I marked this story to comment upon but it got lost in the noise that is known as life.
From Jay
Reading the story, we find out that the choirboy that was killed was 32 years old. 32 and 45 and they double-team a 79 year old man after choking, pummeling and pepper-spraying him. What do you think that 79 year old's chances were without a handgun? What's the likelihood that he would have lived through the encounter without the gun? What are the odds that a near-octogenarian could fight off multiple attackers, one half his age, the other nearly a third?
Why should an octogenarian not be allowed to carry one of the most effective tools of self defense simply because he is in a city / park / college / post office? Why should anyone be denied the right to self defense simply because they are in some imaginary zone where the mere presence of a gun is all that's needed to cause mayhem?
Self defense is a human right. Some people are unable to defend against the stronger without tools. Restricting those tools (which only affects the law abiding) is like signing a death warrant for many.
Is that what you really want?
Why should anyone be denied the right to self defense simply because they are in some imaginary zone where the mere presence of a gun is all that's needed to cause mayhem?