We as a nation had two troubling shootings in the last few days. One in El Paso and one in Baltimore. Two different results and two different scenarios. Both with disastrous results. But one was addressed within a few minutes thanks to law enforcement and one too a lot more time with additional loss of life.
Why does anyone think that in a State like Texas no one was able to engage the shooter?
I am looking for brain storming here.
Because the property of the Walmart where this took place was owned by a mall with a legal “No Guns allowed” policy.
My guess is that anywhere else in Texas you’ll find Walmarts without such policies and plenty of good, armed folks within. Just like here in Michigan. These things always happen where people are disarmed.
I didn’t realize the people at the mall set the policy. I was just surprised there weren’t armed people in the Walmart.
I know people are starting to carry at church more now. I wonder if this will cause more people to conceal carry now?
That would be a very reasonable response. The other question is will it cause people to decrease the number of gun-free zones? Sooner or later that theme has to become visible as a common risk thread.
It would essentially be the property owners establishing that policy and telling anyone who wanted to set up business there that they have to follow that policy as well.
In Texas, providing the signs are within guidelines set by the law those signs carry weight. Here in Michigan it wouldn’t carry weight of law and all they could really do is ask people to leave and have them charged with trespassing if they don’t.
I’d agree with @Spence - “No Guns allowed” policy.
It reminds me Texas Tower Massacre in 1966 (opposite result), where armed citizens stopped the shooter from killing more people.
Gun Free Zones should be controlled with guns (Security, Police, etc)
We have a population of about 30 million in Texas with about 1.2 million active carry permits. It also appears as though the owners of the property had a “no gun policy” although there’s still some question as to whether the Walmart had legal 30.06-30.07 signage.
To have an effective response you would have to have people who are carrying and willing to step up on sight and able to respond in seconds to stop such a shooter before they get the casualty count into double digits.
The owners who want to have gun free zones should not only be required to provide armed security they should be held liable for the deaths and injuries of those killed and wounded in such shootings or even in a common armed robbery or personal dispute taking place on their property.
I will actually disagree with you on this one - not because I think it’s a bad idea. I think it will set a bad precedent. It’s making the owners of gun-free zones responsible for the actions of the shooter instead of putting the onus of the shooters’ actions squarely on the shooter.
That can then be extended to say that anyone with a CCW should have to step in and defend someone or be held financially liable for any damages.
IMO, anything that blames anyone/anything else but the shooter who pulled the trigger is a bad idea. There are people blaming guns for mass shootings, but it’s not the guns fault. It’s the fault of the shooter.
It’s not the fault of the owner of the gun-free zone, it’s the shooter’s fault. If I choose to go to a gun-free zone, it’s not anyone’s decision but my own. The only time I truly have no other choice is if I have to go to the courthouse for something and they have armed guards and metal detectors.
@Dawn, you are right here… however don’t you think that once “gun-free-zone” owner is responsible, he will make this zone “secure” hiring armed guards. Once the potential shooter knows about this he will think twice before entering this “gun-free-zone” with gun. He will know there are not unarmed people only.
The idea is to make crazy shooters think that there is no place they can freely shoot innocent people.
Honestly, I don’t think so @Jerzy. Either they don’t think it will happen to them or it’s too expensive to have security or it’s an added expense to have extra insurance because of the added “risk” of firearms in their location.
For small, mom & pop locations, it’s going to add extra cost and possibly drive them out of business.
For larger companies, they may factor in the risk and increase their prices.
It’s a risk either way for them - and if they’re comfortable with their insurance covering the remote possibility that there’s a shooter in their location they won’t change their policy.
I’m ok with making places like the post office, or city buildings, or legal monopolies, liable. If there is no other option for getting some things done… say drivers licenses, or primary school registration, or setting up service at the power company, and they force me to disarm without providing security, they have restricted my rights and put me in harm’s way without an option.
If it’s a store, I can make other choices, even if it inconveniences me. My job, then is to spend my money elsewhere and to let them know which they aren’t getting my business.
I understand the exasperation with “No Gun” signs. We all agree they restrict freedom for good citizens and are ignored by the bad guys. However, I think private property owners should have the freedom to allow or disallow. It’s America and we need to be able to control our own property. I simply dont go or shop in establishment that dont want me there. As to stepping in during one of these situations, I feel that depends on your personal level of training and knowledge. Run if you can, lock them out if you’re able, fight if you have to.
No, I’m holding the business owner responsible for their decision to disarm me taking away my most effective means of self defense.
They are free to make that choice but if they are going to relieve me of the ability to defend myself they should accept the responsibility of defending me and mine.
Doesn’t cost them a thing unless that choice to do so costs me/mine our lives or serious injury due to their decision.
Seems like a completely fair proposition to me.
If there’s a state in what that creates an added cost on their insurance policy the state insurance board or legislature can solve that with the stroke of a pen.
I don’t know of any state that would allow for insurance companies to charge higher rates for allowing carry and if they are that’s a civil rights lawsuit waiting to be filed.
I get your point but I don’t see it as an impediment.
I agree with @Dawn to a great degree but, in many places where there is a known higher risk to the public, there are generally common law claims for inadequate security. If a bar has a history of fights or is in a bad neighborhood they may require more bouncers or security. I’m not sure that “gun free zones” are not reaching the level where someone could have a viable claim if they do nothing to prevent the patrons of the facility.
What extra cost can be compared to people’s security?
All of us have own thoughts about it, and unfortunately I don’t see magic solution 
Either way always something gonna be compromised… money vs life… 
I see the points made in both sides, but I lean towards WildRose from a logical viewpoint.
The property owner has an absolute right to establish the rules applicable within the borders of his property. However, as we so often state right here, rights come with responsibilities and choices have consequences.
When an owner exercises his rights in such a way as to restrict my rights, does he not then assume the responsibility for that restriction? Remember that by being open for business in a notorious manner is a tacit invitation for me to enter his property. Does his choice, which negates my choice, not come with the consequence of standing in my stead?
His right to make this choice, which is a de facto abrogation of my right, cannot be made free of responsibility or consequence, just as my choice to exercise my right to carry arms comes with its own set of responsibilities and consequences.
Just thinking.
Regards.
Ammo can get you though times of no money better than money can get you through times of no ammo.
That policy may explain why the shooter drove 600 miles to that Wal-Mart.