Dealing With Crime -  Gun free zones (2043 views) Notify me whenever anyone posts in this discussion.Subscribe
From: EdGlaze DelphiPlus Member Icon Posted by host12/28/09 5:24 PM 
To: All  (1 of 36) 

graphic source:

The Flawed Reasoning Behind "Gun Free Zones"

When tragic events such as school shootings occur, some people seem tempted to call for “gun free zones”, in which it would be unlawful to have a firearm, and/or where the penalties for having a firearm would be increased dramatically. The belief that these “gun free zones” will prevent crime relies upon flawed reasoning, namely the belief that criminals will be deterred by these new “gun free zone” laws, even know they are not deterred by longstanding laws against murder, armed robbery, etc. Perhaps looking at a few high profile shootings will better illustrate the point.

1. The Columbine High School Massacre
The Columbine High School massacre occurred on Tuesday, April 20, 1999, at Columbine High School in Columbine in unincorporated Jefferson County, Colorado, near Denver and Littleton. Two students, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, embarked on a shooting rampage, killing 12 students and a teacher, as well as wounding 23 others, before committing suicide. The killers unlawfully brought guns into their high school, and proceeded to unlawfully kill innocent people, before unlawfully killing themselves. Guns were not allowed in the school, and neither was murder, yet law did not deter these people who were bent on committing murder then suicide. Perhaps if the teachers had been given the option to voluntarily receive training and a concealed handgun to defend themselves and their students, this tragedy could have been averted or at least lessened.

2. The Westroads Mall Shooting
The Westroads Mall shooting was a murder-suicide that occurred on December 5, 2007, at the Von Maur department store in the Westroads Mall in Omaha, Nebraska, United States. Nineteen-year-old Robert A. Hawkins killed nine people (including himself) and wounded four, two of them critically. The mall was a “gun free” zone as well, meaning that law abiding citizens were not allowed to carry a gun for self defense. The killer who was bent on murdering as many people as he could, before committing suicide, wasn’t deterred by the laws against murder, nor was he deterred by the sign in front of the mall which stated guns were not allowed.

3. The Virginia Tech Massacre
The Virginia Tech massacre was a school shooting which occurred on April 16th, 2007, at the campus of Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University (Virginia Tech) in Blacksburg, Virginia. The perpetrator, Seung-Hui Cho, killed 32 people and wounded many more before committing suicide. Virginia tech was a “gun free zone”, which meant the students and professors were forbidden to carry concealed handguns for their own protection. This didn’t deter the gunman, who just wanted to kill his fellow students before taking his own life. Again, a person who wants to die wasn’t deterred by the prospect of jail time for having a gun in the “gun free zone”, or even the possibility of being executed for committing murder.

4. The Northern Illinois University Shooting
The Northern Illinois University shooting was an incident that took place on February 14, 2008, during which a gunman shot multiple people on the campus of Northern Illinois University in DeKalb, Illinois, before committing suicide. Five of his victims were killed, eighteen were wounded. NIU’s campus was a gun free zone as well, and indeed the entire state of Illinois prohibits concealed carry. Once more we see that a gunman bent on murder and suicide didn’t follow the rules of the “gun free zone”, but his victims did follow the rules and were left defenseless.

5. The Lane Bryant Shooting
The Lane Bryant shooting was an incident of mass murder and armed robbery at a Lane Bryant clothing outlet in the Brookside Marketplace in the Chicago suburb of Tinley Park, Illinois, that occurred on February 2, 2008. The shooting resulted in five fatalities, and the injury of another. The killer used his gun to subdue 6 women, before binding and killing them. The gunman escaped and is still at large, despite the fact that an armed police officer was just a couple thousand feet away. Being in the state of Illinois, concealed carry is illegal, so all 6 of the women were defenseless. The gunman, who was willing to risk the death penalty or life in prison for murder, kidnapping, and armed robbery, wasn’t deterred by the law against carrying a concealed handgun. The victims, being law abiding people, followed the law and were left defenseless.

