Another Gun Free Zone, Another Mass Shooting

Another mass shooting. This time at Fort Stewart, Georgia — a U.S. Army base full of trained soldiers, combat veterans, and military police. A place where firearms are part of the daily routine. Yet when shots rang out on August 6, five soldiers were wounded, and not a single trained warrior could legally carry a weapon to stop it.

Let that sink in.

Fort Stewart is effectively a gun-free zone.

Despite being home to thousands of trained military personnel, strict regulations prohibit service members from carrying personal firearms on base. Concealed carry permits? Irrelevant. Open carry? Out of the question. Federal law and Army regulations override state rights the moment you step onto the installation.

And so, in a place brimming with America’s most trusted gun handlers, no one was armed — except the attacker.

The Shooter: A “Trusted” Gun Owner

According to initial reports, the shooter was a 28-year-old active-duty Army sergeant — someone who fits the very profile that many gun control advocates say should be the only people allowed to carry firearms.

“Civilians don’t need guns,” they say. “Leave them to the professionals — the police and military.”

Yet here we are. A professionally trained soldier, fully vetted, entrusted with national defense… turned his weapon on fellow soldiers.

So much for the “only the trained should have guns” argument.

The Tragic Irony of “Gun-Free” Zones

This isn’t the first time it’s happened on a military base. Fort Hood. The Navy Yard. Pensacola. Each time, the same questions arise:
Why can’t the very people we trust to protect us carry firearms to protect themselves?

The answer lies in layers of bureaucratic logic and risk aversion. But in practice, the result is clear: gun-free zones become soft targets, even in places filled with men and women who know how to stop a threat.

Watch What Happens Next

Within days — maybe hours — there will be renewed calls for more gun control:

• More calls for “common sense gun control”
• Restrict handgun ownership.
• Tighten background checks.
• Push “red flag” laws.

While this shooting didn’t involve an AR-15, that may not stop activists and lawmakers from lumping it into broader calls to ban “assault weapons” — a term that increasingly includes semi-automatic handguns like the one used here. The goalposts are always shifting, and tragedies like this are often repurposed to push restrictions far beyond rifles.

But here’s what won’t make the headlines:
The number of lives saved every single day by law-abiding gun owners.

According to the CDC, defensive gun uses (DGUs) may range from 500,000 to over 3 million per year in the United States. That’s right — hundreds of thousands of times each year, a firearm is used to stop a crime, deter a threat, or protect an innocent life.

You won’t hear about those stories on the evening news.
But you’ll hear about every tragedy — like Fort Stewart — and they’ll be used to justify more restrictions.

Guns Aren’t the Problem — Evil Is

The gun didn’t decide to attack fellow soldiers. A human being did. A man who, despite training and structure, made an evil choice.

And in a place where no one else was allowed to carry, there was no immediate force to stop him.

We don’t honor victims by creating more disarmed zones. We honor them by ensuring that good people have the tools to defend themselves and others.

That means less bureaucracy, not more. It means trusting not just government agents, but responsible citizens.

It means facing tragedy not with fear, but with truth.