We’ve all seen signs announcing a particular place is a “gun-free zone.” While these signs are supposed to reduce gun violence by informing would-be shooters that their firearms aren’t welcome on the site, the reality is that they are instead beacons alerting criminals to soft targets.
And it looks like the New York Times may have finally figured that out. After a murder took place in Times Square on Thursday night, the paper openly questioned why posted signs banning guns from the area didn’t stop the violence. “The shooting was the first since the creation of the expansive, signposted zone, the police said in a statement, and it immediately renewed questions about whether such a designation can truly protect the area,” the so-called paper of record reported.
“People feel emboldened to carry guns on the street,” said Tom Harris, a retired New York City police inspector and the president of the Times Square Alliance, told the Times. “A gun-free zone is not going to stop a criminal from carrying a gun.”
I have to admit I’m shocked that the New York Times acknowledged this. While I’d like to give them credit for that, the fact is the inefficacy of gun-free zones is something conservative media has been pointing out for years.
Related: Indianapolis Mall Hero Returned Fire Just 15 Seconds After Killer Began Shooting
In fact, Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, the Pulse nightclub, Sandy Hook Elementary School, and Virginia Tech University were all targeted by mass shooters despite being gun-free zones — and that’s barely scratching the surface. According to a 2018 study by the Crime Prevention Research Center (CPRC), a whopping 97.8% of mass shootings over a 68-year period occurred in “gun-free zones.”
So, while it’s great that the New York Times finally has acknowledged that gun-free zones are useless, this epiphany is decades too late.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member