The right to self defense can never be denied, as long as you don’t visit a “gun free” zone of course. Because we all know how safe these criminal empowerment zones from behind closed boardroom doors.

Stop the madness

Last month in Virginia an armed citizen licensed to carry a concealed weapon stopped a mass killing event. The suspect was sporadically shooting and injured several innocent unarmed people until he was shot. He immediately dropped his weapon and fell to the floor later succumbing to his injuries. Those injured by the suspect’s weapon were able to receive the medical care the needed quickly due to the suspect being neutralized and no deaths occurred as a result. This sounds like a classic case of good overcoming evil and it is for the most part.

The all powerful gun free zone

There is this one pesky detail however, the event occurred within a “gun free” zone. Yep, that’s right the suspect had the audacity to perpetuate his heinous killing spree where firearms are not allowed. I mean come on, he probably didn’t see the signs clearly posted outside the entrances. He randomly choose this location I’m sure because it looked nice. Why is it these criminals and terrorists get a free pass when it comes to gun free zones. Why don’t the owners of these properties get upset about the blatant disregard for their precious safety minded attempts at protecting their patrons. Wouldn’t it be nice if they made as big a stink about how a criminal or terrorist ignores their rules. Why don’t they publicly plea with these groups to take their guns and commit crimes on other people’s property.

The flip side

Well, the armed citizen did violate the existing “gun free” ban and choose to visit this location. Did she know it was a gun free zone, did she care more about protecting her life than following the rules. It is hard to say of course, but this does bring to the surface a very real problem we all face if we choose to ignore the rules and the worse should happen. In this case the property owners publicly thanks the armed citizen for her heroic acts and within the same statement commented how they were reviewing the facts of the incident to determine if they should pursue legal action for violating their gun free rules.

Don’t be surprised

That’s right, thank you for risking your life and saving so many in the process, but we will get back to you about filing formal charges against you for your actions. I know it sounds pretty easy to brush off their claims, to comment how they would never do something to stupid. Before you smugly comment how you would do the same consider this. It is their right to file formal charges no matter how righteous your actions. They are placed in a unique situation, if they do nothing everyone will know they did nothing and they can expect everyone to ignore their precious rules. If they attempt to make the good samaritan  an example I suspect their will be pretty heavy backlash. Either way, they are in a pickle for sure, but they can really only blame themselves.

I think it is only fair we hold these properties liable for our safety by denying our right to self defense. I think it is high time legal action be an option in the aftermath; after all fair is fair.

One last comment, this was all a drill. The incident reported was fictitious, but the exercise was still valid and illustrated some concerns we all need to address.

"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it." Thomas Paine, English-American political activist

2 thoughts on “The Harsh Reality of the Aftermath

  1. brobin001 says:

    I just recently heard about a law in Florida where individuals with concealed weapons permits are not allowed to bring any concealed weapons into a storm shelter during a hurricane.

    This seems odd to me given the aftermath and violence that occurred during Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans. It’s as if there are certain times or places where violence is “not alllowed” or expected to happen. But then when it does, the authorities will talk about how they mourn for those impacted and what a tragedy it is.

    People go through background checks and follow the laws to get their permit. They should be good to carry once they have their permit, right? Well, not exactly. It’s nice that you went and got your permit, but here are a whole bunch of limitations and exclusions. We trust you to carry a weapon in all “these” places, but when you go to “those” places, absolutely not…you can’t be trusted. It’s as if you are 2 different people depending on your physical location.

    Popular culture likes to talk about discriminated groups/classes of people. Those who choose to carry and protect themselves and others – is their “lifestyle choice” respected? I would suggest, not always.

    No one said protecting your life was going to be easy. By carrying a weapon, you subject yourself to persecution and endless questions (e.g., why do you need a gun, or blade, or…?). It will probably stay this way indefinitely.

    • Jeff Gonzales says:

      Thank you for your comments, you are spot on. No one said it would be easy for sure, but it seems everyone is more interested in the easy path.

      I think you hit the nail on the head. It is a lifestyle choice, no different than same sex marriage only this is a constitutional right so you would think there would be more respect.

Leave a Reply

Trident Concepts
This site uses cookies to offer you a better browsing experience. By browsing this website, you agree to our use of cookies.