[School of Rational Thought]

Opponents believe that having someone armed in one of these so-called "gun free" zone would pose an additional danger to people if a shooter was confronted. So let's take a look at a couple recent example: Clackamas mall in Oregon. Shooter had killed two when he saw that a citizen had a bead on him with his carry pistol. Shooter then commits suicide without citizen firing a shot. Newton. Shooter is kills everyone he can until police arrive with guns at which time he commits suicide. But until then all the children were SAFELY killed. First example shooter is limited to two because an armed citizen was on site. Second, shooter was free to continued until cops arrive and twenty died. Gun free zone are dangerous because they are gun free zones. Remove the designation and they cease becoming a target. All but one mass killing since 1950 was in a "gun free" zone.

[greeneyes]

Gun free zones are just targets in search of a mass murder killer. They are a violation of the US Constitutional right of self defense.

The principal had the guts to charge this guy. Just think what if she had been packing? He might have been stopped dead in his tracks.