TexasCHLforum.com

Good article. If we had zero gun free zones we may soon run out of victims to parade about for reducing whatever Liberties we have left.

Out of seven theaters showing the “Batman” movie premiere within 20 minutes of the suspect’s apartment, only one banned permitted concealed handguns – and that is the one he attacked.

In light of this and In my opinion, the theater's no-gun policy should be considered a contributing factor and they should be held partially liable.

Perhaps a few lawsuits of this type will teach properties owners and their insurers that there is also liability risk in banning concealed carriers.

rp_photo wrote:

Out of seven theaters showing the “Batman” movie premiere within 20 minutes of the suspect’s apartment, only one banned permitted concealed handguns – and that is the one he attacked.

In light of this and In my opinion, the theater's no-gun policy should be considered a contributing factor and they should be held partially liable.

Perhaps a few lawsuits of this type will teach properties owners and their insurers that there is also liability risk in banning concealed carriers.

I agree. The right to Property should be left entirely to the Property Owner without intrusion from any entity or State. If a Property Owner removes the right to exist from his patrons he should take reasonable measures to ensure the safety of those patrons. I would put this in the same category as a cruise ship leaving a port loaded with people with a known hole in it and a bilge pumping the water out full throttle. That cruise ship owner would be liable and held accountable when the ship sinks. The "societal illusion of perceived safety" in these United States would probably never find that the theatre owner violated any ones rights since they posted a sign saying "no guns allowed". Many people call this no gun sign "reasonable measures to ensure safety" when it's the complete opposite. The media and State have done a very good job of brainwashing our Society into an automatic reaction of fear when seeing a firearm.

I will continue avoiding gun free killing zones...

Rbw, I agree with the principle that gun free zones make for soft targets. However, this statement is way over the top to the point of nullifying the credibility of the rest of your comment that may be valid with the exception of your cruise ship analogy.

If a Property Owner removes the right to exist from his patrons

Also, define what are "reasonable measures". I'm sure what you think is reasonable others will think they are unreasonable.

You're probably right there. Reasonable measures to many would be the no gun signs because evil people do not exist. If I'm going to be disarmed I think reasonable measures to me would be some highly trained armed security guards hanging around but since I have freedom to choose I choose not to go to places that disarm me. That's the kicker, freedom to choose. A theatre that locked a fire exit during a fire that killed or injured someone would definitely be responsible for that environment. If I opened my ranch for "free teenage dirt bike racing" and someone wrapped himself around a barb wire fence or a tree I would likely lose my farm. Even if I didn't I would consider myself 100% responsible since it's my property, I ushered in the activity, and I alone created the environment. Would I be more responsible if I charged a fee and made a profit? Wouldn't matter at all since I would take responsibility for it either way. My actions. My Property.

I believe when Society figures out that evil does in fact exist, and it is not an inanimate object called a firearm, things may change but today we can choose which environments we are responsible for and if the word "firearm" is involved it will likely lose the argument most of the time.

I think I was born 240 years too late.