OK, the horse still has a pulse because there's obviously something I need to clarify, or perhaps re-emphasize. My post #3 was not a response to your post #2 - notice you were not quoted in it. It was a reply to the thread in an effort to better state the point in the OP that I assumed the turd journalist was trying to make: gun-free zones don't accomplish their intended purpose. I supported that assertion with the article about the gun-toting psychiatrist and later followed that up with another post and article from USA Today written by a PhD from UT which linked to a study on the same subject done by two other PhDs. I thought the "gun-free zones" topic was worth discussing; turd journalism - not so much.
If your assumption is wrong, and the point Target and other businesses are trying to make with their 'gun free zones' is that they don't want to have their business disrupted by groups of people intent on making their own [idealogical] point, then I'd say the gun free zones work. The blatant disregard of a polite request would backfire even worse than the past attempts have.
As a deterrent to crime, of course the criminals will ignore the rules, but it's my opinion that a whole lot of 2nd Amendment supporters would, too. We've seen how they freak right the heLL out over the slightest attempts to even discuss gun safety laws.