If their had been a sign posted "GFZ",
Would that help you stop arguing that 25 people were killed
in a zone free of guns and it was GFZ?
1. If there had been 30.06 and 30.07 signs posted or if there were a TX law or a Federal Law prohibiting carry in the church then it would have actually been a GFZ. Posting a "GFZ" sign would be meaningless since it has no weight of law. But yes, hypothetically speaking, if there had been a sign posted that actually legally prohibited carry then it would be a GFZ. That was not the case, however. It was not a GFZ, because there was no legal prohibition against carrying there.
2. It does appear that it was a "zone free of guns"--at least it appears none of the victims were armed with firearms--however, the term GFZ is not used to refer simply a "zone free of guns" it specifically refers to a zone in which guns are prohibited by law. You don't have to take my word for it. You can look for examples elsewhere.
3. Since it was not a GFZ, no; I'm not going to say it was a GFZ and neither is anyone else who knows what the term means. The problem here isn't me nor is it the other people who are correctly using the term. It's that you have decided you are going to redefine a commonly accepted term to mean something other than what it means. You are certainly free to do that, but it won't change what the term actually means--it will just result in confusion for others and frustration for yourself.
For example, you could start saying that "green" is actually "red and saying that "red" is actually "green". But when you start telling people that when the traffic light is "green" they should stop and that they should go when it turns "red", they will be confused until they figure out that you're using the terms incorrectly and you will be frustrated at their confusion and "stubbornness" or "bia" or whatever you want to call it until you finally give up your incorrect definitions and start using the terms properly.
Think this is one example of media bia!
No it's not.
The term GFZ is used by both anti- and pro-gun persons to mean the same thing. It is used the same by people both in and out of the media. The definition of GFZ is not an example of media bias. This is an example of the ridiculousness of one person trying to unilaterally redefine a commonly used term.
If you look around, you can easily verify the truth of my statement. Do some internet searches and you will be able to find people in and out of the media, and people who are both pro- and anti-gun all using the term in exactly the same way.
Just stuck on a definition and can't see the truth in the situation.
Terms have commonly accepted meanings and that is precisely what makes them useful--if everyone could simply make up their own meanings for existing words and terms then it would be impossible to communicate by using them.
If you want to talk about GFZs then you will need to use the term the way everyone else uses it. If you don't, then you're just going to cause yourself frustration. You can keep saying that "green" is really "red", but you're not going to change anyone's mind because people already know the truth.