Tragedy compounding tragedy
John Lott hits it out of the park:
A Google news search using the phrase “Omaha Mall Shooting” finds an incredible 2,794 news stories worldwide for the last day. From India and Taiwan to Britain and Austria, there are probably few people in the world who haven’t heard about this tragedy.
But despite the massive news coverage, none of the media coverage, at least by 10 a.m. Thursday, mentioned this central fact: Yet another attack occurred in a gun-free zone.
In many states, compromises were made to get concealed carry laws through. One that should have never been made was to allow property holders to ban concealed weapons from their property. You can go on with academic arguments about property rights all day, but I deal with reality. Owners of places like malls have lawyers whose job is to “keep them out of trouble”. These lawyers will always suggest posting “No weapons signs”, because A) they think it will protect them from lawsuits and B) it’s a feel-good measure that costs next to nothing.
It’s about time that someone explores the legal theory that if you prohibit me from protecting myself, then you assume the responsibility for my protection, and if you fail, I can sue the crap out of you, and make it cost a very significant amount.
“Gun free zones” my ass. “Safety free zones” is more like it.