Chicago mayor Rahm Emanuel is proposing the institution of more so-called "gun-free zones" in the city, emulating but not surpassing the record-holder for illogical anti-gun mayors, Mayor Michael Bloomberg of New York, who is in a league all his own.

With its record-breaking number of 500 homicides in 2012, 435 of which were by gun shot, and 318 homicides thus far in 2013, 264 shot and killed, 1,363 shot and wounded, Chicago is clearly one of the best places in America to be if you have the desire to get shot. Entire websites are dedicated to tracking the numbers shot and killed or wounded weekly in the Windy City. Measured on a daily, weekly even annual basis, the number of people shot and killed in Chicago eclipses those of gunshot casualties by U.S. service members in Afghanistan.

These Chicago statistics are perplexing to those on the extreme left of the gun-control legislation debate. It's a well-known fact to all on both sides of the issue that Chicago has some of the most stringent gun-control laws in the United States. The city of Chicago and/or the state of Illinois have banned "assault weapons", restricted magazine capacities, prohibited automatic firearms, prohibited short-barreled shotguns, prohibited silencers, to possess or purchase firearms or ammunition Illinois residents must have a Firearm Owner's Identification card issued by the state police, on and on the sea of gun-control, 2^nd-amendment eclipsing legislation goes. It's a gun-control legislation enthusiast's utopia. Yet the city's mayor has seen fit to propose the implementation of city-wide "gun-free zones." Why? Why would such "zones" even be necessary in a city where gun-control legislation is supposed to have guns under control?

The answer to that simple question is both simple and thoroughly perplexing. The answer to the question of why the mayor wants more of these zones is obviously because he believes they work. Rahm Emanuel and those of his ideological ilk clearly believe "gun-free zones" are an effective deterrent to gun violence and gun crime. The perplexing part of it is why he or any other sane and reasonable person would or could possibly believe such a notion in the complete absence of a shred of evidence to support it.

As a reaction to his city's skyrocketing shooting death statistics Mayor Emanuel is pushing to have more "gun free zones" all across the city of Chicago. Mr. Mayor, let's do a little sanity check here, let's look at the last five mass-shootings in our borders, then examine one would-be mass shooting.

On April 20, 1999 two twisted and deranged teenagers, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold entered Columbine High School in the city of Littleton Colorado and massacred 12 students, one teacher and wounded 21 more. Columbine High was a posted "gun-free zone."

April 16, 2007 in Blacksburg, Virginia Seung-Hui Cho entered a building on the campus of the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University (Virginia Tech) where he shot 32 people to death and wounded 17 others. Virginia Tech was a posted "gun-free zone."

 Calling it a "good beginning for more gun-control legislation", in March of 1993 as one of his first acts while in office President Bill Clinton signed one of the most asinine pieces of legislation ever to cross a president's desk. Ensuring that terrorists would face no return-fire while on base, Clinton disarmed our own soldiers with a law prohibiting U.S. servicemen and servicewomen from carrying their own firearms while on a U.S. military base. The most finely trained in weapons-handling people in the world, yet able to do little more than serve as target practice in the event of a mass murderer bent on destruction. One such man was a jihadist in Killeen, Texas. Major Nidal Hasan fatally shot 13 and injured more than 30 others on Fort Hood. An act of terror that is classified by the Department of Defense to this day as "workplace violence." Fort Hood was and is a "gun-free zone."

On July 20, 2012 James Holmes chose not to attend a midnight screening of "The Dark Knight Rises" at any of the six movie theater complexes that were closer to his home than the Century 16 multiplex at the Town Center at Aurora in Aurora Colorado. He shot and killed 12 that morning, injured 70 others. None of the six theaters he ignored bore signs declaring them to be "gun-free zones". Century 16 did.

On December 14^th of 2012 Adam Lanza fatally shot twenty children and six staff members at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newton, Connecticut. The second deadliest mass shooting in American history after the 2007 Virginia Tech massacre. Sandy Hook Elementary was a "gun-free zone."

Chicago is the nation's death-by-gunshot capital. The mayor of Chicago's solution to the problem is to create more "gun-free zones." To even the casual observer the commonality among all the tragedies described above is clear ---"gun-free zones." It seems the only place we see people getting shot up is in "gun-free zones", so Mr. Mayor please explain, why in the world would we want more of them?

There is one mass-shooting incident not appearing on this list, however. That's because it never occurred. On December 9, 2007 at approximately 1:00pm Matt Murray walked into New Life Church in Colorado Springs, Colorado heavily armed and ready to kill as many as he possibly could. With over 10,000 congregants New Life is a large, some would say, a "mega" church. The 11:00am service had just let out and people were everywhere. Murray shot and killed two in the parking lot then entered the building. And that's where his rampage ended. Once in the building Murry ran into Jeanne Assam, a woman with a concealed weapons carry permit, training in the handling and use of firearms, and who was packing heat. Mrs. Assam quickly assessed the situation, pulled out her pistol and dropped him.

Matt Murray entered New Life Church that Sunday intent upon killing. However in the final analysis only one person was shot and killed inside of the church that day -- Matt Murray. Had New Life Church been a "gun-free zone", there would be yet another list of dead and wounded to mourn, Jeanne Assam most likely would have numbered among them. But she refused to be a victim

What might have happened if a teacher, administrator, vice-principle, heck, the janitor at Sandy Hook Elementary was trained and had access to his or her firearm in December of last year? We'll never know. But this we do know. For one of those teachers or administrators to have had a gun inside of Sandy Hook Elementary would have been against the law. Those teachers are law-abiding citizens, if the law says "no guns", then they bring no guns. The one thing they were not allowed to do was protect the children they saw daily and learned to love. Thing is, there apparently is no such thing as a "gun-free zone." Just a "law-abiding citizen's gun-free zone." And now the mayor of one of our largest cities wants to expand those "zones" far and wide. How could anything be more ill-logical than this?