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.