On The Docility Of The Herd
By Mitch Berg
Glen Reynolds on the Omaha massacre:
it’s worth noting — since apparently most of the media reports haven’t — that this was another mass shooting in a “gun-free” zone. It seems to me that we’ve reached the point at which a facility that bans firearms, making its patrons unable to defend themselves, should be subject to lawsuit for its failure to protect them. The pattern of mass shootings in “gun free” zones is well-established at this point, and I don’t see why places that take the affirmative step of forcing their law-abiding patrons to go unarmed should get off scot-free.
If any lawyer wants to file that case, I’ll send money. Promise.
There’s even an academic literature on mass shootings and concealed-gun carriage.
Worth, as always, a read.
Assuming it’s “facts” that you’re after.
December 7th, 2007 at 12:57 pm
The way I see it, posting a no-guns sign:
1: Says that you, the carry permit holder, may not bring your gun into the premises.
2: Says that they are promising to you that there aren’t any guns present.
So from my point of view, the critical question is what measures did they take to ensure this is the case.
Did they have metal detectors? Pat down searches? Random checks of backpacks and purses?
What measures did they have in place to ensure that this was, in fact, a gun-free zone?
Did I hear you say “none”?
Sounds like negligence to me.
December 7th, 2007 at 4:10 pm
One of the clauses in the original MN Personal Protection Act was that those places that outlawed firearms on/in their facilities could be held liable for any deaths from such a shooting. It was one of the things that was left out to win over enough senators to pass the law.
December 7th, 2007 at 6:10 pm
Ditto. For Heaven’s sake, when will they understand?