"Soft target" and "gun free zone" are two different things. The fact is there ISNT ANY SCHOLARLY RESEARCH into this topic. Everything is partisan, and any attempt at funding independent research is cut off at the knees. In recent years there have been a few doctoral thesis done, but even in those there is no consistency in definition or scope. Even within this thread, there is an impression the driver was unarmed. No evidence either way, but the knee jerk reaction is "every driver should carry", implying that if the driver had been armed, he would be alive. Again, no evidence either way. We don't have any information on motive or suspects either. I could say "this was a drug deal gone wrong" or "thug life is a short life" and make people prove me wrong. This incident is a tragedy, but using it to make partisan arguments makes it a travesty.
Personally, I equate "gun free" with "soft" Then you shouldn't have posted an opinion piece before asking everyone who disagrees with you to post scientific evidence. By the way, I agree with the last sentence of your post.
Thank you for bringing theater shooter. I read wikipedia on him and reconsulted statements of expert witness brought in by prosecuter. Yes he chose that location by criteria. Gun free zone ( few theaters are but AMCs are... ability to lock doors from inside and police ability for quick response. Gun free zones are indeed Soft Targets or easy targets
Why wouldn’t the bad guys want to target the ones where nobody will shoot back? One doesn’t need to be a master military strategist to know that.
And only fools would ask for proof that the target they picked was picked in part for its gun free/no or little possible resistance appeal.
