If anybody has performed yeoman’s work in mentioning the hazard of so-called “gun-free” zones in our nation, it has been John Lott, president of the Crime Prevention Analysis Middle (CPRC). Whereas his quite a few warnings have seemingly fallen on the deaf ears of gun-ban advocates, he resolutely carries on, telling the reality that everybody wants to grasp: “Gun-free” zones are solely gun-free for the law-abiding.
After the September 28 assault on the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Grand Blanc Township, Michigan, Lott once more identified how an assault in a “gun-free” zone resulted in no victims with the ability to defend themselves towards the attacker.
“This clearly seems to be yet one more mass capturing in a spot the place civilians had been banned from having weapons,” Lott wrote in a report on the CPRC web site. “Michigan state regulation bans folks carrying hid weapons in church buildings except one receives permission from church officers, and the Mormon church’s official coverage prohibits giving such permission.”
As Lott famous, state regulation bans keep it up “any property or facility owned or operated by a church, synagogue, mosque, temple, or different place of worship, except the presiding official or officers permit hid weapons.” The Mormon Church handbook states, “Church buildings are devoted for the worship of God and as havens from the cares and considerations of the world. Except present regulation enforcement officers, the carrying of deadly weapons on church property, hid or in any other case, is prohibited.”
Within the assault, a former Marine rammed his truck into the church at about 10:25 a.m. when it was stuffed with worshippers, started firing at congregants after which set the constructing on fireplace. A minimum of 4 folks had been killed within the assault, two of whom had been shot, and eight others had been injured. The attacker, who allegedly had voiced his hatred for Mormons previously, was killed in a gunfight with responding cops.
Many of those attackers at church buildings, colleges and different gun-free zones could be loopy, however they’re sane sufficient to know the place they’ll meet the least resistance. Many plan to die, however wish to kill as many individuals as they will to garner extra protection from the media.
As Lott famous in his testimony earlier than the Wyoming state Senate Judiciary Committee in February 2025,
Anyone who reads the diaries and manifestos of those mass murderers is aware of that point after time they explicitly speak about why they picked the targets that they did,” Lott informed the committee. “And overwhelmingly, they explicitly say they wish to keep away from locations the place they know their victims would possibly be capable of defend themselves. You possibly can take a look at the Nashville Covenant College shooter. In her diary, she talks about three totally different locations that she thought of earlier than the college. And he or she turned down every of these as a result of she was fearful the folks had been carrying weapons there and would cease her.”
By the FBI definition of an “energetic shooter” case, 94% of such assaults are dedicated in “gun-free” zones. One would suppose that might be sufficient for anti-gunners to presumably take into account that “gun-free” zones aren’t really all that “gun free.”
