Op-ed: Stanford Study Debunks The Myth Of Safety In Gun Free Zones
All opinion articles are the opinion of the author and not necessarily of American Military News. If you are interested in submitting an op-ed please email [email protected]
By: Dan Wos
Latest posts by Dan Wos (see all)
- Op-Ed: Liberal Policies Backfire On Professors When Texas Allows Concealed-Carry On University Campuses - January 17, 2017
- Op-Ed: Gun-Grabbing Politicians Exploit Children To Push Their Fear Campaigns - January 3, 2017
- Op-Ed: An In-Depth Look At How The Media Uses Deception To Change Your Perception Of Guns - December 20, 2016
Whether or not Gun Free Zones (GFZ) are target locations for indiscriminate killers has long been a topic of debate. Pro-Gunners demand that the facts and numbers be taken into consideration while Anti-Gunners hold onto the belief that GFZ’s make people safer.
The Stanford Geospatial Center and Stanford Libraries did a study called “The Stanford Mass Shootings of America (Stanford MSA).” The project began in 2012 in reaction to the Sandy Hook mass shooting and contained data from as far back as 1996. The Stanford MSA is an ongoing study and information discussed here is primarily from the time between 2002 and 2015. The study defined a mass shooting as a shooting of (3) or more victims not including the shooter and not including gang or drug related shootings.
Since 2002 the study reports 153 incidents, 54 of which involved the random targeting of victims who were not related to or adversaries of the shooter. In other words, 35 percent of these attacks could be considered “random acts of violence”. In 37 of the 54 incidents, Gun Free Zones were chosen as the locations to carry out these acts. Only 17 of the 54 incidents were in areas where guns were legally allowed. This equates to 69% of the attacks taking place in Gun Free Zones. Another interesting piece of information is the fact that 29% of the attacks where citizens where allowed to carry a firearm were stopped or slowed down by a Good Guy with a gun. The math just does not work in favor of the anti-gun agenda.
This information certainly doesn’t surprise Pro-Gunners but the idea that data like this can be overlooked or disregarded in the attempt to further an anti-gun agenda is dangerous to society. The question that confuses most people is; why, when in the face of this reality, and given the option of being armed or unarmed against a potential killer some would choose to be unarmed? It wouldn’t even be so bad if some chose to be a victim of violence, but to put others in the same helpless position is destructive and selfish.
Dan Wos is an American entrepreneur, author, musician and NRA member. He is the author of ‘Good Gun Bad Guy – Behind the Lies of the Anti-Gun Radical’ The book reveals the corruption and deceit that comes from the anti-gun lobby as it attempts to vilify law-abiding, gun-owning Americans.