People in charge of them should be made personally liable.
Makes sense to me. If you’re going to deprive someone of their right to self defense, it should be your responsibility to make it actually safe, not just put up a sign.
6 thoughts on ““Gun-Free” Zones”
Comments are closed.
But think of the lost opportunities for virtue signalling! Declaring your establishment a gun free zone is nothing about security. It’s all about virtue signalling. Making them liable would deprive them of the opportunity to feel good about their moral superiority.
Gun haters could even just have everyone that enters sign a waiver. This is only about the default rights.
Why should anyone be protected from a lawsuit based on denying others the right of self defense? Perhaps the lawsuits wouldn’t prevail very often, and so would be cheap to insure against – but giving the owners zero liability for their actions seems insane.
Just about every federal office building or other facility (including military!) prohibits bringing in not only guns, but anything that even resembles a weapon of any kind. And then they make everyone take an annual training course on what to do in the event of an active shooter in their building.
The mantra is “run, hide, fight.” Run away if you can, hide if you can’t run, and if the shooter finds you, fight. In the latter case, they encourage people to improvise a weapon.
Now, picture yourself in an active shooter situation. You’re scared out of your mind. But the people who have forbidden you to have anything that even resembles a weapon in your office have told you “don’t worry, just improvise something.”
After a mass shooting at an Oregon college, then presidential hopeful Ben Carson said: “Not only would I probably not cooperate with him, I would not just stand there and let him shoot me. I would say, ‘Hey guys, everybody attack him. He may shoot me, but he can’t get us all.”
The Guardian story on this was typical. “Anti-gun groups reacted with outrage and disbelief on Wednesday to comments made by Republican presidential candidate Ben Carson about the gun massacre last week at an Oregon college.”
Well guess what, people. Mr. Carson’s proposed approach is the official U.S. government recommendation as well. It isn’t a good one, but it’s all the government leaves its employees (after having reduced the odds of it working by excluding anything that even resembles a weapon from the office).
Hell yes, the government has to be made liable for mass shootings on its premises. And I applaud State Rep. Eisen for introducing this bill.
To be fair, many federal buildings with these rules have metal detectors and actual armed security. Now, in some places I’d still be concerned about the parking lot, since “security ” outside is probably cameras so if you’re killed in the parking lot they can maybe identify the killer. Most “gun free zones ” are a sign and a threat to use-harsh language I guess-if someone violates it.
I went through active shooter training on a military base last month. The instructor was very good. He said they’re no longer teaching the hide part of “run, hide, fight” because it’s stupid and doesn’t work. He cited the case of a mass shooting at a church where people tried to hide under the pews. The shooter simply walked around the room and killed over 20 people. Run, but not blindly. Look and listen before turning a corner. If you see other people running, do try to keep up. As for fighting, think in advance how to barricade your door and fight as dirty as it takes. Fight as if you life depends on it, because it does. Throw stuff at the shooter, charge him, and hit him with whatever is handy. Keep hitting him until he stops moving, then hit him some more just to be sure. If it comes to it, go out like Fabrizio Quattrocchi.
Or, just pull out your concealed Smith & Wesson M&P Shield and blow the mofo’s brains out. Then you and the rest of the potential victims win. Period.