Another mass shooting is on the books. Naturally, the left was calling for radical measures before the bodies of the poor victims were cold. To their credit, the left has managed to show real adaptation with how they’ve addressed this shooting. The last few big events didn’t fit their narrative, so they refused to report on them. This time, they’re simply deceiving the public in order to twist this tragedy into the narrative.
The truth is that this shooting was not the result of lax gun laws, Republican rhetoric or any of the usual claims. It was an entirely preventable tragedy, and the keys to preventing the next shooting are wrapped in three issues the left absolutely refuses to acknowledge. We’ll force all of them into the light today.
Gun Free Zones
Let’s begin this with a direct quote from the Jacksonville Landing’s rules of conduct, “Possession of a weapon, even if legally carried (except by law enforcement officers) is absolutely prohibited on Landing property.” Simply put, this is a gun-free zone, and the Landing has worked hard to make that knowledge public.
Obviously, those rules did absolutely nothing to stop an evil person from breaking the rules. They carried their gun with impunity, so only those who respect law, order and rules were unarmed. The result is another preventable tragedy.
This is nothing new, but it might feel like it because mainstream media is so committed to stifling this truth. The real statistics are staggering. More than 95 percent of mass shootings in America occur in established gun-free zones. That’s based on 60 years of data.
We can no longer call it a coincidence, and we can no longer tolerate arguments that suggest eliminating gun-free zones will have no impact on this problem. If we did the simplest thing in the world — uphold the 2nd Amendment at all locations in America — mass shootings would drop by 90 percent or more. Where is the “if it saves a single life” crowd on this one?
Rabid Trump Hate
We’re committed to never mentioning the name of mass shooters. This one might not have been premeditated and seeking notoriety, but granting notoriety could contribute to the next mass shooters. We won’t take part in that.
With that out of the way, this particular shooter was an avid Trump hater. His social media was rife with all of the rantings and ravings you would expect from a young millennial progressive. He fully bought into all of the usual tripe, and his actions completely invalidate the popularized notion that progressives and liberals are more peaceful than wild, gun-toting, redneck conservatives. The actions of the far-left don’t support that notion in the slightest.
Of course, this shooter went beyond your typical millennial whining. He was a vociferous advocate of Antifa and their insanity as well. While there currently is no evidence to suggest he directly participated in Antifa violence, he certainly supported it from social media. The question we all need to be asking at this point is this: if allowing violent uprising groups like Antifa to persist is contributing to the rising violence we saw in Jacksonville?
Documented Health Problems
Lastly, we get to the age-old argument. Is this a gun-control problem or a mental health problem? To be fair, some media outlets have acknowledged the shooter’s mental health history. It’s not a pretty picture. But, to continue that fairness, the majority of major outlets have completely glossed over this information. They want to blame gun laws even though the gun used in this crime was purchased in Maryland — which has the fifth strictest gun laws in the country.
The shooter had been admitted to multiple mental health facilities and programs across his short adult life. There is no question that he had deep, persistent mental issues, and the system of help was either insufficient or ineffective. Regardless, this is another name on a long list that proves one of the best ways for us to stop random gun violence is to take mental health more seriously.
In the end, this is another senseless tragedy. In this short discussion on the topic, we’ve identified three easy ways to attack this problem. Getting rid of gun-free zones is the easiest and most efficient. If more than 95 percent of these actions happen in gun-free zones, there’s no question as to what we should try first. The fact that the 2nd Amendment should be sufficient to make gun-free zones illegal in the first place only enhances the stupidity that lead to this and so many other tragedies. Enough is enough.
~ American Gun News
Even before eliminating gun free zones, I would begin with armed, trained security. It’s too easy for a wrong person to be shot if 100 people in a room draw at the same time. A few discreetly located security officers should be adequate.
As everyone should be aware by now, the new socialists salivate every time one of their maladjusted brethren picks up a gun and advances their agenda. Get it over with, and declare antifa a terrorist organization and deal with it accordingly. Then shine the light on the “innocuous” uber violent video games that these clowns live on!
The Tourney was Madden football. But yes violent games have alot to do with it. Get back outside on your bike or play sports and get of the stupid video game console. Avoid MSNBC and CNNa at all costs.
The mentally ill should have to carry ID’s and it should be on their drivers licenses. There should also have a list of these ill people sent to all gun stores and shows. They should not have the rights to purchase weapons ,including knives. We need to be more aware of the mental illness in our country.
John
I’m a 67 year old ,God,family and country loving concealed carry American . I believe the Second Amendment allows me to carry to protect my family, self and any other people that have come under fire from some lunatic. I carry in the no carry zones and if I save only one life, I’ll deal with whatever legal issue’s I have to when I have too. But I’v lived this long by staying aware watching my back. I hope to GOD that I never have to use my weapon to defend my family or my self, but I believe in being prepared to do so if needed.
Tim – You are far from alone. Many of us subscribe to the same principles you do, having committed to managing the legal aspects, should our commitment to the Constitution of the United States of America and the safety of ourselves and others result in misfortune.
Cogito, ergo armatus sum.
Pete – As a sheepdog, committed to the principle of assuring the safety of others, even to the extent of voluntarily hazarding my life for them, I seriously wonder why you would want me or any other sheepdog defanged in the interest of making us fish when entering a barrel. Admittedly, it’s a barrel safeguarded by fishermen with firearms, but I and many other qualified, skilled, law-abiding (except where difficult-to-enforce or unenforced “gun-free” Victim Zones are concerned), mature, responsible, trained, highly-educated, and experienced firearms owners object to being fish in a barrel of your construction.
The scenario you paint — that of it being “…too easy for a wrong person to be shot if 100 people in a room draw at the same time” — is a liberal’s fantasical wet dream, one which has never, in the history of the world (let alone in the history of the United States of America), come to pass, nor would any reasonably intelligent person (ie, conservative supporter of the Constitution of the United States of America) consider that likely to change, given the longevity of the world thus far. Give a little credit to Americans who have sufficient intelligence to make responsible decisions. We’ve done rather well at that thus far.
You suggest “armed, trained security.” Given that professionals (military, naval, and LEOs, for instance) are generally not particularly well trained, let alone the generally inadequate training of security personnel — as compared to we armed, run-of-the-mill, dedicated sheepdogs who carry with commitment to the safety of ourselves and others every day — society would be far better served by supporting the great mass of responsible Americans. The alternative you suggest runs counter to the Constitution of the United States of America, as you are doubtless aware, and the many oaths I’ve taken in support of that revered document are not in accord with your nefarious, counter-Constitutional stance and suggestion that I be “defanged.”
De Oppresso Liber