There is a dangerous myth that persists in society today: that gun-free zones are somehow safer. The idea is appealing to some—create a space where guns are not allowed, and it will supposedly prevent violence. But real-world data paints a very different picture, revealing that gun-free zones often become targets for mass shooters rather than havens of peace.

Statistically, the overwhelming majority of mass shootings in the United States occur in gun-free zones. In fact, a study conducted by the Crime Prevention Research Center (CPRC) found that between 1950 and 2018, 94% of mass public shootings occurred in areas where citizens were banned from carrying firearms. The logic here is simple: those with malicious intent prefer soft targets. Mass shooters seek environments where they can cause maximum harm with minimal resistance—a factor that gun-free zones provide by default.

This is why the concept of the “good guy with a gun” is so important. Though rarely highlighted by mainstream media, armed citizens have stopped many mass shootings before they could escalate into tragedies. According to the FBI, out of 50 active shooter incidents in 2021, armed citizens were able to intervene successfully in 4 of those cases. This number may seem small at first glance, but it doesn’t take into account the countless times law-abiding gun owners have deterred or halted violence before it spiraled into a national headline. Such interventions are often downplayed or outright ignored because they don’t fit the desired narrative—a narrative that consistently glorifies the dangers of guns while neglecting the evidence that firearms in the hands of responsible citizens save lives.

Consider, for example, the West Freeway Church of Christ shooting in White Settlement, Texas, where an armed parishioner stopped the attacker within seconds, saving countless lives. This incident made the news briefly but quickly faded, while debates about gun control raged on about other mass shootings. It is crucial to acknowledge the power of responsible gun ownership, which time and time again prevents or limits tragic outcomes.

Those advocating for stricter gun control or the complete disarming of the population should consider the broader historical implications of disarming a citizenry. When a population is disarmed, they are left vulnerable to tyranny, and this is not just theoretical—history has repeatedly demonstrated the deadly consequences of disarmament. The Native Americans, for example, were systematically disarmed, leaving them unable to defend themselves as they were forcibly relocated and decimated.

Likewise, in the 1940s, Jews in Germany and Poland found themselves stripped of their rights, including the right to bear arms. This left them defenseless as the Holocaust unfolded, a tragic example of what can happen when the people are deprived of the means to protect themselves. A disarmed population is, by definition, at the mercy of its government—and if that government turns oppressive, as happened under Hitler, Stalin, and Mao, the results can be catastrophic. Under Stalin’s regime, millions of Russians who might have resisted were unable to do so, and the same can be said for the Chinese under Mao’s Cultural Revolution, where tens of millions lost their lives.

The push for gun control today is not merely about safety—it seems to be about control. Shadowy influences, including well-funded lobbyists, are driving an anti-gun agenda under the guise of public safety, while aiming for something far more sinister. Take George Soros, for example, a figure who has been banned from countries for inciting revolutions, yet is still able to operate freely in the United States. Soros and his network—his “tentacles” reach far and wide—use lobbying power and mainstream media influence to shape public opinion and promote disarmament. Other influential figures, such as Bill Gates, the Rothschild family, and Michael Bloomberg, also push the anti-gun agenda and have steep connections to Soros through the Bilderberg Group. These individuals, with their significant influence and wealth, seem to be working towards the same endgame: an unarmed, defenseless populace that would be far easier to control. It seems that his potential motives are not about creating a safer America but rather an unarmed, defenseless populace, which would be far easier to control. It seems that Soros and his associates are not pushing for a safer America but rather an unarmed, defenseless populace, which would be far easier to control. When powerful interests like these push for gun control, we should be asking ourselves: what is their true endgame? The answer appears to be unconditional control over the American people.

Gun control advocates often paint a utopian picture where government agencies protect everyone, and individuals have no need for self-defense. But history shows us that governments can fail—or worse, become the aggressor. To strip individuals of their right to defend themselves is to remove the most fundamental safeguard against tyranny and oppression. When the balance of power tilts entirely towards the state, citizens have no recourse if those in power decide to act unjustly. It’s easy to say that such horrors could never happen again, but history has an unsettling way of repeating itself when the lessons of the past are forgotten.

