Glenn Reynolds comments on the Omaha mall shooting:
It’s worth noting — since apparently most of the media reports haven’t — that this was another mass shooting in a “gun-free” zone. 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.
Reynolds links to an article that calls attention to the preference for gun-free zones among the crazies who commit these horrible crimes. Like a fox drawn to a henhouse, the perps know that gun-free zones are their best chance for maximum body count.
Despite the lack of news coverage, people are beginning to notice what research has shown for years: Multiple-victim public shootings keep occurring in places where guns already are banned. Forty states have broad right-to-carry laws, but even within these states it is the “gun-free zones,” not other public places, where the attacks happen.
I think he’s right. No one is calling for a return to the days of the Old West, where every insult was resolved in a hail of bullets (if, indeed, that stereotype ever really existed). But allowing responsible, well-trained citizens to carry firearms for their own protection is surely better than forcing them to face the world as defenseless sheep.