Doesn't Make the Media

There's a reason why you may think the anti-gun fools are right, that defensive use of LEGALLY-carried guns doesn't happen. That's because they just don't cover it when it happens. They just ignore it because to cover it goes against their preferred narrative. In the first story in the linked article, that store clerk probably got fired because he brought his legal gun to work with him, and used it on that robber (the same might be true of the phone store clerk). But what happened to the other clerk in that story who did NOT have a gun (he was murdered after giving up the money) is instructive. Better to lose your job than to lose your life. The liberal media seems to be solidly anti-gun, They ought to be smarter than that, but they aren't. The whole point of this is to point out the fact that armed law-abiding people are NOT a danger to society. Quite the contrary. They often rid us of people who DON'T obey gun laws and try to take what doesn't belong to them. Additionally, there are many cases where armed citizens HELP the cops, when sometimes they are overpowered by the criminals they try to arrest. (AmmoLand)

One Problem; It's Not True

The FactTank isn't very factual. It says pro-gun people are quicker to contact their representatives than are anti-gun people. There's one little problem; it's NOT true. The main problem with the anti-gun people is that they re a very small bunch of people, but they are very LOUD. They make up for their small numbers with the sheer VOLUME of their protests. And wimpy politicians respond, thinking that a majority of Americans WANT gun control. Other politicians are anti-gun fools themselves, and keep on making their USELESS "gun laws" that don't control ANYTHING. Neither group will admit that not a SINGLE "gun law" has ever done ANYTHING to stop, or even slow down "gun crime." They still insist on making them, even as they get people KILLED, by keeping the law-abiding DISARMED, while IGNORING all the ILLEGAL guns already out there in the hands or criminals and other "bad guys." (FactTank)

They Just Don't Get It!

In Chicago, they're finally "tumbling" to the fact that their "gun problem" is a gang problem. But, as usual, they go off in the wrong direction in planning ways to combat their problem. They want to BAN all guns. How they think that will solve their problem, I don't know, since it is mostly caused by UNDERAGE gang members who can't buy a gun legally, anyway, and so get them ILLEGALLY from other gang members, who got them ILLEGALLY, either buying them in a back alley somewhere, or STEALING them. They just don't understand that their problem is with ILLEGAL guns in the hands of people too young to buy a gun legally, anyway. Banning all guns is not only NOT going to work, it is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. But the liberals in charge don't care about that. They'll keep on making their unconstitutional laws and enforce them until the Supreme Court declares them unconstitutional. Then they'll make more, worded slightly different, and enforce THEM until the Supreme Court declares them unconstitutional. (Chicago Tribune)

Cops Carry Guns; Why?

That's a good question. The answer is simple. For self defense against all those ILLEGAL guns that are out there, in the hands of criminals. Cops "in the trenches" think more law-abiding people should be allowed to carry guns for self defense, as well as to come to the aid of a cop if he needs it. Police politicians in the upper ranks (often never "in the trenches") may disagree. They think the cops can take care of it, but they're WRONG. The best the cops can do in the long run is document the crime scene, clean up the blood and bodies, and--maybe--if they're lucky, arrest the killer, later. Real cops understand that they can't be everywhere a crime is "going down," and it takes minutes for them to get there. While they're "on their way," the criminal is free to kill as many as he can, and run before the cops can even get there. So the best answer is for as many law-abiding citizens to be armed, as possible, which will make the cops' jobs easier. (Backwoods Home Magazine)

"Why Defend the Second?"

NBC recently asked their readers who support the Second Amendment. "Why?" They seem to be unable to figure it out for themselves. More than 50% said, "for self defense." Surprise, surprise! Another significant percent said, defense against an out-of-control government. But 60% were concerned about Islamic terrorism. Now why did I say ISLAMIC terrorism when the article didn't? Because that's the only kind of terrorism that actually threatens US. After Obama admitted hundreds of thousands of young male, fighting age MEN (with few women or children) DISGUISED as "refugees," many of whom are already raping our women and shooting people, they are rightly fearful of them coming to their city and shooting them. But simple crime is also a major worry. Chicago and other liberal-run cities, for instance. They ALL have a big "gang problem," who spend most of their time shooting each other over "turf," and don't care how many innocent people get caught in the crossfire. Then there are the simple criminals, who just want to TAKE what they own and KILL them if they resist. They needed a STUDY to discover this? What a STUPID "study." (Keep and Bear)

