James Holmes, planning mass murder, drove past seven theaters that were showing “The Dark Knight Rises” to get to one in particular that he had in mind. Some were quite close to his home. Others held unusually large audiences that he might target. But he drove past these and headed for a specific theater in Aurora. Why exactly that theater?
The answer is that the Cinemark theater in Aurora, Colo., was a “gun free zone.” Signs in the lobby read, “No firearms allowed.” Holmes could be certain that he would be the only person in the theater with a gun.
Adam Lanza, planning mass murder, also headed for a “gun free zone,” an elementary school in Sandy Hook, Conn. Again, he could be certain that he would have five or ten minutes until the police arrived to slaughter defenseless, and undefended, children.
In 1990, the “Gun Free School Zone Act” mandated that under Federal law all public schools become “gun free zones.” Even individuals holding state-issued concealed carry permits would no longer be allowed to carry their weapons in any public school. Most private grade schools, colleges and universities followed suit and voluntarily prohibited firearms. Many private businesses also elected to prohibit firearms, including movie theaters such as the Cinemark in Aurora, restaurants and entire malls.
But here is the ugly truth about “gun free zones” that you will not learn from the main stream media, or hear from gun control groups: From 1990 to the present day almost every mass shooting in America — there is only one exception — has occurred in a “gun free zone.” You will recall the names of the most infamous of these: Columbine, Virginia Tech, Fort Hood, Aurora, Sandy Hook. There are many more. All in “gun free zones.” (Yes, even at Fort Hood, a military base, soldiers were prohibited from carrying loaded weapons on the base. Fort Hood was in effect a “gun free zone.” Talk about political correctness gone mad.)
Even deranged killers realize that to kill and maim as many as possible, it’s best to choose some place where no one else will be armed. “Gun free zones” should instead be called fish in a barrel.” They invite violence from twisted minds.
Even more disturbing, many politicians who are the most vocal supporters of “gun free zones,” and of gun control in general, are shameless hypocrites who make very sure that they have guns for their own protection. The best examples are the two most strident proponents of gun control in national politics, Senators Diane Feinstein and Charles Shumer. Feinstein and Shumer both have concealed carry permits for themselves and carry concealed guns regularly, every day. In addition, they both also have armed guards accompanying them everywhere, guards who carry “assault weapons” as they have (mis)defined that term.
Recently, Mayor Michael Bloomberg of New York City, another vocal advocate of gun control, was confronted by a reporter regarding Bloomberg’s own armed guards. This YouTube video shows the confrontation. Watch it for yourself: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=RCC-rEx81PE. We ordinary citizens do not need guns at all, but Bloomberg needs not one or two or three, but —count ‘em— six guns. No doubt he is aware that as a prominent public figure he is in danger. But does he watch the news? Is he not aware that in his city and across the country every day hundreds upon hundreds of ordinary people are robbed, raped, mugged, beaten and killed? I would like to propose to Mayor Bloomberg that he relinquish all those guns around him and simply declare himself to be a gun free zone.
The hypocrisy does not stop with politicians. Hollywood is full of gun hypocrites. Sylvester Stallone, for example, has made a fortune writing, directing and starring in movies filled from beginning to end with gun violence of every imaginable kind. His latest movie, in theaters now, is called “A Bullet to the Head.” (Not making this up.) But gun-control fanatic Stallone has advocated nothing short of the repeal of the Second Amendment. As if this much hypocrisy were not enough, he also has a concealed carry permit and regularly carries a gun. Want more hypocrisy? Well, he also employs armed bodyguards.
We could make a long list of celebrities who sanctimoniously appear in television gun control ads doe-eyed and wringing their hands, but who choose bodyguards toting .45s for themselves, thank you. The award for jaw-dropping hypocrisy might go to Rosie O’Donnell. O’Donnell has long been a fierce denouncer of guns. But some years ago she was in the news because the private school her children attended refused to allow the children’s armed guards to escort them into the school proper. O’Donnell was incensed. She not only felt that her children (unlike those of us ordinary folks) needed guns protecting them, but also that where her children were involved, to hell with this “gun free zone” nonsense.
It is too large a topic to go into in detail here, but as someone with two children in public schools, it’s clear to me that we should guard them with the seriousness and effectiveness our politicians and celebrities demand: armed guards. Criminally insane males set their sights on school children, who are as vulnerable as they can possibly be in their “gun free zones.” It’s time someone fired back.