[KitJ]

bumpity bump

[Spok]

"Posting signs designating an area as "gun free"

This will assure criminals that no lawful CCW carrier will be armed, although I've heard, without naming names, that some lawful CCW carriers ignore those signs as well, on the theory that they (the good guys) would rather face the consequences of violating the gun law that to have to stand by helplessly and watch children being murdered. Go figure.

[RockinRight]

How about we designate some "liberal-free zones?"

[mbynack]

We need to post signs for "crime free zones." I'm surprised no one has thought of that before. If criminals obey "gun free zone" signs, they should obey "crime free zone" signs.

Now I'll act like John Kerry and put myself in for a Nobel Peace Prize.

[Gritty]

Question: It's time to ask how many more people must needlessly die before gun control activists and legislators realize that disarming law-abiding citizens leaves them easy prey to criminals.

Answer: All of them.

[Chode]

it started raining one day so i told our oldest i'd give her a ride back to school(she was home for lunch) but to still bring her coat.
we got to the school parking lot entrance and i pulled over so she could get out, she wasn't too happy when she had to walk in the rain the last 100 yards because i wouldn't go onto school property with a hand gun.

the last thing she said was, it was a stupid law because "I" wasn't going to shoot anybody and nobody would know if i dropped her off.

i told her I would know and SHE would know, and "yes it IS a stooopid law" but as long as it is the law, i'll abide by it

i can only hope it was a learning experience

[ThanhPhero]

many more people must needlessly die before gun control activists and legislators realize

They already know, but it is an irrelevant datum to them. Individual deaths are of no significance-mass deaths mean nothing. Power and who will decide your life is everything.

[ThanhPhero]

It should be to keep criminals with guns from entering such locations.

That is not realistic. It should be to allow a situation where the criminals know there is an excellent chance he will meet armed opposition.

[Billthedrill]

The alternative to a "gun-free" (except for the bad guys) zone isn't that everyone carries; it's that everyone might be carrying and an unknown number of people, possibly none, possibly many, will be. That is a criminal deterrent. It's also a perfectly normal situation in much of this country much of the time.

One thing that criminals, both professional and amateur, always do is risk assessment. Knowing that an area will be devoid of firearms is, for certain types of crime, a big, fat sign saying "victims here!" It was for Kliebold and Harris. You don't have to arm everyone, or even many, for this to be no longer true; you just have to create an environment of uncertainty that drives that risk up to unacceptable levels. Let those who are willing to put the effort into doing so properly, carry. Don't tell anyone who they are. It really is an optimal strategy.