"no gun zone" = no guns for the security guards either.


>"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.