"Texas Wouldn't Have Hapened"

Anti-gun fools say that if Texas had tighter gun laws, that church shooting that killed 26 and wounded 20 others wouldn't have happened. How STUPID are these people? They can't see what's in front of their faces? No tight gun laws would have stopped that fool from coming in and shooting the place up. But they would have stopped that law-abiding gun owner who stopped the carnage from bringing his gun to church, and the fool shooter would have been able to kill many more people than he did. They insist on preaching against logic and common sense in their zeal to disarm ALL Americans. That they ARE fools is not in question to intelligent people. Unfortunately there are enough less than intelligent people out there to elect these fools to office, where they can make such stupid, and USELESS laws. Laws that are unconstitutional because they ALL "infringe" on our Second Amendment right to be armed for self defense. (Quartz)

WaPo Exposes Pelosi's Lies

Peelosi likes to spout the bullmanure that the reciprocity bill will let violent criminals, domestic abusers, and convicted stalkers carry concealed in all states. Which is an out-and-out DAMNED LIE! Those three categories of people are permanently PROHIBITED from owning or using a gun ANYWHERE in the United States. That law will NOT "invite them to carry concealed!" What WILL allow them to carry concealed, anywhere they wish, is the "black market" in ILLEGAL guns, everywhere. Something Peelose hasn't done anything about, and CAN'T do anything about. The gun black market is like "the poor." It will ALWAYS be with us. Until they figure out how to stop all ILLEGAL gun sales (which they just ignore), the "bad guys will be able to get their guns. The evidence is the amount of "gun crime" out there, almost ALWAYS committed by those who get their guns ILLEGALLY. The anti-gun fools, like Peelosi, always punish the law-abiding, making them DEFENSELESS against those ILLEGAL guns, and gets them KILLED. (Daily Caller)

Constitutional Enforcement

We need to establish an organization charged with enforcing the Constitution. This will not apply to the citizens. It will apply to the POLITICIANS who knowingly pass unconstitutional laws and enforce them until DECLARED unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, or even a lesser court. The problem now is that the Founders screwed up. They thought just the fact that unconstitutional laws could be nullified by the courts, that that was enough. It is NOT. And the damage to reputations, businesses, and LIVES done by those unconstitutional laws remains long after they are declared to be unconstitutional because unconstitutional laws can be enforced for YEARS until the courts move--and the courts are notoriously slow in doing their job. So many people and institutions can suffer greatly BEFORE the unconstitutional laws are declared so. So we need somebody to move in and STOP the enforcement of known unconstitutional laws and PUNISH the POLITICIANS who pass them. The only reason they insist on passing them is they know they will not be punished for doing so, and they can create all the havoc they wish in the interim between passage and reversal. Then they can pass ANOTHER unconstitutional law that does much the same thing with "cosmetic differences," and enforce it until reversed--and again, and again. California is an outstanding place where such action is required. (71/Republic)

MERRY CHRISTMAS everybody!

No posts today. Too busy with family. Back tomorrow.

Anti-Gun Fool Braying

All the time they come out with their statements that tell us just how IGNORANT they are. One of the latest is this one: "Republicans only want reciprocity because they want more people to die." That's almost as ignorant a crack as Rep. Peelosi's crack that,"We must pass the (Obamacare) bill to find out what's in it." I can't believe such ignorant people are in charge of making laws for the rest of us. They fervently believe that CRIMINALS, who obey NO laws, will somehow OBEY the laws they make. And they're surprised when they do not. They really think they can actually ELIMINATE the millions of (legal) guns out there. Of course, they have nothing to say about the millions of ILLEGAL guns out there. They regard the reciprocity bill to be bad "because it allows known violent people to come into our schools," completely ignoring the fact that people with ILLEGAL guns are usually already there, because they don't bother to OBEY "no-gun zones." They bring their guns everywhere they go, and to hell with the laws made by these fools. (USA Today)

"Founded On Gun Control"

