Liability in gun free zones

sha-ul said:

The fact of the matter is that gun free zones are an attractive nuisance, If you remember the study by Dr John R Lott, every mass shooting since 1963 has occurred in a gun free zone, with the lone exception of Gabby Giffords on a supermarket sidewalk.
Furthermore,there are many, many companies that provide no security for their employees& will gladly write a life insurance check to the widow rather than risk a lawsuit should the employee defend themselves. I am not inventing a problem, I am simply no longer in denial over the issue.
The liability issue is centered around giving people a fighting chance if the venue is not willing to provide real security. Under law, at least in my state, I am granted limited immunity from lawsuit if I am in a defensive situation, and it is ruled a good shoot. If I were found to be in the wrong, I bear the criminal& legal liability already.

Click to expand...

John lots information is not correct. There have been many mass shootings taking place in areas where firearms are not restricted. The cafe racer shooting in Seattle, anyone could legally carry a gun there. Same with the Capitol hill massacre in Seattle. A fight in Kirkwood Missouri a gunman killed an armed police officer to enter city hall and kill 5 more people, A man named Louis Hastings killed six people in a rural Alaskan town (Alaska has the most lenient gun laws in the nation.. Well maybe after Vermont) Geneva county Alabama 10 people were killed by a spree killer moving across Alabama, none of the sites had a gun free zone policy. Stop using that invented concept of all shootings happen at gun free zones, a simple google search of American spree killings will show that is not even remotely true.

My idea, if a business doesn't want patrons armed then they don't want my money, that's how I handle it, making more laws won't solve anything. Get the government out of people's affairs.