"no gun zone" = easy pickings.

As I said in my response to Tamar, when you take away the right of the citizen to arm themselves
for defense, all you do is turn them into easy targets.



>That mall, btw, was a no gun zone.
>
>
>>>>Take a look at the 2 church shootings in Colorado this weekend. This guy killed 2 people
>>>>at the first church, then drove to the second church and opened fired there and killed
>>>>another person. He was then shot & killed by a private, volunteer security gaurd.
>>>>
>>>>IT WAS ONLY BECAUSE ONE CITIZEN WAS ARMED WITH A GUN FOR DEFENSE THAT THIS GUY WAS STOPPED
>>>
>>>But of course, the shootings only happened because another nut was able to get a gun in the first place. That's what we need to prevent.
>>>
>>>Tamar
>>
>>I agree. Something needs to be done to prevent sick people from shooting other people.
>>
>>Now lets put that aside and talk reality. Had there been armed citizens at the mall
>>shooting, and had Sean Taylor been armed with a gun, less people would have been killed.
>>
>>You can never stop someone from getting a gun if that really want to. But by restricting
>>law abiding citizens from defending themselves, you only turn them into easy targets.
>>
>>I'm not going into the 2nd amendment issue, but recent events support this conclusion.