6. The Mercaz HaRav Massacre
A lone gunman shot multiple students at the Mercaz HaRav yeshiva, a religious school in Jerusalem, Israel. Eight students and the shooter were killed and ten more were wounded, five of them in serious to critical condition. The attack began at 8:36 p.m. local time and ended about twenty minutes later. The attacker was not stopped by the police, but rather by a student, Yitzhak Dadon, whom saved the lives of countless students by lawfully shooting the attacker with his personal firearm. This is a clear example of a student who was permitted by law to carry a concealed handgun, and who used this handgun to stop the criminal and save lives. One can only wonder how many lives at Columbine, Virginia Tech, Lane Bryant, Northern Illinois University, and the Westroads mall could have been saved if the law abiding victims and bystanders had been allowed to carry a gun for self defense.


 Reply   Options 

From: EdGlaze DelphiPlus Member Icon Posted by host12/28/09 5:26 PM 
To: All  (2 of 36) 
 192.2 in reply to 192.1 

The above tragic and horrific events are just a few examples, each of which show that a person who is willing to commit a serious crime like murder or armed robbery, or a person who is planning to kill themselves, will not even give a second thought the penalty for carrying a gun. They know that if they are caught, the gun possession charge will be the least of their worries, or they are too mentally disturbed to think rationally about and care about the penalties. In short, criminals ignore gun control laws.

On the other hand, the law abiding students, teachers, and shoppers who were unable to defend themselves had a lot to live for, and didn’t want to risk their freedom and futures by facing a gun possession charge. A teacher who unlawfully carried a gun in self defense could lose their job, and face jail time. A college student who illegally carried a gun for self defense could be expelled and face bleak career prospects, in addition to the specter of a prison sentence. A mall shopper who unlawfully carried a gun would face similar prospects. This shows that the gun free zones only disarm the law abiding citizens who we don’t need to fear, and won’t deter the killers.



Related articles on


From: EdGlaze DelphiPlus Member Icon Posted by host12/28/09 5:26 PM 
To: All  (3 of 36) 
 192.3 in reply to 192.2 


A few facts for letters about "gun-free" zones
by Tom Gresham

School shootings in Virginia and Mississippi were stopped by students and a vice principal who ran to their cars and got guns. The shooters gave up when faced with someone who had a gun. At the Trolley Square shooting (in a mall) in Salt Lake City, Utah, an off-duty police officer had a gun in a "gun free" mall (I guess it wasn't so gun-free after all). He distracted and delayed the shooter, saving lives.

There is a difference between feeling safe and being safe. You will hear people talk about wanting to feel safe. Offer the idea that it's more important to actually be safe. The police are good, but they can't be everywhere. Victims are everywhere, so they are the "first responders" to a crime.

"Gun Free" zones stop only honest people from having guns, making them less safe. If the idea is to get rid of all guns to make an area "safe," then prohibit the police from carrying guns there. No? Because we know that a trained person with a gun can stop a murderer. Doesn't matter if that person is wearing a uniform.


Zero Tolerance Equals Zero Sense
by Tom Gresham

Note in the letter from the teacher that even talking about guns can get a teacher fired. Part of what we must do is take back control of those who teach our children. In the current "zero tolerance" environment, children have been suspended for pointing a chicken finger at another student, for pointing a finger at another student, for turning in a writing assignment which talks about guns, and heaven help a teacher who would bring a copy of Guns & Ammo to school! It's insane.

How do we start? As with all of this, we start by bringing up the subject. In the world of education, zero tolerance is accepted. It's comfortable because it relieves the administrations and school boards of the need to exercise judgment. "Follow the policy" is the mantra. We need to start talking about this. We need to write letters to the editor. We need to talk about it to everyone we know. It's time to find out who is on the school board, and get to know a few of them. Have a conversation about this, and ask them how to go about changing these policies. As always, be polite. When writing letters, be short. But, be prepared for a long fight. If we think of these as 10-year battles, we will not tire.


