Comments on: If They Won’t Protect Us, Sue Them Until They Let Us Protect Ourselves

By: Tragedy in Colorado Could Have Been Worse, If Not For an Armed Guard. : The Sundries Shack

Mon, 10 Dec 2007 05:20:28 +0000

[...] In stark contrast to the killings in Omaha is today’s tragic story from Colorado. A gunman entered a church and started shooting. He was killed by a member of the church’s security staff who was armed. Her actions saved a great many lives, without a doubt. [...]

By: Stan

Stan — Sat, 08 Dec 2007 20:05:46 +0000

I told you I had no problem with the theory, in fact let's assume it is entirely flawless if it will assist progress here. However if this were the case we should see practical results. Where are they?

Nowhere to be found apparently.

By: Jimmie

Jimmie — Fri, 07 Dec 2007 20:59:34 +0000

Hardly, Stan.

There are a couple variables for which you didn't account. First, why on Earth would someone go on a shooting spree in a place where they have a reason to believe that they could be shot before they actually begin the spree? That's one of the wonderful deterrent effects of allowing people to carry firearms, especially openly.

You assume that the same number of sprees would occur in places where it is openly advertised that those inside will be legally disarmed and those where it is widely known that they will not. Common sense says that would not be the case.

By: Stan

Stan — Fri, 07 Dec 2007 19:44:42 +0000

Jimmie, the theory is clear enough, but where is the evidence to support it?

Where are the shooting sprees (plural) in public places where the shooter's actions are stopped by armed, non-law-enforcement citizens?

There are a lot of shooting sprees to choose from. I would think that if this "common sense" theory translated into actual results in any way then you would be able to find this occurring in a statistically significant portion of cases where no laws prevented people carrying guns.

Either this has been the case or it has not. As far as I can tell it has not. Case dismissed?

By: Jimmie

Jimmie — Fri, 07 Dec 2007 09:43:17 +0000

Interesting, Pug, considering that this argument is exactly the opposite of the one government uses to ban smoking in workplaces. I'll ask of you the same question that anti-smoking folks ask of me: What about the people working there? Don't they have a right to the same protections?

The thing is, you take a measure of responsibility for the people in your business. That's why you have insurance. If someone slips and falls while you were cleaning the floor, chances are, you'll be paying for the injury unless (well, sometimes, even though) you have a big "Wet Floor" sign up.

If a business wants to disarm you before you can come inside, it needs to display an adequate warning that it's not going to take any real affirmative steps to protect you. At that point, you can make an informed choice.

Or, it could just go along with the Second Amendment.

By: Pug

Pug — Fri, 07 Dec 2007 09:07:52 +0000

As a free American you certainly have the right to stay away from businesses that don't allow you to carry your weapon if you feel they are unsafe, just as you are free to stay out of parts of town you believe to be unsafe. Those who enter a mall that is a "gun free zone" do so knowingly and willingly.

These businesses are self-regulating and have every right to ban guns, public drinking, smoking and anything else they deem undesirable. Take this to court, you lose.

By: Jimmie

Jimmie — Fri, 07 Dec 2007 08:52:26 +0000

I'd be presenting the common-sense case, Stan. Surely you can see that.

By: Stan

Stan — Fri, 07 Dec 2007 06:24:11 +0000

And what evidence would you be presenting at that civil case that this area being a "gun free zone" changed anything?

There's plenty of cases of shooting sprees to choose from. I assume they didn't all take place in "gun free zones". So?