SPOT ON!
Banning guns in a public accommodation or a place of business should be prima fascia evidence of a tort. If anyone is harmed by a violent act in a place that bans guns the only question in court should be how much to pay the injured.
Banning guns is the moral equivalent of chaining a fire exit closed.
“Banning guns is the moral equivalent of chaining a fire exit closed.”
I’m stealing that. Thanks.
L
I don’t know if you’re correct about the tort implications here. If a place of public accommodation is openly declared to be a “gun-free zone,” the any liability on the part of the person or persons responsible for that policy would be heavily offset by the failure of any aggrieved parties to reduce their own risk. In other words, a person who conducts business in such an establishment knows full well what the risks are, and shouldn’t complain when something like this happens.
...or banning the use of seat belts in automobiles.