I would hate "Gun Free" zones less if...

[C-dub]

Went to a Stars game this week. They've gone from running everyone through metal detectors to randomly wanding people as they enter. I left mine in the car, but anyone could easily have gotten past that swiss cheese they call security. Why bother?

That's very strange. I wonder why the change?

[Drewthetexan]

Went to a Stars game this week. They've gone from running everyone through metal detectors to randomly wanding people as they enter. I left mine in the car, but anyone could easily have gotten past that swiss cheese they call security. Why bother?

That's very strange. I wonder why the change?

Dunno. I was very disappointed. If I can't legally carry I want them to enforce it for everyone. 100%.

[Liberty]

In response to those who scoff at those who only wish to carry while covered under the MPA
For many who work where they can't carry the automobile and and their home may be the the place where they are most exposed tp a defensible danger. The reason is that is where they spend the most time. While I carry most of the time, I recognize my exposure to risks are most likely in parking lots and exiting and climbing int my car, or in a potential home invasion.

[juggernaut]

Good point. If you can't carry at work, and you can't carry in the bar, and can't carry at the post office, and can't carry inside school if you take night classes at college, and can't carry at a sports game.

And because you can't check your gun at the door, you can't carry in the parking lot walking bewteen your car and those places.

Maybe MPA is enough. Save $140 + class time and money.

[txbirddog]

The entire concept of "no-carry zones" is beyond me. Trying to look at it as objectively as possible, I can understand the arguments against courtrooms, airplanes, and a very limited number of places, but not places like schools, bars, sporting events. We all know that there already ARE people carrying unlicensed weapons in schools and bars and sporting events, so why does it make things safer, to disarm the people who have undergone the trouble, expense and background checks to get legally licensed? Of course those folks are going to give up their weapons, they obey the law! I know I am preaching to the choir, but I just don't understand the logic here. Asking the law abiding citizens to voluntarily give up their weapons when going in these places, but doing nothing to ensure security is outrageous. Seems like the majority of mass shootings of late have been at schools, and I don't remember any of the shooters having CHLs. Conversely, if the schools were not so "safe" that no one can arm themselves, those shootings would likely have not been nearly as deadly. It really offends me.

Just to make sheep feel good. Do they REALLY think that a sign or law will keep a gang banger at bay???