by Joseph Farah
Much has been said about so-called “gun-free zones” created in the name of protecting people from gun violence.
As anyone open to evaluating overwhelming evidence should now be able to see, this evil and misguided idea is a total failure.
That’s what Aurora illustrates.
That’s what Columbine illustrates.
But let’s look at the other side of coin for a moment.
Even Barack Obama and those who want to disarm American citizens agree there are certain places and situations in our society that should not be “gun-free zones.”
Let’s look at those for the sake of comparison:
- Barack Obama and his family would never think of going anywhere in America without armed guards. That is a given. I do not begrudge him for that choice. I just want the same choice for me and my family. Barack Obama’s life and the safety of his family are precious to him. My life and the safety of my family are precious to me. Unlike Obama, I don’t expect taxpayers to provide a virtual army of guards equipped with fully automatic weapons to provide for my family’s safety. I just expect to be able to take protect myself and my family in the dangerous urban areas Obama and his friends have helped to create and anywhere else I sense a potential threat.
So, without question, even the most ardent firearms-phobes see the absolute necessity of firearms in certain locations. They recognize that without armed guards in places where things of great value are kept, there is a need to protect them with guns. But those same people evidently don’t believe that private homes where precious human beings sleep, schools where hundreds of precious little children are taught for much of the day and ordinary private businesses where precious people work eight hours a day are worthy of protection.
What does that suggest to you about the values of those who detest guns?