That's what liberal anti-gun fool Ed Asner says, that "America was founded on gun control." As usual, he's 100% WRONG. America was founded BECAUSE of an attempt by the British to take away the colonists' guns. He can't deny that, but he will, of course. People like him don't feel bound by facts. They think things are how they WANT them to be. Again, they're pushing that old, tired "militia" LIE, trying to define the Second Amendment to be there to keep guns out of the hands of everybody but militia members. Of course, EVERYBODY was considered to BE a member of any militia created. Of course, that there was NO such thing as an "organized militia" in existence at the time doesn't seem to make much difference to them in their zeal to take guns away from all LAW-ABIDING Americans. Forget the law-BREAKERS, who don't bother to follow ANY of their useless laws. The Supreme Court has affirmed the fact that the right of EVERY AMERICAN to be armed in the "Heller Decision." I doubt if a washed-up actor and a comedy writer will make much difference to anybody but other anti-gun fools. (News Busters)

"Truth Is Hate Speech"

That's what the anti-gun fools want people to think, anyway. They are now saying that anybody who says criminals don't obey laws is spouting hate speech. There's one little problem with that: It's a LIE. They're trying to remove one of the truest statements in the "gun controversy." The FACT that criminals DON'T obey laws--ANY laws, doesn't seem to crack their stone-like skulls. Next, they'll come out with a statement that "no-gun zones" don't work is hate speech, too. Again, the problem is, it's a LIE. "No gun zones" not only DON'T work, potential mass shooters and other criminals SEARCH OUT "no-gun zones" in which to do their dirty work because they can be pretty sure none of the law-abiding folks there will OBEY the law and not be armed. So they can shoot people at will, with little danger to themselves. The anti-gun fools will try ANYTHING in their attempts to discredit pro-gun people. They lie, put out false figures, manipulate figures, etc. (Just common sense)

"1,552 Mass Killings"

Just since Sandy Hook. That's what CNN's Jim Acosta is reporting, anyway. The way he justifies that is considering ANY shooting that involves more than four victims as a "mass shooting," which you can find any day in Chicago or St. Louis. That includes shootings in which no fatalities occur. Maybe even accidental firings while cleaning guns, too. Other anti-gun fools have been parroting similar numbers for a long time, and their numbers have gotten so outlandish that even some other anti-gun fools have "called them out" on them. Of course, Acosta is relying on an anti-gun outfit for HIS numbers. Does he really think if there were that many mass shootings that we would not notice? I'd think that any anti-gun fool would certainly bring them to our attention. Using the actual FBI definition for mass shootings, Mother Jones Magazine could only find FOUR mass shootings last year. Not the 355 leftists claim. (Breitbart)

Today's Gun Save

Anti-gun fools say it never happens. They say concealed carriers are more likely to shoot themselves than anybody else. They say that the average person carrying a gun NEVER is able to stop violence from being committed. They're WRONG. And today's “gun save” proves it, again: An Idaho woman saw a thug trying to break into her house and threatened him with a gun, He fled, and was captured trying to break into yet another house. Obviously didn't learn his lesson. He is now in jail. Proving yet again that the anti-gun fools have no idea what they're talking about, and that they get people killed with their ignorance. They keep telling us this doesn't happen, and we keep showing them it DOES. But they keep on telling us it doesn't, in the face of sure evidence that it DOES happen, every day. (Idaho Statesman)

Rahm Prefers Dictators

Rahm Emmanuel, current mayor of gun-violence plagued Chicago, has declared his "sanctuary city" Trump-free, meaning that President Trump is not welcome there. Though I don't know how he can keep him out. At the same time, he has invited that dictator-run outfit, the United Nations in to help him get rid of the gun violence. Gun violence that he has made worse with his stupid "sanctuary city" policies that have allowed unknown numbers of gang members in to cause MORE gun violence, as they fight over "turf." How he expects the UN to do anything but INCREASE the gun violence as their denizens go about shooting gang members, as well as their own bunch of innocent bystanders who get caught in their crossfire. The UN, of course, is not concerned with our Constitution, specifically the Second Amendment which, I suppose, is what Rahm wants. They can make all kinds of "regulations" he can claim they have a right to do, in SPITE of the Constitution, to which they are not bound. (CBS Local)

No, You're NOT!