Teacher fired for gun comment




  • Edited 1/4/2012 7:47 am by EdGlaze

From: EdGlaze DelphiPlus Member Icon Posted by host12/28/09 5:28 PM 
To: All  (4 of 36) 
 192.4 in reply to 192.3 

Gun free zones commonly include banks, bars, schools, churches, airports, malls, and other businesses that don't want their customers, even those licensed to carry, to have weapons to protect themselves or others.

Sometimes a whole community like DC or Chicago will try a gun ban but the Supreme Court's Heller decision said it was unconstitutional. However, some states like Illinois make it extremely difficult to own and carry a weapon.

Gun-free school zones are designated by state and the federal Gun-Free School Zones Act. They are not likely to deter anyone bent on violence. Worse, they advertise that all the law-abiding people at a school are unarmed and therefore easy prey.

Across the country, politicians are eager to draw magical circles of protection they claim will banish evil and keep children safe. It’s an easy, cheap way of opposing what everyone opposes and supporting what everyone supports. But the resulting crazy quilt of drug-free, gun-free, and molester-free zones is ineffective, sometimes counterproductive, and frequently unjust.

The victims of such laws also include innocent gun owners who are transformed into felons when they unwittingly traverse a school zone on the way to target practice or hunting grounds. The gun control analyst Alan Korwin warns that the 1,000-foot limit set by federal law subjects millions of Americans to a five-year prison term simply for venturing out of their homes with their guns.

As a result of the federal Gun-Free School Zones Act, you can’t legally transport a firearm in Phoenix unless you have a carry permit or keep it locked and unloaded.

Phoenix Gun Free Zones


Criminals for gun control - Part 1

Criminals For Gun Control - Part 2 - Carjacking

The above YouTube videos and Gun-free Zone humorously portrays anti-gun legislation and similar videos can be found on YouTube, including:



  • Edited 12/16/2012 2:28 pm by EdGlaze

From: EdGlaze DelphiPlus Member Icon Posted by host12/28/09 5:28 PM 
To: All  (5 of 36) 
 192.5 in reply to 192.4 


Gun-Free Zones Are a Magnet for Attacks
Like the Tragedy In Binghamton

by John R. Lott Jr.
Senior Research Scientist, University of Maryland,
Author of Freedomnomics
April 3, 2009

Time after time multiple-victim public shootings occur in “gun free zones” — public places where citizens are not legally able to carry guns. The horrible attack in Binghamton, New York is no different. Every multiple-victim public shooting that I've studied, where more than three people have been killed, has taken place where guns are banned.

If a killer were stalking your family, would you feel safer putting a sign out front announcing, “This home is a gun-free zone”? But that is what all these places did.

You would think that it would be an important part of the news stories for a simple reason: Gun-free zones are a magnet for these attacks. Extensive discussions of these attacks can be found here and here. We want to keep people safe, but the problem is that it is the law-abiding good citizens, not the criminals, who obey these laws. We end up disarming the potential victims and not the criminals. Rather than making places safe for victims, we unintentionally make them safe for the criminal.

At some point, you would think the media would notice that something is going on here, that these murderers aren’t just picking their targets at random. And this pattern isn’t really too surprising. Most people understand that guns deter criminals.

If a killer were stalking your family, would you feel safer putting a sign out front announcing, “This home is a gun-free zone”? But that is what all these places did.

Even when attacks occur, having civilians with permitted concealed handguns limits the damage. A major factor in determining how many people are harmed by these killers is the amount of time that elapses between when the attack starts and someone is able to arrive on the scene with a gun.

For years I would tell news people about the fact that every single multiple-victim public shooting in the US involving more than three people killed took place in one of these gun-free zones. The response was they might include this information as part of the story if I could get it to them fast enough so that it could be included as part of the news story. But when I started to do that I was told that it would be editorializing to include that information. My response has been that if news stories can contain long (often inaccurate) discussions of the type of gun used in the crime, why isn’t it also newsworthy to note one common characteristic that occurs in attack after attack?

When will this simple fact about gun-free zones become part of the news coverage itself? How different would the political debate about guns be if even once in a while a news story mentioned that there has been another multiple victim public shooting in a gun free zone?


