Self Control or Gun Control?

First of all, I'm licensed by the state of Michigan to carry a concealed weapon. I've trained extensively, I've taken the required class, I've studied and I certainly feel I'm qualified to carry a firearm, which is a right guaranteed by the second amendment to the U.S. Constitution—training, classes or studies be damned—to be ready to defend myself, my loved ones, and others in need of protection from the garbage among us that would do us harm.

Now, zoom back to Friday, July 20th, just after midnight in a Cinemark theater in Aurora, Colorado. That establishment forbade citizens like myself from carrying their weapons inside the theater, just as most theaters do here in Michigan. At least one patron of the theater that night has come forward to report he is licensed to carry a concealed firearm in Colorado, but was not carrying due to the establishment's rules. Friends, please help me to understand what good that company policy did? What good is it presumed to do in any self defense situation?

The city of Chicago has some of the most stringent gun-forbidding laws in the nation, yet every single night gun violence occurs throughout that city (just read the Chicago Tribune as I do). Does it really, really make sense to forbid law-abiding citizens their Constitution-given right to arm and protect themselves? I think not.

The old saying seems trite, but think about it:  An armed society is a polite society.

Here's my own belief:  So-called Gun-Free Zones are a farce; they exist to make politicians and those who fear firearms feel better about having to tolerate gun freedoms granted us by the Constitution.

Here's what one of my favorite gun proponents had to say about the situation:
========================================================

Massad Ayoob

---

ON GUN-FREE ZONES Posted: 22 Jul 2012 11:36 PM PDT Our last entry here touched on “gun-free zones,” and whether the theater where the latest mass-murder atrocity took place guaranteed its premises to be a safe hunting preserve for the mad dog killer who wrought horror there. In blog commentary, I was asked if I could provide a link to confirm that the establishment where it happened, and its parent chain Cinemark, forbade law-abiding armed citizens to legally carry firearms there. Try these: http://johnrlott.blogspot.com/2012/07/no-guns-policy-at-cinemark-theaters.html http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2012/07/robert-farago/cinemark-theaters-no-legal-firearms-allowed/ http://www.defensivecarry.com/forum/open-carry-issues-discussions/89005-asked-leave-cinemark-theater.html http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/showthread.php?46023-Cinemark-Theaters Debate over whether a court would determine that the “guns forbidden” policy carried power of law seems moot: we’re talking practical reality here. Most of us go by the common sense precept, “Do not go where you are not wanted.” Armed citizens who could have stopped the killer were clearly notified by the company policy that “they were not welcome there.” When you make potential rescuers unwelcome, do not blame those potential rescuers for not being there when the disaster happens, and the death toll mounts because what could have stopped the killing has been banned from your establishment.