WHAT COST FALSE SAFETY

What is the one aspect of the rash of shootings(Virginia Tech, Nebraska mall, Colorado mega-church) that the main stream media is not reporting? HMMM? It seems that all of these incidents occurred in what our Political Shepherds like to call "Gun Free Zones", the imaginary places in the minds of our politically correct leadership that endeavors to makes us feel all warm, cozy and free from violence. All they really are actually are magnets for murderers. A "No Fireams Allowed" sign might as well say,"If Your Intention Is To Murder As Many People As Possible, You Are In The Right Place, Happy Hunting!".

The shooter at Virginia Tech came into contact with 450 to 500 people during his spree. None armed, none able to intercede in any way to protect themselves. Even the on campus security were disarmed. The only armed person was the killer stalking the kids and faculty, eventhough Virginia has Concealed Carry for law abiding citizens. At least one of the faculty members is a Concealed Carry Permit holder, but school policy dictates that only killers may have a weapon on campus.

The Nebraska mall shooter stood at the top of an escalator as he targeted shoppers. Nebraska does have Concealed Carry, but is restrictive on law abiding people. And anyway, the mall has a no concealed carry policy. It seems that it really worked too, since no one was armed in this incident except the idiot with the AK47 at the top of the steps. Warm and cozy, wouldn't you say?

Now, lets examine the Colorado mega-church. On the Saturday night before this incident, a shooter shot and killed some folks at a Christian facility and escaped. The next day, the leadership at this Colorado Springs church made a decision:
Rev. Brady Boyd, senior pastor of New Life Church, said the church had a security plan in place.

"I'm proud of the way our team responded," he said. "Many, many lives were saved because of the quick action of some committed volunteers at our church.

He said about 7,000 people were at the church, which had just completed a late-morning service, when the shooting took place shortly after 1 p.m. The shooter had several weapons and over a thousand rounds of ammunition. The church though had a person on site, a Concealed Carry permit holder who helped put an end to the altercation. In comparing the three instances here, what conclusions can we draw?

If we leave the ability to defend ourselves up to State officials, we basically have NO defense individually. The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled twice that law enforcement has no duty to answer your 9-1-1 call. If we as individual citizens do not recognize the fact that the world is dangerous, and that are personal security resides with us, then we will be at the mercy of the criminal element. Read:

"In the especially gruesome landmark case the “no-duty” rule got ugly. Just before dawn on March 16, 1975, two men broke down the back door of a three-story home in Washington, D.C., shared by three women and a child. On the second floor one woman was sexually attacked. Her housemates on the third floor heard her screams and called the police.

The women’s first call to D.C. police got assigned a low priority, so the responding officers arrived at the house, got no answer to their knocks on the door, did a quick check around, and left. When the women frantically called the police a second time, the dispatcher promised help would come—but no officers were even dispatched.

The attackers kidnapped, robbed, raped, and beat all three women over 14 hours. When these women later sued the city and its police for negligently failing to protect them or even to answer their second call, the court held that government had no duty to respond to their call or to protect them. Case dismissed." -

http://psacake.com/dial_911.asp

False security. Costly and ineffective.