I am reminded of a recurring pro-Israel meme (and I don’t want to debate this because it’s all propaganda and I simply don’t know which side is more right or wrong) that refugee camps set up after the first Arab-Israeli war, full of what must certainly have been easily assimilated people, were arranged to become really awfully squalid and also permanent specifically because the surrounding states wanted a class of victims they could blame on Israel.
The tactic has become familiar in this country. Anyone with two brain cells to rub together can clearly see that “gun free zones” are useless in combating “gun violence,” because they’re guaranteed-safe shooting galleries for any incel* who wants his fifteen seconds of fame. But every time it happens, and doesn’t contain some unacceptable element like an armed individual defending a group, you can expect it to be plastered across the mediasphere like an asteroid strike. You can expect to see lots of planted Bloombergisms blaming the NRA and gun owners as if we were all chomping popcorn and giggling like Beavis. You can expect to be blamed for something that is demonstrably not your fault.
And now that we’ve been gifted with schoolkids who’ve learned it’s fun to run to the cameras like frickin’ trained monkeys and cry on cue, maybe we can expect the tactic to become more useful to the people spreading this bullshit.
What we won’t see is any widespread discussion of what seems to me the obvious question: Since “gun free zones” are so clearly useless for anything except creating helpless targets, why aren’t our beloved protectors abandoning them?
Look that up. Like a train wreck, it’s fascinatingly ugly.