California Lt. Governor Gavin Newsom tells the NRA: "We're coming for your guns." Our answer: "No, you're not." Whether you like it or not, there is still a constitutional PROHIBITION on banning guns, ANYWHERE in the United States. That includes California, where every one of your anti-gun laws are UNCONSTITUTIONAL because each one is an INFRINGEMENT on the right of Americans to be armed for self defense, and will eventually be overturned. It's really too bad the Founders flubbed in not providing PUNISHMENT for politicians like you who knowingly make unconstitutional laws. They apparently thought the REVERSAL of such laws was sufficient to SHAME such lawmakers into not making any more. They were wrong. Politicians like you are too ARROGANT to be shamed by a reversal of your laws. You just say the court made a mistake. Which is a LIE, but you don't care, in your arrogance. In a proper world, politicians like you would be "sent out to pasture," but so far, that hasn't happened, so we'll just have to spend the time and money to reverse all your unconstitutional laws while hoping they don't do too much damage while they are still in force. (Red State)

Sacramento Now Getting It

They're finally realizing that their main problem with gun violence is NOT the guns, but gang members shooting each other (and others) over such trivial things like being "on their turf." Unfortunately, their approach to that problem is flawed. They're "investing" $1.5 million dollars in PAYING gang members not to shoot each other while accidentally shooting innocent people in their crossfire. If they think that's going to keep gang members from shooting each other over "turf," they've got another think coming. That's like telling snakes to quit biting people or telling the ocean to stop coming to the shore. Gang members fighting over turf is as natural as the sun coming up in the morning, and PAYING them not to do it will not stop a single shooting. They will take the money, stick it in their pockets, and go right out and shoot somebody while laughing at the "do-gooders." Gang members have no respect for others, and will take what is offered, then break any "agreement" the first time an opportunity presents itself. (Sacramento Bee)

He "Likely" Did It

The liberal media sprinkles many words in its "fake news" reports. words such as "likely" that they think absolve them of blame when their "reports" are proven false. But those words are designed to be ignored by the reader. such as the word, "likely" in the report about a mass shooting, where the killer is described as "likely" to have gotten his guns through "private sales," at a gun show, one of their "bugaboos." They SAY that would absolve him of the necessity of submitting to a background check, which would have revealed a previous felony conviction, and disallowed the sale of his guns. But that's a typical anti-gun fool LIE. Gun sales at gun shows DO require background checks. He is just as "likely" to have STOLEN them or bought them ILLEGALLY in a back alley somewhere. which would BE a "private sale," but one they cannot control. They use this ploy on a regular basis, so be sure to NOTICE the use of such words. The shooter's father said that, "He 'PROBABLY' got his guns at a gun show." Not the most reliable source, since his father was earlier arrested for violating a restraining order by "stalking" nurses at that same "retirement home." "Probably" is another of "those words." (Bearing Arms)

More Fake News

A Wellseley Colliege "study" suggests that higher gun sales in the wake of the Sandy Hook killings has caused an INCREASE in accidental gun deaths. One little problem: it's a LIE. They ignore the fact that accidental gun deaths have DECREASED since then. It's the typical way the anti-gun fools twist the truth to support their "flights of fancy" about gun control. They support it by LIMITING their "study" to right after Sandy Hook, when anti-gun activity was at its highest, and ignoring the time later when accidental gun deaths went DOWN. You just can't rely on their "studies," because they LIE to support their desire to disarm all Americans and make them DEFENSELESS against the ILLEGAL guns out there in the hands of criminals, crazies, and Islamic terrorists. They're too stupid to know that the way to self defense is NOT to disarm yourself, so they make as many laws as they can to do just that. In their stupidity, they get people KILLED. You can't make a dent in their thick skulls to convince them of this. They just make excuses and go right on making their stupid, USELESS laws that limit the rights of the law-abiding, while ignoring all the ILLEGAL guns there are out there. (Breitbart)

"I Support the Second Amendment"

So sayeth former astronaut Mark Kelly, husband of former congresswoman Gabbby Giffords, who was shot in the head and survived, He never fails to emphasize the fact that he has gone into space four times, but that doesn't qualify him and his hard headed wife to work so hard to DENY us our Second Amendment rights. How he reconciles his efforts to deny Americans their constitutional right to be armed for self defense in his own mind, I don't know. It's a mystery. But he and Gabby are out there every day trying. Among other things, they seem to think they are the best arbiters of how many bullets should be in our magazines, and how fast we should be able to get what guns we DO have in operation when a thug comes at us with his ILLEGAL gun already in his hand. They seem to think telling us that, even if we have a carry permit, there are places where we are prohibited from bringing our guns, while criminals don't bother to obey those laws and rules. they SEEK OUT "gun-free zones" in which to do their "dirty work" because they can be pretty sure law-abiding people won't be armed there. This is "support for the Second Amendment?" Gimme a BREAK! He and his wife are just two more anti-gun fools who want to VIOLATE the Second Amendment and disarm America. (America's First Freedom)

