Fort Lauderdale shooting reflects another Gun Free Zone failure

in News/Philosophy/Politics

The Second Amendment is among the most controversial topics in society, especially in recent years. With a number of shootings occur, the media and politicking partisans seize on every tragic opportunity to push a failed policy proposal. The idea is that with increased regulation and more difficulty in acquiring firearms, gun violence will decrease. It operates under the assumption that mass murderers and terrorists acquire their weapons through legal channels.

In society, concealed carry and even carrying guns at all is under heavy assault from the gun control lobby. The argument here is that Gun Free Zones work and that by having a sign up that says “No Guns Allowed”, violence is deterred. This assumes that people who commit murder, which is against the law, will otherwise obey sign laws.

We’re showed continuously that the disarming of society fails.

Chicago, Illinois has consistently ranked among the highest in gun violence and crime, but while also having staunch gun control laws. The San Berardino, California terrorist attack occurred with guns despite strong gun control laws in the state.

But is the solution less regulations and more guns? The question runs deeper than this.

Tragically, there was a shooting at Fort Lauderdale-Holiday International Airport. A silent gunman entered the scene and opened fire, killing at least five people and injuring eight. The airport has been shut down as reports continue to come regarding the horrific incident at a place where people go to travel, not die.

Why didn’t a ban on weapons work? Doesn’t Gun Free Zone mean gun free?

Unfortunately, criminals don’t follow the law, hence why they’re criminals. At this point, it comes down to how to respond. Should a law-abiding American be able to carry a firearm for the purpose of self-protection?

Like with many shootings ranging from schools to other public places, a common denominator is a ban on carrying a gun. While nobody wants a crazed lunatic or a criminal carrying guns throughout society, these bans even apply to common citizens with a lifetime of obeying the law and being a peaceful contributor to social stability and order.

When administrators can’t even carry an emergency firearm at a school for self-protection, what kind of message does this send to terrorists looking to break us down? We’re vulnerable?

The same applies for the tragic airport shooting today. We can’t exercise our legal Second Amendment right to bear arms because we have the government to protect us. But where was the government today?

Five people are dead and eight are injured. That’s thirteen lives directly impacted and countless more affected as the tragedy will send a horrific shockwave though families, friend groups and social circles. It hurts to lose anyone, but to do so for unnatural causes is awful. Nobody has a right to remove another individual from this Earth. We have a right to our lives.

What if people were allowed to defend themselves in common public locations? This isn’t advocating for a Wild West, as many opponents of the proposed solution would suggest. Many gun owners are trained in proper ownership and safe handling, thus granting them the knowledge to conduct themselves professionally. Their holstered mechanism for self-defense would only be removed on that rare occasion that a terrorist or criminal sought to inflict harm.

Someone might have dropped the Fort Lauderdale-Holiday International Airport gunman before he could take or injure a single life. Why is this bad?

Chris Dixon is a liberty activist and writer from Maine. In addition to being Managing Editor for the Liberty Conservative, he also writes the Bangor Daily News blog "Undercover Porcupine" and for sports website Cleatgeeks.