The truth is, creating gun-free zones or demanding disarmament does not make us safer. It makes us vulnerable. It emboldens those with ill intent by assuring them that they will face no immediate resistance. It turns ordinary citizens into potential victims, unable to defend themselves or those around them in moments of crisis. Instead of pushing for more restrictions that weaken the public, we should be encouraging responsible firearm ownership, ensuring that law-abiding citizens are empowered to protect their families, their communities, and themselves.

The right to bear arms is not merely an antiquated ideal from the past; it is a timeless safeguard for the future. Gun-free zones may offer the illusion of safety, but the cold, hard reality is that they often make easy targets out of the very people they claim to protect. It is time to recognize that real safety comes not from disarming law-abiding citizens, but from ensuring that those who wish to do harm are met with immediate resistance from responsible defenders who are ready and able to act.

Hey Eaton County, have you heard about the proposed property tax increase? They’re talking about adding another 3.0 mills to the current rate, making it 8.5 mills. This is set to hit the ballots in November 2024, aiming to plug some budget holes. But before we all go marking our ballots, there’s a bunch of stuff that’s got folks scratching their heads.

Rising Property Values: Isn’t More Money Already Coming In?

So, here’s the thing, property values in Eaton County have been on a bit of a roller coaster ride upwards, right? Over the last few years, homes have been worth more and more. With property taxes being what they are, shouldn’t that mean more money for the county already? Why do we need more if the pie’s getting bigger?

Economic Burden: Can Residents Handle Another $216 a Year?

Adding $216 a year to every household’s bill might not sound like much, but with everything else costing more these days, it’s like adding another scoop of ice cream to an already full cone. Are we sure this is the time to ask for more?

Budget Scrutiny: Have We Looked Everywhere?

Before we all agree to dig deeper into our pockets, shouldn’t we make sure the county’s looked under every couch cushion for loose change? Maybe there are programs we don’t really need or ways to spend smarter?

Equity in Taxation: Who’s Feeling the Squeeze?

This tax hike might not hit everyone the same. For folks on a fixed income or those in neighborhoods where property values are skyrocketing, this could feel like a tight squeeze. Are we thinking about how to ease the pressure on those who might feel it the most?

Long-term Solutions: Is There a Better Plan?

Instead of just turning up the tax dial, could there be other ways to keep the lights on? Maybe bringing in new businesses or snagging some grants? There’s got to be more than one way to skin this budget cat.

Community Engagement: Have We Talked This Through?

Big decisions like this should come with a lot of chatting, right? Town halls, surveys, the whole shebang. Have we really heard from everyone?

Comparative Analysis: How Do We Stack Up?

How do our taxes look compared to the neighbors? If we’re already paying more, maybe this increase feels a bit like adding salt to soup that’s already plenty salty.

Future Implications: What’s Next?

If we say yes to this, are we setting a trend where every time the budget’s tight, we just ask for more? That’s a slippery slope, isn’t it?

Revenue Utilization: Where’s the Money Going?

We deserve a roadmap of where this extra cash is headed. Transparency’s key, or else it’s like buying a mystery box – you never know what you’re getting.

Efficiency and Budget Management: Are We Missing Something?

Could there be other ways to save a buck? Maybe partnering up with nearby counties or finding new revenue streams?

Impact Assessment: Who’s Really Affected?

We need to know who this hits the hardest. It’s like knowing which part of the boat is taking on water before you start bailing.

Public Services and Cuts: What’s at Stake?

If we don’t pass this, what’s on the chopping block? It’s like choosing which toys to sell at a garage sale – you want to know what you’re losing.

Tax Increase Alternatives: Any Less Painful Options?

Are there other ways to raise funds that might not feel like a punch in the gut?

Transparency and Accountability: Keeping an Eye on the Money

If we go through with this, we need to keep tabs on where every penny goes. Like watching a pot to make sure it doesn’t boil over.

Conclusion

So, while there might be a real need for more cash in Eaton County, this tax increase has folks worried. From the weight it adds to our wallets to questions about fairness and smart spending, there’s a lot to think about. Maybe before we all agree to this, we should make sure we’ve looked under every rock for other solutions, had a good heart-to-heart as a community, and got all the facts laid out on the table.

