Tuesday, December 11, 2007

Liability for owners of "gun free" zones?

The Wife and were debating this very point the other night in the wake of the shootings in Omaha. I guess we were ahead of the curve.

Instapundit makes a great point:
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.


The wife came down against imposing this sort of liability but I have to ask: Is it any crazier than suing McDonald's for making you fat?

1 comment:

admiral burns said...

What if you pull your gun to shoot the shooter, then someone else sees you with your gun thinking that you are the shooter and they pull their gun to shoot you, but before they can , someone else sees them and pulls their gun and shoots them and then you shoot that person thinking they are with the shooter and pretty soon, the shooter gets away and the cops don't know who the original shooter was. It is kind of like the donut shop robery scene in Boogie Nights.