That's just what I said.

The killer who wants to go into a mall or other "no gun zone" isn't going to give a rip about
the law. The "no gun zone" is just another shooting gallery to him.



>"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.