The gun-free zone

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

https://www.policeone.com/active-shooter/articles/295035006-5-things-to-know-about-gun-free-zones/
2. Mass casualty incidents have resulted in pushback against gun-free zones. A common argument against these laws is that they work opposite to how they were intended; instead of keeping the public safer, they prevent law-abiding citizens from carrying but do nothing to stop criminals who intend to do harm.
...
3. Some argue that most mass shootings occur in gun-free zones, and that these sites attract active shooters. Another common argument in this debate is that the majority of mass shootings occur in gun-free zones and that active shooters specifically seek out these sites to carry out their attacks.
...
4. But are these claims true? Here’s where things get muddy. In a 2013 report, Mother Jones found no evidence that any of 62 mass shootings that occurred between 1982-2012 were at sites targeted specifically because of a gun ban. Many of the attackers had a personal connection to the site of their rampage, such as their place of work.
...
A big reason it’s hard to verify whether these claims are factual is because of the various definitions of what constitutes a “mass shooting,” a “gun-free zone,” and the differences in gun prohibition from state to state.

IMO, most mass shooters do not generally choose from a list of gun-free zones as sites for their mayhem. I am fairly sure it crosses the minds of a few of them, after deciding coincidentally on a gun-free venue, that they will face little initial resistance.

>>> I believe that venue owners and operators should have the final decision on whether their property is gun-free.

>>> I believe that venue owners and operators should provide some form of enhanced security if they designate the property gun and/or weapon free.

>>> I believe that counties should share the cost of providing dedicated law enforcement staff with venues over 200,000 square feet. This is in addition to private security.