Well, something tells Murdoc it won’t be the last word, but it’s still worth pointing out:

It won’t dawn on conferees that rampages don’t occur at state police barracks, National Guard armories or military bases. Cowardly killers are nuts, but they’re not crazy enough to go where their victims might be armed.

Westroads Mall, Omaha Nebraska
December 5, 2007

It’s probably fair to say that most places where large concentrations of random civilians are likely to be found are ‘gun-free zones,’ so you can’t say with certainty that the killers choose their locations specifically because they’re gun free zones. I mean, if gun-free zones were suddenly abolished, we probably still wouldn’t see as many shootings in police barracks as we do in shopping malls or college classrooms.

While many anti-gun types would say this means the above quote is meaningless, I actually think it helps define the issue. There are some places that naturally attract large numbers of civilians, and those are the places likely to be used by these b@$t@rds. So, knowing this, what’s the response?

To disarm the law-abiding citizens, who are sometimes also known as ‘victims.’

What sort of response is that to what seems to be a known threat?

Here you go:

• The mall is always full of people
• The security at the mall is minimal at best
• This makes it particularly attractive to mass killers
• You are required to be defenseless while you’re there
• We know that mass killers will be armed anyway
• So we’re trying to limit your ability to carry guns elsewhere, too

Is that about right?

UPDATE: Forgot this: Via Alphecca.

This entry was posted on Wednesday, February 20th, 2008 at 9:59 am and is filed under Crime and Violence, Self Defense. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.