From everything I've seen in recent shootings, I think if these places weren't gun-free zones, the shootings wouldn't happen (or be much less likely to happen) in the first place. The people who carry these type of attacks out aren't brave or tough, and aren't looking for a fight. They plan their attacks for gun free zones for this exact reason. They don't want any resistance, they want total control over the life and death of every person in their target zone. The last mass public shooter (without terrorist connections) to shoot it out with an armed responder was Charles Whitman on August 1, 1966...nearly five decades ago. There hasn't been a single mass public shooter to shoot it out with police or armed civilians since then. There are literally dozens of examples of mass public shooters encountering armed resistance and their responses are always the same: They surrender, they are shot and killed immediately, or they kill themselves.
In this case though, I don't think it being a gun-free zone had any influence on the attack. They're reporting that this was a domestic dispute where the shooter and victims both knew each other and that the shooter targeted the victims for personal reasons.
