The Triumph of Hope over Reality

You may remember the Make Your Own Gun Free Zone meme. If not, it is preserved on the interwebs. It was a funny take on the fact that criminals don't really obey a sign when they seek to commit a crime. It also highlights the utter stupidity of those who think a mere sign is going to keep anyone but the law abiding from doing what they want. It is, in short, the triumph of hope over reality.

Still, some people desperately want to believe that gun free zones actually work, so apparently someone paid to have some research done to prove that gun free zones aren't a problem when it comes to gun violence and mass shootings. Cam Edwards has the story at Bearing Arms entitled New Study Claims 'Gun Free Zones' Reduce Mass Shootings, But There's A Catch. So, what's the catch, you might ask? Apparently, our intrepid researchers excluded schools. According to the research team:

The research team conducted a case-control study, focusing on active shootings that occurred in the United States between 2014 and 2020. Active shootings, as defined in this study, refer to incidents where one or more individuals intentionally shoot at bystanders in public spaces. The study excluded shootings in schools because all schools are federally mandated gun-free zones, which would skew the comparison.

As Cam notes though:

No, it wouldn't skew the comparison. It would, however, likely raise the percentage of shootings in "gun-free zones" to above 50%, which would at the very least provide more evidence that "gun-free zones" don't stop individuals intent on committing mass murder.

One does not have to be a researcher or a post doctoral student to understand basic human nature. If one wants to commit mass murder, where would you go to do it? Would you choose a gun shop, where all the employees and a significant number of the customers are armed? Or would you choose a place where nobody is likely to be armed, and you will have free reign? It really doesn't take a genius to figure these things out. And the people who promote them clearly do not have the public's best interests in mind.

Please go read the whole article and the embedded links.  I suspect though, that academia has too much time on its hands.