I think you all know that I consider "gun free zones" a way of assuring would-be serial killers that the area will make an excellent kill zone. Why do you think there are far more school shootings than mall shootings? It makes me mad that we paint targets on our young people this way! (Or maybe we just need bigger signs telling would-be killers that guns weren't allowed in those buildings?)

My heart and prayers go out to the families and loved ones.

Steve comments:

Here is what spokesman Larry Hinckman said in 2005, about Virginia Tech's ill-fated policy: "I think it's fair to say that we believe guns don't belong in the classroom. In an academic environment, we believe you should be free from fear."

I think we can see how well that policy worked out.

That quote came from a 2005 article about campus police disarming a student who had a carry permit. Too bad that student wasn't around today. Or maybe he was.

Via Instapundit, Hillary makes the following claim:

Clinton said she had been briefed on the report, and the woman screamed back, "Did you read it?!" Notably uncomfortable, the Senator repeated that she had been briefed. This exchange went back and forth about three times.

The woman sat down and Clinton explained, "If I had known then what I know now, I never would have voted to give this President the authority." Clinton also said she believed she was giving the President the authority to send U.N. inspectors to Iraq.

Is she simply dishonest? Or is she telling me she's so grossly incompetant that *I* knew what that bill meant when she -- a Senator! -- didn't?

And you'll notice each socially-liberal news source trumpeting that "abstinence programs don't work" -- or as Newsweek -- ever agenda-free -- put it: "Blind faith on sex-ed approach puts kids at risk'. But Newsweek is lying to it's audience as usual -- as a closer look reveals:

A new study suggests that abstinence-only sex-ed -- subsidized by the federal government to the tune of $176 million per annum -- has no effect on how likely teens are to have sex. Interestingly, it also has no effect on how likely teens are to use contraception when they do have sex; liberal critics have long posited that abstinence-only sex-ed would lead to more unprotected sex.

"Putting kids at risk", as Newsweek insists, implies kids would be less likely to use allegedly "life-saving" contraceptives. But (putting aside tiny questions of condom efficacy) the study found no impact at all. Funny how Newsweek (and so many others) can cite the "science" in one finding of the study -- while contradicting the other.

And I expect there's more dirt there than meets the eye here: I've dug into a number of these studies (see here and here for two I've bothered to debunk online), and found them to be some of the worst, most tendentious "science" around.

And, lastly, I thought this bit was funny (though slightly annoying), over at Powerline.

Update: A friend who now believes in concealed carry explains why:

I was between a shooter and an innocent victim, with the bullet passing less than two feet from my head. The day before I had just completed my first 40 mile bicycle ride, and I was on top of the world as I went to order my breakfast, but then, I watched a man take another mans life, jeoporadising many others, all over envy...

I remember some of my thoughts. I remember thinking I should see where the shooter fled. I'm not sure anymore if I actually looked or not. I also remember thinking that if I had had a gun, I could have apprehended or stopped him. I didn't. Instead I remember going behind the counter to see if I could help the victim. I knew right away I couldn't.

But what really annoys him is the press.

A lot of people are demanding to know how the university, the police, the government, etc. could "let this happen." In the old days, when people believed in God, they demanded the same question of Him during tragedy. But the reflex survives into their new religion, even though it makes no sense. Neither police nor government are actually omnipotent.

But, unlike Christians and Atheists who have struggled with this question regarding God, the secularist humanist faith appears unshakable. Unable to recognize limits on the power of these entities, failures must be the result of deliberate malfeasance or sloth. Hence they ask how these entities could "let" this happen.