Two stories caught my attention this morning.
First up, Derrick Jackson — who can always be counted on to toe the liberal line right past the point of reason — rails against Starbucks, who has decided that it will NOT enforce a gun ban in its shops.
I don’t have a dog in this fight — I don’t drink coffee, and I don’t own any guns — but I am a Constitutional militant, and I believe wholeheartedly in the 2nd Amendment. In this case, Starbucks has the legal right to insist on being a “gun-free zone,” but it has chosen not to do so — and that has the gun-grabbers in a huge hissy-fit.
As I argued in the comments over there, and have argued countless times before, the main feature of “gun-free zones” is to provide a target-rich environment for any nut who decides to go on a shooting spree. All of the big mass shootings have taken place where the property owners have decided to declare “gun-free.” And for some reason, that magic phrase doesn’t seem to deter a nutjob with guns who wants to kill people — they aren’t turned away by the stern signs.
Don’t they know they’re BREAKING RULES on their way to commit murder? Sheesh.
If the mere presence of guns were enough to trigger mass nuttiness, then we’d see more shootings at hunting clubs, gun shows, firing ranges, and the like. Instead, it’s the places where guns are strictly forbidden (schools, colleges, malls, and whatnot — even Fort Hood, where soldiers were forbidden to carry weapons) where these massacres take place.
One notable exception was the New Life Church in Colorado. There, it was known that a nutjob was targeting churches. The members of that congregation took matters into their own hands and formed a volunteer armed security detail of members — and when said unnamed nutjob showed up, one of the volunteers (Ms. Jeanne Assam) shot and wounded him, stopping his murderous rampage. (The gunman then took his own life, rather than being captured.)
Didn’t that gunman know the rules?
II. Conduct or Behavior Not Tolerated by the University
A. Direct or implied threats.
B. Physical conduct that results in harm to people or property.
C. Possession of deadly weapons on University property.
And what’s a deadly weapon?
Deadly weapon – any instrument, device or thing capable of inflicting death, and designed or specially adapted for use as a weapon, or possessed, carried or used as a weapon including, but not limited to, a firearm (including unloaded, inoperable or sawed off firearms, starter pistols, zip guns, etc.), knife, club, brass knuckles, martial arts weapon, or stun gun. Prohibited items shall not be stored in personal vehicles parked on state-owned and/or leased property.
Apparently this unnamed shooter didn’t read THE RULES.
Banning of firearms does not guarantee safety. What it does is promises would-be predators defenseless prey.
I’m going to repeat myself: when someone declares a place to be a “gun-free zone,” they are making an implicit promise. They are saying “you can give up your right to defend yourself, because we’ll protect you.” That’s a promise they can’t keep, and that’s a promise they have no business making.
But don’t worry. They’ll never have to pay the price for failing to keep it. That price will be paid by those who trusted them.