To this day I’m still trying to figure out the logic of a “gun free zone”. Yes, I know what it means, that guns are not allowed in the area, but it’s based on absolutely no logic whatsoever because someone who wants to shoot people is not going to pay attention to a freakin sign. To me the only thing that WOULD make a sign like that logical is that it’s an alert to people who wish to shoot people that nobody will shoot them back. If that’s not the case, then “gun free zone” is based on absolutely no logic whatsoever. If they wanted to prevent shootings wouldn’t they have a sign that says “armed public zone”?
To this day I’m still trying to figure out the logic of a “gun free zone”.
...
Touchy feely, no logic, just projected unicorns and rainbows...you knew the answer, I’m sure.
Attempt to get inside the mind of a person who has made the choice to be deliberately unarmed. There are quite a few of them, though they are a minority.
Once a person makes that choice, the idea that another person is armed can be an affront. They do not want to be reminded that a different choice might be considered rational.
They want everyone to be unarmed, because they do not want anyone to be more powerful than they, and they decided to be unarmed.
Thus, they work to create "gun free" zones to make it legally difficult for most people to be armed.
They can bask in the knowledge that only bad people choose to arm themselves, because otherwise, they are law-breakers.
They usually exempt government authority figures, such as police and military. They openly, or secretly, despise the police and mililtary as people who are willing to soil themselves with personal violence.
They expect the government authority figures to protect them, and always be under their control.
Of course, you also have the power seekers who want everyone else to be unarmed... except for themselves.