We have entered a zone that requires a good bit of rational thought and a decided absence of hysteria.

A gunman opened fire Friday in a municipal building in Virginia Beach, Va., killing 12 people and injuring five or six others. He was killed in a fire fight with police.

I don’t know this yet to be fact, but I am going to presume the government building and its surroundings are deemed to be “gun-free zones.” That means you must be unarmed if you are to enter the building. You can’t be packing heat under your jacket, or in an ankle holster.

Now, here’s the question: Do we take down gun-free zones to enable heat-packing bystanders to open fire when someone starts blasting away in the manner that occurred in Virginia Beach?

For that matter, what about in church sanctuaries or in any number of schools that have been the scenes of despicable gun violence?

Dear reader, we have a serious conundrum on our hands — and in our hearts and heads — as we reignite the debate over how to deal with senseless gun violence.

I understand why governments impose gun-free zones. They want there to be an absence of dangerous weapons in what could be called “soft target” areas. You know, places such as public government buildings, or schools, houses of worship.

The debate that no doubt will ensue in the wake of the Virginia Beach massacre is clearly headed toward some further discussion of the value of gun-free zones and whether they make those zones less safe from madmen like the one who opened fire in Virginia Beach.

My first instinct is to say that gun-free zones should remain. We shouldn’t expose children, or worshipers, or government employees to more firearms in the workplace, in our church sanctuaries or in our classrooms.

I am going to implore us all to wage this debate with seriousness and caution.

So help me, this is the kind of issue that gives me serious heartburn.