In spite of the fact that the major incidents like Columbine and VA Tech took place at school campuses which prohibit guns, most mass shootings do not fit this profile. We have daily examples of this like the Detroit shooter who turned himself into the fire station.
The real problem with this very popular pro-gun lie is that it seeks to connect the worst incidents of gun violence with gun-free places, the implication being that rageful mass killers seek out these places for their target-rich environment. In many cases it's more than implied. Gun-rights fanatics often claim outright that this is what happens. Their intention is to eliminate gun restrictions wherever possible.
The fact is, when a person decides to go on a shooting rampage, he goes to the place of his grievance. Sometimes this happens to be a gun-free zone, as in the case of school shooters, but more often than not, it's someone's workplace, or the local mall, or a residence. It has nothing to do with the status of gun availability. In fact many of these deranged people are on suicide missions so why would they care if there'd be resistance?
mass shooting (n.): a number of shootings, typically four or more, that occur during the same incident with no distinctive time lapse between them. Defining violent crimes is a grisly job, but academics and law enforcement officials have to do it. The qualifier of four shootings correlates to the FBI’s working definition of “mass murder,” which has historically used the same threshold.So, whenever we hear the pro-gun crowd claim that mass shootings usually, or always, happen in gun-free zones, it's a double lie. The claim itself is untrue and its implication is also untrue.
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