Peelosi Shows Her Ignorance

Again. She says of the Concealed Carry Reciprocity bill that it will "INVITE domestic abusers and convicted stalkers to carry concealed weapons." Which it does not do, at all. It allows people WITH concealed carry permits in one state to carry their guns in all states. That's ALL it does. It allows people who have followed the law to carry their guns, even after crossing a state line. It does NOT "invite domestic abusers and convicted stalkers" to carry the guns that they carry anyway to cross a state line. Those who IGNORE laws will carry their guns anywhere they wish, and to HELL with the law. They don't need an "invitation." Peelosi's statement is the usual liberal attempt to get in the way of a good law while continually passing BAD laws that get people killed. That's the danger in letting stupid people get elected to important offices where they can make STUPID laws and have them be enforced. We should "clean out" such people in the "cesspool" of DC. Get rid of them, and MAYBE get some SMART laws passed. (Caleb Hull/IJR)

What Law Would Work?

I'd like to ask the anti-gun fools a few questions: "What one of the current anti-gun laws actually WORK to reduce gun violence? And can you name me one that does? With proof? Do you really believe that disarming yourself is the way to self defense against a criminal with his ILLEGAL gun? These questions, and others are questions they just CAN'T answer, so they don't even try. They go immediately into the "name-calling" phase. They immediately accuse you of being a "gun nut," and an "NRA member," (used as an insult) and other insults designed to mask the fact that they can't answer these questions. It really amazes me that there are so many STUPID people in this world, who think CRIMINALS, who don't obey ANY laws, will obey the ones they make, That's the main flaw in ALL their so-called "laws" that only serve to make it easier for thugs to victimize the law-abiding, who DO obey their laws, even if they don't like it. When a thug comes at you with his illegal gun, if you don't have one of your own and the training and willingness to use it, you're dead. Or certainly badly injured. (Just common sense)

Anti-Reciprocity Hysteria

The anti-gun fools are really hysterical at the thought of law-abiding Americans being able to have their own guns to defend against those thugs with their ILLEGAL guns who only want to victimize them. This statement shows it plainly: “There are 12 states that don’t require permits for carrying guns. Under #HR38, someone from one of those states could travel to your community and walk right into a school zone with a loaded weapon, no matter what local laws say,” Rep. Brendan Boyle, D-Pa., tweeted Dec. 5, referring to House Resolution 38. Of course, that completely ignores the fact that thugs carry their ILLEGAL guns into school zones (and other no-gun zones) at will, and there are no guns there to defend against them. That's the fatal flaw in their thinking, and their hysteria is getting people KILLED by keeping the law-abiding completely defenseless against them, You don't fight ILLEGAL guns with empty hands. It just doesn't work, But they're too stupid to realize that. and they can make stupid laws. (Bearing Arms)

How Stupid ARE They?

The Constitution (the basis for every law we make, with laws being required to conform to it) clearly states that the right to bear arms for Americans "shall not be infringed." Yet anti-gun fools insist on making laws that INFRINGE on that right. They call it "gun control." Every law that puts limits on that right is an INFRINGEMENT. "No gun zones," for instance, require people to leave their guns outside those zones. That's an infringement that might get them killed. Requiring a permit to carry a gun concealed is an infringement because requiring a permit to exercise a RIGHT is an infringement. Requiring guns to be "safely stored" in gun safes or anywhere else is an infringement, because it makes those guns USELESS in an emergency where a criminal or other bad guy comes at you with his ILLEGAL gun already in his hand. The time it takes to get your gun into operation can be critical, and that law can get you KILLED. Allowing private businesses to limit gun rights on their premises is also an infringement, As long as those people do not threaten people with their guns they should not be impeded in carrying them. To do so makes being there dangerous for them and others if somebody holding an ILLEGAL gun comes in to shoot people with NO opposition. (Just common sense)

"The Next Deadly Loophole"

Liberals in Massachusetts are calling Reciprocity the "next deadly loophole in our nation's gun laws." What are these people SMOKING? If I were a druggie, I'd want some! The "gun laws" as now constituted ARE the "deadly loophole" that allows thugs with their ILLEGAL guns to victimize innocent people while law-abiding people can't get guns for self defense. The anti-gun fools are too stupid to know that the way to self defense is NOT to disarm yourself. They say, 'Call 911 and wait for the cops to arrive with THEIR guns. I don't THINK so! I want my own gun to use to defend myself while I'm waiting for the cops to get here, eventually. The cops (those "in the trenches," not the police politicians who often were never IN the trenches) themselves, will tell you they can't be everywhere and that the best defense being an offense, is to have your own guns to use in your own defense. They think if law-abiding people had their own guns, they'd "go crazy" and shoot up the place, which is not only WRONG, it's STUPID! But they're too stupid to know how stupid they are. (Guns dot com)

