The Catholic School Shooter in Minneapolis Claims that He Would Prefer to Target a “Gun-Free Zone” Because the Victims are Defenseless. “That’s why I and many others like schools so much.”https://t.co/YbJL0I3qnE#2a #guns #gunfreezone
— John R Lott Jr. (@JohnRLottJr) August 28, 2025
Minneapolis, MN – The manifesto of the Catholic school shooter in Minneapolis has confirmed what gun-rights advocates have been saying for decades: “gun-free zones” are not safe spaces — they are killing zones.
In chilling words, the Minneapolis Trans Shooter explained his choice of target:
“I recently heard a rumor that James Holmes, the Aurora theater shooter, may have chosen venues that were ‘gun-free zones.’ I would probably aim the same way . . . Holmes wanted to make sure his victims would be unarmed. That’s why I and many others like schools so much. At least for me, I am focused on them. Adam Lanza is my reason.”
The shooter’s words were written partly in Russian (Cyrillic), and, the clear message matches what researchers and survivors have long understood: mass killers pick locations where they know nobody can fight back.
*Ammoland News has not been able to confirm every aspect of the translation independently.
Gun-Free Zones: A Magnet for Attackers
This is not the first time evidence has pointed to killers deliberately targeting so-called “gun-free” areas. From the Aurora movie theater in Colorado, to Sandy Hook, to the more recent Lewiston bowling alley massacre, nearly every modern mass shooting has taken place in a location where law-abiding citizens were banned from carrying firearms.
Alan Gottlieb of the Second Amendment Foundation has put it bluntly: “You’re a sitting duck in a gun-free zone.” Research from the Crime Prevention Research Center backs this up — showing that over 98 percent of mass public shootings since 1950 happened in places where ordinary citizens were prohibited from carrying firearms.
The Minneapolis shooter himself echoed the same logic that killers before him have used: criminals don’t follow rules. Gun bans don’t stop attacks — they advertise a free field of defenseless victims.
A Failed Experiment in “Safety”
Gun-free zones were sold to the public as a way to keep people safe. Instead, they’ve created spaces where innocent lives are sacrificed to politics. Author Dan Wos, writing about repeated tragedies, called them “the biggest culprit of unnecessary and preventable death.”
The failed logic is now tragically clear in Minneapolis: posting a sign or passing a law doesn’t stop evil. It doesn’t protect children. It doesn’t save families. Instead, it creates the illusion of safety while making sure law-abiding citizens are disarmed and helpless when the worst happens.
The Real Answer: Armed Self-Defense
The only proven way to stop mass shootings quickly is through armed resistance. We’ve seen it in Indiana’s Greenwood Park Mall, where a young man carrying legally stopped a shooter before more people died. We’ve seen it in Texas churches, where armed volunteers took down killers in seconds.
History shows the same pattern: when killers meet resistance, the killing ends. When they don’t, the body count rises.
Time to End Gun Free Killing Zones
The Minneapolis shooter’s words are horrific, but they also serve as a grim reminder: gun-free zones do not protect anyone. They attract killers who want easy prey.
Gun-rights advocates have been warning about this for years — and tragically, once again, they’ve been proven right.
If policymakers truly cared about saving lives, they wouldn’t keep doubling down on “gun-free zones.” They would empower ordinary Americans to defend themselves and others. Because when seconds matter, the only real defense against evil is the ability to fight back.