The notion of a “gun-free zone” has been touted as a solution to the problem of gun violence, but in reality, it is a recipe for disaster. By declaring a particular area off-limits to firearms, the state is effectively stripping law-abiding citizens of their right to self-defense. This misguided policy ignores the fundamental principle of individual responsibility and leaves innocent people vulnerable to attack.

The primary flaw in the concept of a gun-free zone is that it assumes that a sign or a law will be sufficient to deter a would-be attacker. However, this assumption is naive and ignores the obvious fact that those who are intent on harming others will not be swayed by a mere sign or statute. In fact, gun-free zones often become magnets for those who seek to do harm, as they know that they will face little to no resistance. A study by the Crime Prevention Research Center found that 98% of mass public shootings in the United States between 1950 and 2016 occurred in gun-free zones, suggesting that attackers often target these areas due to the lack of armed resistance.

Meanwhile, law-abiding citizens who are licensed to carry firearms are prohibited from doing so in these areas, leaving them defenseless against an attacker. This is a clear infringement on their right to self-defense, a fundamental human right that pre-dates government. The state has no authority to strip individuals of this right, and by doing so, they are putting innocent lives at risk. The Heritage Foundation has reported on the failure of gun-free zones to prevent mass shootings, arguing that such policies inadvertently create safe environments for attackers while disarming potential defenders.

Furthermore, gun-free zones are often established in areas where people are most vulnerable, such as schools, hospitals, and public transportation. These are precisely the areas where individuals should be allowed to exercise their right to self-defense, as they are often crowded and susceptible to attack. Research by John R. Lott Jr. and William M. Landes has shown that concealed carry laws can reduce the number of mass shootings, supporting the notion that allowing citizens to carry firearms can deter potential attackers.

Additionally, the enforcement of gun-free zones can be discriminatory and unjust. For example, politicians and government officials are often exempt from these laws, allowing them to carry firearms for their own protection. This creates a clear double standard, as these individuals are no more deserving of protection than ordinary citizens.

The solution to the problem of gun violence is not to create more gun-free zones, but to allow law-abiding citizens to exercise their right to self-defense. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reported in 2013 that defensive gun use occurs between 500,000 and 3 million times per year in the United States, underscoring the potential benefits of allowing law-abiding citizens to carry firearms. Criminologists Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz found similar results, estimating defensive gun use at approximately 2.5 million times annually, reinforcing the argument that armed citizens can enhance public safety.

In conclusion, gun-free zones are a recipe for disaster. They strip law-abiding citizens of their right to self-defense, creating a situation in which innocent people are left vulnerable to attack. Rather than relying on the state to protect us, we should be empowered to take responsibility for our own safety and security. By allowing law-abiding citizens to exercise their right to self-defense, we can create a safer and more free society.

Legal Action Against Dangerous Rhetoric and Security Lapses

In recent times, we’ve seen a disturbing trend: inflammatory rhetoric and incitements to violence directed at former President Donald Trump. This isn’t just about political discourse; it’s a severe threat to democracy and the rule of law. Moreover, recent tragic events at a Trump rally have highlighted significant security lapses that demand immediate attention. It’s crucial to hold those who perpetuate dangerous rhetoric and those responsible for security failures accountable through legal means.

Media and Political Rhetoric: Fueling Violence Against Trump

The recent assassination attempt on Trump necessitates a deep dive into the role media and political figures play in shaping a narrative that seemingly incites violence. Portraying Trump as an existential threat akin to historical dictators like Adolf Hitler has polarized the nation and had real-world consequences.

Media Comparisons and Descriptions

Relentlessly, the media has compared Trump to some of history’s most notorious figures. For instance, the New Republic featured a cover with Trump donning a Hitler-style mustache. The Washington Post summarized one of Trump’s speeches with the headline, “Trump calls political enemies ‘vermin,’ echoing dictators Hitler, Mussolini.” These comparisons are not just sensationalist; they are potentially incendiary.

Statements from Prominent Figures

Political leaders, especially from the Democratic Party, have added fuel to the fire. President Joe Biden frequently likens Trump’s rhetoric to that of Adolf Hitler, using terms like “vermin” and “poisoned blood,” laden with historical connotations. Recently, Biden said, “I have one job, and that’s to beat Donald Trump. I’m absolutely certain I’m the best person to do that. So, we’re done talking about the debate; it’s time to put Trump in a bullseye.” This kind of language, figurative or not, can be misinterpreted with deadly consequences.