How Gun Free Zones Get People Killed
by Hermes Alvarez

This is a speech that a USCCA member gave to his college class. Doing this took some serious guts, and he hit a home-run.

Good going, Mr. Alvarez. This country needs more men like you!

Part 1:

Part 2:


Photos of the Week from Mr. Oleg Volk's website:



In Texas, the applicable "gun free" statutes are Section 30.06 of the Texas Penal Code, and requires a sign in contrasting colors, with letters 1 inch tall, with exactly the following text in both English and Spanish, be posted at every entrance to a business prohibiting concealed carry.




  • Edited February 19, 2019 8:55 am  by  EdGlaze

From: EdGlaze DelphiPlus Member Icon Posted by host12/28/09 5:29 PM 
To: All  (6 of 36) 
 192.6 in reply to 192.5 

The Tragedy of Gun-Free Zones
Commentary by Dr. Michael S. Brown

An anti-gun story by J. Portner, an assistant editor at Education Week, recently appeared in the Washington Post under the title, "Loopholes Allow Guns in Schools".

The well known federal law against bringing guns within 1,000 feet of schools does not apply to police officers, citizens with a license to carry a concealed weapon, or in some cases, to school employees. Although the author could not cite any cases where this had resulted in a death or injury, the premise was that this violates the spirit of the law and is somehow wrong.

Like many other alarmist articles on guns and schools, the obligatory reference to Columbine was used to heighten the sense of panic in the reader, despite the fact that the Columbine example tells us nothing about the behavior of armed adults. The article is short on logic, but provides a good example of the visceral fear of guns and distrust of gun owners that is deeply felt by many writers in the elite media.

In spite of the fact that mass murders are very rare, Americans have been force fed innumerable images of these terrible crimes. Each media feeding frenzy includes a call for more laws. But do laws prohibiting guns in certain places really prevent Columbine-type tragedies? In a word, no.

A striking paradox is associated with these mass murders. They are much more likely to occur in areas that have been designated as gun free zones.

Post Offices were the first buildings associated by the media with mass shootings, in this case by disgruntled workers who were said to "go postal". The fact that guns were prohibited in Post Offices was well publicized.

Office buildings, hospitals, convenience stores, TV studios, chain restaurants and day care centers have all been targets of crazed killers intent on running up a large score of victims before they finally kill themselves. All of these enterprises prevent employees from arming themselves, even if they have a state-issued license granting them that right.

Schools became popular targets for young mass murderers in the mid 1990s, around the time that the Gun Free School Zones act of 1994 was enacted. This law and similar local laws were targeted at gang related violence, but had the unfortunate consequence of making schools a more attractive target for disturbed teens who wanted to end their own lives with a dramatic killing spree.

In 1999, John Lott and William Landes published an extensive statistical study of multiple shooting incidents. They showed that mass shootings occur less often in areas where responsible citizens are allowed permits to carry weapons discretely.

Have you ever heard of a mass shooting in a police station, at a pistol range, or at a gun show? Suicidal mass murderers may be insane, but they are not necessarily stupid. They always select a soft target for their final acts of violence. This principle also applies to many other types of crime.

Some corporate managers are aware of this situation and resist pressure to put up the "no guns allowed" sign. Even if company policy prevents employees from being armed, it is a mistake to publicize that fact.

This is not a new concept. A classic case occurred in the late 1970's in the Washington D.C. area. A pizza delivery driver was fired after he drove off a robber with his handgun. After this was publicized, the area manager made the mistake of announcing on television that the drivers were all unarmed. The company was then plagued by a wave of robberies until the policy was changed, at which time robberies dropped dramatically.

The emotional reaction of the gun haters after a mass shooting is that we must further tighten the gun laws. Even if this response makes some people feel good, reality tells us that it isn't the best answer. Expecting a deranged, suicidal individual to honor a law prohibiting guns is sheer utopian fantasy. Creating and publicizing a gun free zone will, in fact, increase the chances of the kind of tragedy we seek to prevent.

