Gun control simply turns areas into free fire zones; as has been noted on this blog since the beginning some two and a half years ago. I personally called them that ( places where guns are not allowed) years before John Lott, or anyone else made the phrase famous. I did that in letters to the editor, at public gatherings, and before State Senators and Representatives in the Colorado House. All to no avail. What was my degree of success? I can sum it up in one word; Columbine.
Mumbai India, heck, India in general is yet another place where this has been made so painfully obvious. As noted by another blogger in another part of the world, refusing to allow for effective defense only results in blood baths.
I have a question. When will Al Qaeda or another group filled with blood lust strike a place here in the United States in the manner that the terrorist did in India? I have a hint for their planning department. Choose a place like New York City or San Fransisco where the citizens are not allowed to properly and effectively defend themselves and their loved ones. Mayor Blooberg’s office should be avoided though. Seems that the Honorable Mayor has more than enough armed help on and around the premises. He is entitled to that, after all, his blood is more precious than that of a black baby in Harlem’s is. Perhaps the offices of The New York Post. They have been telling New Yorkers that they are to stupid to be allowed to own firearms for years. They prefer for rapist’s and others of that ilk to be armed rather than some young mother that actually has a need to be armed.
Conservative Libertarian Outpost 