• Gun violence is a national security issue

    Americans kill each other with guns at rates that are unheard of in other advanced industrialized countries. Britain, with around a fifth of the population of the United States, had 41 gun murders in 2010 while the States had around 10,000.
    The scale of this death toll really resembles a national security problem as much it does a public health issue.
    Consider that jihadist terrorists have only been able to kill 17 Americans in the United States since 9/11. Meanwhile, some 88,000 Americans died in gun violence from 2003 and 2010, according to the U.N. study.

    Posted by: GWT
  • Yes, the U.S. should abolish gun-free zones

    The U.S. should abolish gun-free zones and ban guns directly. It is tragic that nearly 30 innocent people were killed because there is not gun control laws in place. Guns in general just make the U.S. a lot more dangerous place to live than other developed countries like Germany, Denmark, and Holland.

  • Gun Free is advertising

    for people to be robbed or killed by someone who has no regard for our laws. They are going to have guns whether it's legal or not because they are criminals! They only thing we can do is arm are selves in defense. What is going to stop a criminal with a gun a sign that says "gun free zone" or a sign that says, "armed security on property at all times."

  • Absolutely

    Do they work? Obviously not! After all of the school shootings, hospital shootings, or just public shootings in general, you'd think that politicians and citizens would come to the realization that, hmmm.....maybe criminals don't obey the law! Do they really think criminals will be like "Well, I'd love to go break the law by shooting up the maternity ward of this hospital, but I can't break the law by bringing a gun into a gun free zone". Doesn't make an ounce of sense. On the other hand, if law abiding citizens were allowed to carry their guns in public, a lot of these shooting could be prevented, or at least not be as destructive. Again, if criminals are willing to go to the extent of mass murder, do you think they really give a fvck about gun free zones? If so, you are delusional.

  • I don't see why not.

    Places of special interest within the U.S. prohibit the possession of fire arms in places like hospitals, government facilities, and airports/seaports, etc; unless authorized by a city, state, or federal agency i.e. law enforcement. Therefore gun-free zones are already in place and should be certain areas. There are certain areas that should not permit firearms.

  • Criminals don't obey laws.

    Criminals do not obey laws. Gun Free Zones only prevent law abiding citizens from carrying into the area, Without preventing criminals from carrying into the same area area.
    By do away with Fun Free Zones, It allows law abiding citizens to continue to protect themselves from criminals who intend harm.

  • Gun Free Zones are a haven for criminal activity. Chicago has proves this "Every Day!"

    Some have a hard time accepting that criminals can be deterred from committing crimes. They don’t believe that potential mass shooters have second thoughts when faced with the prospect of armed citizens who can fight back. They seem to think that everyday Americans can’t help stop attacks.

    But it is getting hard to ignore that mass public shooters keep choosing to attack locations where victims can’t defend themselves. It’s little wonder that gun-control advocates resort to desperate tactics.
    Since at least 1950, all but two public mass shootings in America have taken place where general citizens are banned from carrying guns. In Europe, there have been no exceptions. Every mass public shooting — and there have been plenty of mass shooting in Europe — has occurred in a gun-free zone. In addition, they have had three of the six worst K–12 school shootings, and Europe experienced by far the worst mass public shooting perpetrated by a single individual (Norway in 2011, which from the shooting alone left 67 people dead and 110 wounded).

    Mass killers have even explicitly talked about their desire to attack gun-free zones. The Charleston, S.C., church shooting in June was instead almost a college shooting. But that killer changed his plans after realizing that the College of Charleston had armed guards.

    Holmes decided not to attack an airport because of what he described in his diary as its ‘substantial security.’

    The diary of the “Dark Knight” movie-theater killer, James Holmes, was finally released just a few months ago. Holmes decided not to attack an airport because of what he described in his diary as its “substantial security.” Out of seven theaters showing the Batman movie premiere within 20 minutes of the suspect’s apartment, only one theater banned permitted concealed handguns. That’s the one he attacked.

    Or take two cases from last year. Elliot Rodger, who fatally shot three people in Santa Barbara, Calif., explained his reasoning in his 141-page “manifesto.” He ruled out various targets because he worried that someone with a gun would stop his killing spree. Justin Bourque shot to death three people in Canada. On Facebook, Bourque posted a picture of a defenseless victim explaining to killers that guns are prohibited.

  • Almost all shootings just happen to be in gun free zones

    Gun free zones in bars,schools,hotels-motels hospitals,these are where the shootings are happening,because people that are bent on killing people,they no the police are minutes away and they can get away with itbecause they know that the citizen will be abiding by the law,at least some us wont be ,that probally scares everyone

  • The 2nd Amendment is an American Right

    2nd Amendment, nothing else needs to argue that, it's an American Right and it's not an American Right to force other people into going against our rights as American Citizens. For you Pro Gun Free Zone people saying that the 2nd Amendment only applies to muskets and things that were around only in 1776. But if that was the case then you guys with your healthcare rights would only be covered by some really brutal ways of doctoring. Just wanted to put that out there.

  • A gun free zone is like dangling meat in front of a starving lion.

    Its just one big target for a shooter. Do you know what else can be used as a dangerous weapon? Literally anything. Especially your hands. Seriously the whole gun free zone thing is dumb. IT IS NOT HUMAN NATURE TO GIVE UP WEAPONS AND SURRENDER. A shooter will kill as many people as possible. If someone isnt shooting back, a lot of people will die. Look at Paris. Sandy Hook. Columbine. Gun free zones. All resulted in massacres until it was too late. Cops take too long. To keep lives safe, we have to get rid of these gun free zones. If a guy with a gun wants to murder innocent people, he deserves to get taken down. If it has to be done, then put them down. Its called justice and self defense.

  • Gun Free Zones are one's rights

    People ,whether they are private citizens on their own property,or a business on their own property have a right to not allow guns on their property or in their community.Forcing guns on their places is a loss of thier rights.Schools have gun free areas,government buildings are gun free,as it should be.Looking at guns and gun control has many sides to it,ones that are for it and ones that are not.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.