How many of us, no matter how much we hate guns, would be willing to put a sign stating, "We have no guns here", on our home? Common sense tells us that this is an invitation to criminals. This same simple concept applies to schools and other public places.

Some people will always have an unreasonable fear of weapons and a desire to impose their will on society. We must not let their phobia cloud our thinking. Exploiting our school children and putting them at risk to promote a misguided political agenda is criminally negligent.


Study of multiple victim public shootings
John Lott, William Landes


Blogs about: Gun Free Zone


From: EdGlaze DelphiPlus Member Icon Posted by host12/28/09 5:31 PM 
To: All  (7 of 36) 
 192.7 in reply to 192.6

The "No Guns" Insult
by Jeff Knox

How does it make you feel when you start to walk into a business and see a "No Guns" sign prominently posted? Are you angry? Offended? Indifferent? How do you react? Do you just turn around and take your business elsewhere? Complain to the management? Just ignore it and go on with your business?

The members of the Virginia Citizens Defense League take "No Guns" signs as personally offensive and they let their offense be known — to the business, to fellow VCDL members, and anyone else who'll listen— or read a web page. VCDL maintains a list of anti-rights Virginia businesses on their web site,, and encourages gun owners and rights supporters to avoid these businesses except to let them know that their policy is offensive. VCDL has actively pursued this position for several years while they have simultaneously grown to become the most politically active and effective rights organization in the state.

This up-scuttle echoes a larger issue of misunderstanding between the activist, rights community and the general public — sadly often including many gun owners. When a business posts a "No Guns" policy they are making a political statement whether that is their intent or not. They are also denigrating and insulting lawful gun owners — particularly those who choose to carry. A "No Guns" sign serves no useful purpose beyond these insults and political posturing because the only people to whom such signs apply are the most conscientious and responsible gun owners. Criminals and the irresponsible simply ignore the signs and do exactly what they would have done without the signs, except with perhaps a greater sense of security knowing that conscientious, law-abiding gun owners have disarmed or gone somewhere else.

Gun owners and rights supporters who are not angered and offended by these "We Don't Want Your Kind" signs posted on businesses they frequent are being as thoughtless and insensitive as the businesses themselves. These "No Guns" signs should elicit the same reaction from gun owners and our friends that "Whites Only" signs did among blacks and civil rights supporters in the 1960s. They are a personal insult and an assault on our liberty and anyone who can't see that is simply choosing not to. That appears to be the case with the leadership of Virginia's 7th District Republicans. One must wonder whether they would continue using the same facilities if the sign on the door read "No Jews" rather than "No Guns."

Posting a "No Guns" sign is not a business decision about patron safety nor is disarming just a minor inconvenience. Such signs are a political statement and an insult and they should never go unanswered. The Firearms Coalition offers Merchant Education Cards which make it easy to let businesses know why they're losing our business.


Pack of 100 Merchant Education Cards is yours with a $10 donation!


  • Edited 2/4/2010 5:10 pm by EdGlaze

From: EdGlaze DelphiPlus Member Icon Posted by host12/28/09 5:32 PM 
To: All  (8 of 36) 
 192.8 in reply to 192.7 

Letter to the Editor by Royce C. Hayes
December 3, 2007
Tyler Morning Telegraph, Tyler, TX

I definitely believe that trained and licensed students and faculty should be allowed to carry a concealed firearm at any campus and would be a definite safety factor.

We do not have to guess what would happen if those who are licensed to carry guns were allowed in schools. It is already legal in Utah and in Oregon. To date, there are no reports of permit holders shooting up schools.

We do not have to guess about the effectiveness of citizens being able to stop school shootings. At the Appalachian School of Law and at the Pearl, Mississippi, school shootings, students (in the first one) and an assistant principal (at Pearl, MS) ran to their cars, got guns, and stopped the shooters. In both instances, the shooter gave up when faced with an armed citizen.

The point is that all the "well, what if ..." conversation is wasted breath. It is being done now, and there are no negative effects.

The comment by Mr. Massengill, "But...there are some environments where common sense tells us it's just not a good idea to have guns available" is just ludicrous and the reason that we have mass shootings at campuses now. Common sense tells me that if I am armed, I have a 1,000% better chance of surviving an attack by a crazed gunman than if I am disarmed.

