- Joined
- May 22, 2012
- Messages
- 104,396
- Reaction score
- 67,587
- Location
- Uhland, Texas
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
I'd say that would fall into the criminal negligence category. If I have a gun free zone and I don't bother to provide any security when there are known threats then sure.. the governing body is at least partially responsible. (I'd not make it 100% as the actual shooter/rapist/robber still bears a good bit of the blame).
But once we acknowledge that the government must be allowed to regulate arms; we have to start thinking about how much they should be allowed to regulate and who gets to make the final determination as to what's the right amount and what's too much. Honest people are going to have honest disagreements about what that is. eg.. can the permitting authority mandate that you have to take an instructional class before you can conceal carry? Does a blind person have a right to conceal carry a handgun? But someone is going to have to make that determination. I'd rather that be a few of my neighbors rather than 5 people I've never met on a bench in DC.
The gov't then has 100% of the blame for those required to be unarmed becoming easier crime victims. If armed self defense is altered from a right to a crime in that zone then it is 100% due to the gov't (or whoever defined the zone) that you are not able to be armed. This is what is always ignored by the 2A "reasonable restriction" folks. Once you define a "gun free zone" then only the law abiding are unarmed within it.