Individual Commentary

Media personalities have further fanned the flames. David Frum of The Atlantic implied Trump’s behavior made the assassination attempt predictable. Rick Wilson of the Lincoln Project shockingly said on MSNBC that the political donor class needs to “put a bullet in Donald Trump.” Joe Scarborough of Morning Joe argued it is “not a reach” to compare Trump to Hitler, labeling those who disagree as either ignorant or complicit.

Entertainment Industry

The entertainment industry hasn’t been silent. Kathy Griffin infamously posed with a mock-up of Trump’s bloodied and decapitated head, an act condemned by many but seen by some as political expression. Similarly, Shakespeare in the Park’s 2017 production of “Julius Caesar” depicted Trump as Caesar, who is assassinated in the play, a provocative artistic statement against Trump.

Political Figures

Prominent political figures like Nancy Pelosi and Mitt Romney have repeatedly emphasized Trump’s potential danger. Pelosi called Trump a “clear and present danger” to the United States, urging preventive action. Romney warned that Trump is unfit for office and could lead the country down a perilous path.

Security Lapses at Trump’s Rally

The tragic death of Corey D. Comperatore at a Trump rally due to stray rounds from a shooter underscores severe security failures. These lapses need thorough investigation:

1. Absence of Key Personnel:
   • A critical rooftop security post was left unmanned. No one replaced the designated person, leaving a significant surveillance point uncovered.
2. Contradictory and Evasive Responses:
   • The Secret Service chief admitted responsibility but deflected blame to local law enforcement for the specific security lapse, contradicting earlier statements.
3. Excuses About Roof Safety:
   • The Secret Service claimed the roof was too sloped to station someone there. Yet, practical solutions like scaffolding could have been employed to secure the area.
4. Delayed Recognition and Response:
   • A significant delay in recognizing the absence of security personnel allowed the suspect 26 minutes to position himself.
5. Inadequate Preventive Measures:
   • Despite red flags, such as the suspect’s possession of a rangefinder, no preventive measures were taken.
6. Failure to Secure Suspicious Individual:
   • The suspect, seen with suspicious equipment and behavior, was not detained or removed from the rally area immediately.
7. Insufficient Surveillance and Response:
   • Despite law enforcement presence, the suspect scaled a building and positioned himself on a roof, indicating a failure in continuous monitoring.
8. Lack of Immediate Action:
   • People at the rally yelled about the shooter on the roof three minutes before he fired. An officer climbed up, saw the suspect, but then climbed back down without taking action.
9. Missed Opportunity to Intercept:
   • The Secret Service spotted the suspect three hours before the incident but failed to intercept or detain him.
10. Delayed Response to Parental Warning:
    • The suspect’s parents reported him missing with 20 weapons, yet this didn’t prompt immediate action from law enforcement.

Legal Framework and Actions

Under U.S. law, incitement to violence is a criminal offense. The First Amendment does not protect speech inciting imminent lawless action. Similarly, those responsible for security failures that led to Corey D. Comperatore’s death must be held accountable.

1. Investigations and Charges:
   • Thorough investigations into media personnel, public figures, and administration members who potentially incited violence. Similarly, an in-depth investigation into the security lapses that allowed the shooter to act.
2. Accountability in Media:
   • Media organizations must be held accountable for their employees’ actions. This includes disciplinary actions against those who incite violence and rigorous editorial oversight.
3. Public Statements and Legal Consequences:
   • Public figures must understand their words have consequences. Legal action should be pursued against those using their platforms to incite violence.
4. Security Review and Reforms:
   • Immediate review of security protocols for high-profile events. Legal consequences for those in charge of decisions that left the shooter free to act.

Moving Forward

This call for legal action is not about silencing dissent or restricting free speech. It’s about maintaining democratic integrity and ensuring safety for all, regardless of political stance. The rule of law must prevail, and those who incite violence or are responsible for security failures must be held accountable.

As a society, we must reject all forms of violence and uphold justice and democracy. Let’s move forward with a commitment to legal accountability and civil discourse.