The gun-free zone

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

Last edited Sat Feb 6, 2016, 02:03 PM - Edit history (1)

Placing your trust in a gun-free zone may not be the best decision. Not all gun-free zones have established security to enable the venue to monitor those entering for actually having a gun. If there are monitored points of entry, other unmonitored points may exist. The Aurora Theater was a gun-free zone but that insane asshole was still able to get in with plenty of guns and ammo and kill people.

As far as I'm aware privately owned venues may declare themselves to be gun-free zones perhaps invoking some state government option to do so but often have little or no accountability for any consequences of what the public might infer from their decision. I have observed that places like court houses, government facilities and some schools have controlled points of access and metal detectors in place along with security and remote monitoring.

[font color="red"]Could a "gun-free" sign mean more if some standardized measures were required?[/font]

Here's my question: Should venues designating themselves to be "gun-free" have to meet certain legal standards before indicating that status?

If yes, what are some requirements you think should be included?

8 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited
	Yes
	8 (100%)
	No
	0 (0%)
	0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[Travis_0004]

1. I voted no

I am very pro gun, but I believe in private property rights. Somebody should have the right to establish a gun free zone. If you feel they don't take adequate measures to protect you, then don't go there.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

2. Thanks

I was thinking more along the lines of places considered a public venue. For example theaters with over 100 seats, indoor shopping malls with numerous stores and restaurants perhaps should be held to a standard. On the other hand if you simply want to post a "No guns allowed" sign, I'm fine with that and you don't have to meet any requirements.

[sarisataka]

3. I voted no for the same reasons

I believe property owners may prohibit any items they wish. I could envision, however, a scenario where a property owner may become liable for an adverse event directly related to a prohibition.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

4. As I said above...

...I have no problem with property owners of mostly any size property posting a "No Guns" request/statement/demand. I feel the public may be due a bit of diligence before you post a sign establishing your venue, be it a corner bar or Giants Stadium, as "Gun-Free".

I work as a Systems Engineer in some industries that have extensive government regulation. Before certain products are acceptable, the manufacturer/developer has to exercise a bit of auditable diligence to validate conformance to standards and verify critical functionality. Safety organizations like UL and CSA have standards and performance requirements for various products. I'm thinking that the actual Gun-Free signs should mean something to those just and honest folks that patronize a store, business or venue. They should at least mean more than the owner had $10 to buy a sign.

I feel any owner can make the rules for their property. "No shirt, no shoes, no service", I'm good with that. "No guns allowed", fine with that, too. You have to tell people what you need. On the other hand the sign "Gun Free Zone" looks to me to more of an indication of the owner/management taking a role in assuring a certain type of security and more of characterization than a request to the patron, employee or visitor.

Just another example: yellow and black sign on the road the reads CAUTION 35 MPH means we the government request you not exceed this speed; a black and white sign that reads SPEED LIMIT 35 MPH means go 40 here and we'll fine your ass if we catch you.

[beevul]

6. I also believe in property rights, however...

The subject here isn't simple private property, like your house.

Its private property where business is done. Like the responsibility to provide clean air and water, businesses open to the public have other responsibilities toward their clients. If they demand that clients be unarmed, they then take on the responsibility of ensuring the safety that they've prevented individuals from taking steps to ensure for themselves.

Nobody forces any business to be "gun free". Its a choice. If any business chooses to be, fine, but making the choice means more than just claiming to. Making the choice means taking prudent reasonable steps, beyond simply putting up a sign. I view it as no different than a gluten free label on foods. Businesses making claims are burdened with making a reasonable effort to ensure that those claims are true, and they should be. I see no reason why "gun free" should be allowed to skate.

[gejohnston]

7. same here however,

I draw the line at sports stadiums that are socialize the cost and privatize the profits.
Hummm I wonder if the drug test welfare people craze would extend to professional team owners.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

5. kicking for a revision n/t

[Eleanors38]

8. Voted "Yes." In Texas, a biz must formally post a sign/notice...

barring concealed weapons (30.06) and/or openly-carried weapons (30.07). I have no problem with either, and they inform the public of the space's status. Personally, I hope few businesses would post a concealed-carry ban as this would force citizens with weapons to remove and store a weapon in a car, then holster up again, repeatedly. Such transfers may cause an increase both the chance of accidental discharge, and theft. I also believe there is a risk that CelebroPunks© may select a space which totally bans weapons because of the ease of inflicting mass casualties; no one ever accused these dips of illiteracy or of having substantial contempt for people who seem to invite mayhem.