Proposed legislation to make liable entities that create "gun-free zones."

All this does is make clear that whoever creates an obviously dangerous situation, by forcing the disarmament of innocent people entering, ("legitimate" coercion by the property owner) -- which they're fully entitled to do under the bill -- there's a consequence for that risky action. As there should be for creating such a self-evidently unsafe situation. And it only matters if the danger manifests, and some psychopath turns the hair parlor into a victim zone. If there's no assault, then there's no problem. Gun-o-phobes can sleep tight thinking the rest of us are just a bunch of paranoids. The bill merely addresses criminally misguided notions of safety...

Try thinking of this as the Luby's Massacre Act. Maybe that will help emphasize the blatant and profound fraud of proposing gun-free zones as safety nets. The heartless, insensitive, thoughtless perpetrators of defenseless victim zones should be ashamed of themselves.

This kind of thing should have been done after 911. If Virginia had had such a law, the death and injury toll at VTech probably would have been a lot lower.

Of course, Sarkozy won't like it, but fortunately, this is America, not France.

[Update a few minutes later]

Here's a profile of the woman who stopped the killing in the Colorado church. Good thing it wasn't a "gun-free zone."

[Afternoon update]

Here's someone else of whom Sarkozy would disapprove.

Here’s the thing. Gun control advocates love to say that actual “defensive shootings” are rare. True. The statistic they always leave out is how many violent crimes are prevented without a shot being fired as was the case here.

Clearly these were gang members — a group known for violence — who decided not to continue their thuggery when the store owner showed he was capable of fighting back. So, the punks moved on — no doubt to find an unarmed victim.

No doubt.

[One more update]

Apparently, the Colorado church shooting was a "hate crime."

Feel no remorse, no sense of shame, I don't care if I live or die in the shoot-out. All I want to do is kill and injure as many of you ... as I can especially Christians who are to blame for most of the problems in the world."

But it was against Christians, so that's OK.

[Update a couple minutes later]

This from the story above is kind of appalling:

After that final posting, one of the other Web site users realizes what's happened and wrote, "Oh no. I just saw this on the news."

Another wrote, "Yes, please don't do it. You'd only make them into martyrs and yourself into a fanatical, hateful zealot, in the public opinion."

Yes, stupid public. It would be so unfair to think that.

[Early evening update]

How many lives did Jeanne Assam save?

...this is the folly of "gun-free zones". Lunatics looking to kill people either will attack at places for which they have some animus (as in the case of the church) or where they can find a lot of unarmed people (as in Omaha). They don't stop because someone puts up a sign designating a site as gun-free, any more than people stop taking drugs because a city puts up a sign that designates a neighborhood as a "drug-free zone", as in my own neighborhood.

All that sign does is prevent the Jeanne Assams from being able to defend the defenseless. That's all it does. It doesn't make anyone more secure or safe, and it has the potential to make a lot of people into victims.

After the Virginia Tech shooting, people asked whether a CCL holder could have made a difference once the shooting started. Jeanne Assam answered that question on Sunday.