[Ogrrre]

I posted on this very point over at NewsBusters. The first such shooting in a “gun-free zone” could possibly have been a “gimme”. But, once the owners of such gun-free zones saw what can happen, they should have taken those signs down. I hope that the survivors of such shootings start filing law suits, perhaps even class-action suits against shopping malls, banks, universities, schools, and such places that have taken away the right of self-defense from the people. If they post such a sign, they have assumed the duty to defend the people inside. If they are negligent in that duty, then they should be sued into bankruptcy. All those signs do is proclaim “Victims Here!”

[Luke Skyfreeper]

If they post such a sign, they have assumed the duty to defend the people inside. If they are negligent in that duty, then they should be sued into bankruptcy. All those signs do is proclaim “Victims Here!”

I just thought that bore repeating.

[Gondring]

hope that the survivors of such shootings start filing law suits, perhaps even class-action suits against shopping malls, banks, universities, schools, and such places that have taken away the right of self-defense from the people. If they post such a sign, they have assumed the duty to defend the people inside. If they are negligent in that duty, then they should be sued into bankruptcy. All those signs do is proclaim “Victims Here!”

That doesn't follow.

The mall is private property, and they have every right to make it a gun-free zone. I'm sure that if FReepers own stores, they wouldn't want the government coming in and telling them they had to paint their shelves pink, or play the Adhan, or allow foul language, etc.

Similarly, potential customers have every right to avoid the mall, and if they choose to enter, the Gun-Free Zone signs clearly let them know they are entering a place that isn't safe.