What about all the students that are victims of robbery and assault to and from their place of residence because they are effectively disarmed at home and are helpless victims all because of a flawed campus policy.

I know that the school officials and the teachers "feel" like they can't deal with guns in the schools, well how do they "feel" about dealing with a nut case shooting the teachers and students? Most criminals are basically cowards and do not want to die, therefore they are not going to commit a mass murder at a police station, gun range, gun shop, or any place else that they know that they have a better chance of being stopped before they can do their cowardly deed.

The liberals have passed multitudes of laws and bans and none of the laws have stopped even one nut from doing what he wanted to do. It is time for change and the time is now. We need to allow concealed handgun licensees to carry anywhere.


Workgun_sign.jpg picture by EdGlaze

When Seconds Count: Stopping Active Killers
Reported by: Brendan Keefe
WCPO, Cincinnati

There have been so many school shootings over the last 40 years that researchers have been able to develop a profile of the typical mass murderer. They're called "active shooters" or "active killers" and their crimes play out in a matter of minutes.
After the Columbine High School massacre in 1999, police changed their tactics. The two student gunmen killed 15 people and themselves before the SWAT team was in position. Commanders realized that it simply takes too long to assemble a tactical team in time to stop an active killer.
The new tactics developed in response to Columbine involved creating an ad-hoc tactical team using the first four or five patrol officers on the scene. They would enter the shooting scene in a diamond formation with guns pointing in all directions. This technique was employed by police departments around the country.
Then 32 people were killed by a lone gunman at Virginia Tech in April 2007. Seung Hui Cho shot 47 people, 30 fatally, in the university's Norris Hall in just 11 minutes. That means every minute he killed more than three people and shot a total of four. Once again, the gunman continued shooting until a four-officer team made entry and then he killed himself.
Law enforcement reviewed its tactics. Based on the Virginia Tech data, experts determined the first officer on scene should make entry immediately with an aggressive attack on the shooter. Every minute the officer waits for back-up, another three or more people could die. In other words, while it was once considered suicide for a lone officer to take on an active killer, it is now considered statistical homicide for him not to do so.
Tactical Defense Institute in Adams County, Ohio developed one of the first "single officer response" programs in the nation. TDI was teaching the tactic even before Virginia Tech. Now the National School Resource Officer Organization (NSRO) is using TDI instructors to teach school resource officers how to confront a gunman immediately.

Locally, all Blue Ash police officers are trained in these new tactics in large part because their chief, Col. Chris Wallace, is also a TDI instructor.
The other statistic that emerged from a study of active killers is that they almost exclusively seek out "gun free" zones for their attacks.

In most states, concealed handguns are prohibited at schools and on college campuses even for those with permits. Many malls and workplaces also place signs at their entrances prohibiting firearms on the premises. Now tacticians believe the signs themselves may be an invitation to the active killers.
The psychological profile of a mass murderer indicates he is looking to inflict the most casualties as quickly as possible. Also, the data show most active killers have no intention of surviving the event.

They may select schools and shopping malls because of the large number of defenseless victims and the virtual guarantee no on the scene one is armed. As soon as they're confronted by any armed resistance, the shooters typically turn the gun on themselves.

[continued in next post]


From: EdGlaze DelphiPlus Member Icon Posted by host12/28/09 5:32 PM 
To: All  (9 of 36) 
 192.9 in reply to 192.8 

(UPDATE 11/21/08 by Anchor/Reporter Brendan Keefe):

We have received many requests about the source for our assertion that most mass murders have occurred in otherwise "gun free" zones.

The experts are Ron Borsch from SEALE (South East Area Law Enforcement) Regional Training Academy in Bedford, Ohio and John Benner from Tactical Defense Institute. 

A summary of Borsch's study can be found here

• 98% of active killers act alone.

• 80% have long guns, 75% have multiple weapons (about 3 per incident), and they sometimes bring hundreds of extra rounds of ammunition to the shooting site.

