well into 2018 to the point where Vice reported on private school teachers who were practicing with firearms, and schools were doing "swarm" training with students on active shooters.
Solutions have been out there for years, but the left continues to back away from them, preferring to plant a sign in front of vulnerable places that signal no guns are allowed and hope that'll do the trick.
And they make fun of Christians for "thoughts and prayers." At least Christians are appealing to God; leftists are just appealing to chance, and they keep rolling snake eyes.
At what point do we start asking Democrats why they continue to deny the total lack of efficacy for gun-free zones? At what point do we demand they explain the numbers and give us a good, science-based reason why we need to continue to rely on a sign in front of a building to prevent children from dying?
Clearly, this gun-free zone thing isn't working. It's never worked, and if the left really wants solutions, it should actually start getting realistic about things.
If they don't, then perhaps their motives for leaving children unguarded and open to death should be a bit more scrutinized.