Find the Real Reason

Spokane County Sheriff Ozzie Knezovich got pretty fed up with fool politicians blaming guns and nothing else for school mass shootings and he brought out a simple fact: that, "guns are a useful tool that can be dangerous if used irresponsibly." Just like fire. So should be ban fire? We should quit blaming the guns and look for the REAL cause of the problem. Society seems to be determined to demonize guns when they should be demonizing the PEOPLE who USE guns irresponsibly. Every law they make against guns only serves to make things WORSE, since they disarm law-abiding Americans, leaving them "sitting ducks" for all the fools who get their guns ILLEGALLY and are not concerned with following ANY laws. They make laws, expecting people who break laws for a living to somehow OBEY this law when they obey no others. That's stupid thinking. But don't try to tell them that. Their minds are made up, so don't confuse them with FACTS. (Conservative Tribune)

Duh....Ya THINK?

In California, they're now saying that, "Young men of color are the most likely to commit gun violence." They're identifying them so they can PAY them not to shoot each other and others for silly purposes. They have at least identified the "gun problem" as NOT "a gun problem, but a "gang problem," and they're targeting individuals (gangstas) the cops KNOW have either committed gun violence or been the victim of it (but couldn't convict) to "mentor" and pay not to do violence as part of their gang life. Sacramento is only (only) spending $1.5 million dollars on the program, with program managers matching it (I wonder where they're getting the money). Cities are signing up for the program for four years, but with the proviso they can "back out" after two years if it isn't working. One mayor says he isn't looking for reasons it won't work, but is looking for reasons it WILL work. If that's what he's doing, how will he even RECOGNIZE signs of failure? (Sacramento Bee)

"Guns Causing the Crisis"

St. Louis papers are saying that "Guns Are Causing the Crisis" after a former cop is acquitted in the death of a citizen (who was black, of course). Which shows the usual ignorance displayed by the anti-gun fools. GUNS are not the problem, the PEOPLE with (mostly) illegal guns are the problem. The mayor says it's the guns, and they have had 196 homicides (most unsolved) this year (which tells me it's incompetent cops, not the guns), the most since 1995, when 204 were killed by guns. Nobody is talking about the homicides by other means. So what are they going to do about it? Have a "gun buyback program," of course. That tired old saw that has proven itself to do NOTHING to reduce gun violence. Critics say their problems are much deeper than that (no kidding!). They've tried that approach several times in the past, while gun crime still keeps crawling up (surprise, surprise!). Many of the guns "bought back" in the past have turned out to be useless antiques (no surprise, there). Oh, yes; they're increasing funding for recreation and job programs, as if THAT will solve their "gun problem." (Newsweek)

"Better Than Nothing"

That's what the anti-gun fools think, as they continue to make their FUTILE laws to take guns away from law-abiding citizens to make it easier for those who do NOT obey laws to victimize them with their ILLEGAL guns. Not a SINGLE anti-gun law has EVER done one thing to stop, or even slow down "gun violence." The basic flaw in their thinking is that their laws DEPEND on lawbreakers to obey their laws. They think if they "do SOMETHING," Even If It's The wrong thing, it's better than nothing. It is NOT. What they do with their silly gun laws only causes more deaths, as lawbreakers victimize the law-abiding, who DO obey laws. One of the biggest stupidities is the "gun-free zone," which purports to keep guns OUT of certain areas, but which does NOT. The "bad guys" SEEK OUT gun free zones in which to do their "dirty work" because they figure there is less of a chance there will be any guns there to oppose them. "Safe Storage" laws likewise only make it harder to get a gun into action fast enough to defend yourself against an ILLEGALLY-armed criminal, who doesn't bother to obey those laws and has his gun already in his hand. One of the stupidest laws I've ever seen is the one that allows concealed carry, but requires the gun carried to be UNLOADED. It's refreshing to see an article like the one linked here, because the writer seems to know whereof he speaks. Unlike most newspaper articles about guns. (Roanoke Times)