Dean Hoffman wrote:

This is from Larry Correia. New York Times bestselling author,
firearm instructor and former gun shop owner.

Part of his comment on gun free zones:

Gun Free Zones are hunting preserves for innocent people. Period.

Let's unpack that.

Most commercial establishments have nothing to gain, and much to lose
(from a legal / liability / insurance standpoint) to NOT make / announce
that their property is a "gun-free" zone.

So right off the bat, we can assume that most commercial establishments
(shopping malls, theaters, restaurants, factories, offices, hospitals)
are gun-free zones. We know that many public-sector facilities
(schools, libraries, gov't offices, court buildings, DMV, airports, etc)
are probably gun-free zones even if they are not signed as such.

So in reality, where are the non-"gun-free" zones?

The roads, highways, side walks, maybe parking lots?

When you look at this aspect in a logical, rational way, anyone that
wants to "hunt" people has many places to do it, and those places will
never be a non-"gun-free" zone.

Think about it. You are a violent, homicidal madman, looking to
make a statement and hoping to go from disaffected loser to most
famous person in the world.

Let's unpack that one by looking at the most recent example (Sandy Hook
Elementary School). The shooter made no attempt to hook into any social
networks or leave behind anything that would give the world a statement
or make him famous. I think the same can be said of the "Batman"
theater shooter in Colorado, and the shooter at Virginia Tech.

But this brings up an important point.

If you know you are going to have violent, homicidal people, then why
allow the sale and possession of such a dangerous consumer product like
a firearm? The answer is that you can't stop the sale of something that
has been publically available for dozens, even hundreds of years.

You can't curtail the personal firearm industry in the United States
today. You could have maybe 50, 75, 100 years ago, in terms of the
design / capability of these products, and over the years mandated that
safety features be incorporated into their design by law much the same
way that automobiles have air bags and ABS brakes.

The solution to this problem lies in the product itself - not in laws
that govern who can sell them or who can obtain them, nor in laws that
govern how consumers handle them.

If the US was suddenly confronted with people being electrocuted by
toasters, even if the vast majority of people continued to use toasters
without injury, you can bet that next year the old toaster designs would
be replaced with new ones. The same problem-solving mentality is never
applied when the consumer product in question is personal firearms. Why
is that?