• Despite such heavy armaments and an obsession with murder at close range, they have an average hit rate of less than 50%.

• They strike “stunned, defenseless innocents via surprise ambush. On a level playing field, the typical active killer would be a no-contest against anyone reasonably capable of defending themselves.”

• “They absolutely control life and death until they stop at their leisure or are stopped.” They do not take hostages, do not negotiate.

• They generally try to avoid police, do not hide or lie in wait for officers and “typically fold quickly upon armed confrontation.”

• 90% commit suicide on-site. “Surrender or escape attempts are unlikely.”

We also conducted our own analysis of mass murders in the U.S. The vast majority occurred in schools or on college campuses where firearms are banned as a matter of state statutes. Others took place in post offices where firearms are banned as a matter of federal law. Most of the rest took place in shopping malls or other businesses where the owners posted signs prohibiting firearm possession by anyone including those with CCW permits.

In some states, like Ohio, those signs have the force of law and violators are prosecuted under the relevant statute. In other states, like Texas, the signs are considered trespass notices and violators are first asked to leave, then they are arrested for trespass if they decline (of course, if your weapon is visible, it's no longer concealed and there are other potential legal consequences).

Based on data from the SEALE study, an analysis by TDI, and our own painstaking research, we are able to say definitively that most "active killer" shootings have occurred in so-called "gun free" zones. The experts who say they may be "invitations" are also John Benner and Ron Borsch who have six decades of law enforcement experience and training between them.

The Luby's Cafeteria shooting in Killeen, TX in 1991 took place before Texas adopted its Florida-style CCW law. In fact, that mass murder of 23 people was used as an example by those seeking to enact the CCW legislation.

It is accurate to say firearms were banned in Luby's at that time because there was no uniform concealed carry law in place in 1991. In fact, several victims and survivors had legally owned handguns in their cars at the time of the shooting.

While that shooting was not addressed in our story, it and others over the last 40 years were analyzed in our investigation.

As journalists, we are not interested in entering into the heated debate over gun control. We are, however, interested in reporting the facts. In this story, the facts point to the active shooters ignoring gun prohibitions and perhaps selecting those locations because they are "soft targets" where no resistance would be found.

GunFreeAmulets.gif picture by EdGlaze

From: EdGlaze DelphiPlus Member Icon Posted by host12/28/09 5:33 PM 
To: All  (10 of 36) 
 192.10 in reply to 192.9 

from the blog: Gun Free Zone

When Freedom dies so does your mind
February 19, 2009
by Miguel in Crime, Gun Free Zone

I am sure you have a friend who is the official sender of funnies and assorted pictures by email. Most of the time it might be a joke or cute & funny kitty videos or the dumb kid with a skateboard slamming a hard object or the weird picture of a guy showing his butt crack. Most are OK, some are downright funny but some miss the mark and leave a bad taste in your mouth.

As I was trying to sip my morning coffee, I opened my email and found a the following picture from a friend in Gun Free Venezuela, my country of origin.

Sad T-Shirt

For those Spanish-Impaired, here is the translation:

Attention Robbers

I have no Credit Card and I only carry enough cash for lunch.
I don’t have jewelry and I am a pedestrian.
I have no cell phone and I am unemployed.
If you still decide to rob me, please do it without violence.
I promise not to call authorities until 15 minutes after you are gone.
Thanks in advance for your goodwill.

I still don’t know what upsets me more: the T-Shirt or the smiling face of the moron holding it. But this is what giving away your rights looks like. This is an example of people buying into the The Government Will Take Care Of You bullshit. This is what being unarmed looks like. This is what giving up your freedoms looks like.

Sad, pathetic, depressing.


Navigate this discussion: 1-10 11-20 21-30 31-36
Adjust text size:

Welcome, guest! Get more out of Delphi Forums by logging in.

New to Delphi Forums? You can log in with your Facebook, Twitter, or Google account or use the New Member Login option and log in with any email address.

Home | Help | Forums | Chat | Blogs | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service
© Delphi Forums LLC All rights reserved.