After dozens of warning signs and alerts from concerned citizens went unnoticed, a shooter walked into a South Florida high school and murdered 17 people. In the wake of the tragic mass shooting, guns and "gun free zones" have become hot-button issues.
The Left has since turned-up the volume on calls for a crackdown on Secondment Amendment rights, quickly exploiting teens who attend the targeted school to makes the case for them. They have also slammed the suggestion that schools should have armed security, or perhaps well-trained, voluntarily armed teachers.
But what does the evidence say about "gun free zones"?
According to the Crime Prevention Research Center, "gun free zones" (areas where guns are prohibited) have been the target of more than 98% of all mass shootings. This staggering number is why such designated areas are often referred to as "soft targets," meaning unprotected and vulnerable.
"According to the Crime Prevention Research Center, only a little more than 1% of mass public shootings since 1950 have occurred in places that were not considered to be a gun-free zone," reports The Blaze. "In fact, as Crime Prevention Research Center President John Lott Jr. noted in October 2015, only two mass shootings in the U.S. since 1950 have occurred in an area where citizens were not prohibited from carrying a gun."
Former Vice President Joe Biden, a Democrat, introduced the Gun-Free School Zones Act (GFSZA) to the U.S. Senate in 1990, and it was signed into law by then-President George H.W. Bush, a Republican. The act was clearly proposed with the intent to prevent mass shootings at such precious areas as schools. But the act, as the statistic proves, did not result in the desired outcome.
While mass shootings are a complex issue with more than one action needed to prevent them, it seems unclear why gun control advocates would hold so tight to their well-intended, but ultimately dangerous "gun free zones" even in the face of such a staggering reality. Why is it kosher to protect our politicians, Hollywood celebrities, and federal currency with guns, but not our children?