Reynolds: [1]
I HEARD NEAL BOORTZ holding forth on the Omaha mall shooting this morning on the way to work, and I realized I haven’t posted on it. I don’t really have anything to say that I haven’t said before. [2] But it’s worth noting — since apparently most of the media reports haven’t — that this was another mass shooting in a “gun-free” zone. [3]
True, Boortz has commented at lengt [4]h on this, wondering online yesterday:
I’m wondering today if the Westroads Mall had a policy of prohibiting people with carry permits from carrying their weapons into the mall, or if there was something in Nebraska’s laws that prohibited same. We’ll try to find out today.
[5]Neal also brings up the idea that this Robert Hawkins individual had just been fired from McDonald’s. I wasn’t even aware it was possible for somebody to be fired from McDonald’s. You certainly wouldn’t know it by the quality of the individuals you meet at the counter every day. Don’t misunderstand; as you can probably tell by my outstanding physique, I do intend to enjoy McDonald’s. But let’s face it, we’re not exactly talking the upper end of Jobdom, here.
Glenn, however, makes an interesting point, and it’s one I hope finds some traction;
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.
I wouldn’t be the least bit surprised if the lawsuits coming out of this incident didn’t include Reynolds point as an argument. Certainly such a lawsuit even existing would tend to take the wind out of the sails of the antigun people.
I’m sure memeorandum will be full of discussion on this today.