Rolled Out On: 12/11/2007 1:43 PM

Considering the legal strategy of police departments of claiming 'third party indemnification' in cases of lawsuits when the police didn't show up til later (or whatever), I'd expect Macy's to at least try the same.

Rolled Out On: 12/11/2007 2:15 PM

Yeah, but it would be good to try.

Rolled Out On: 12/11/2007 6:29 PM

I actually favor combining both methods of encouragement--the carrot (liability shield, if effective self-defense is not prohibited) and the stick (liability for damages caused by violent crime, if defenselessness is mandated).

Rolled Out On: 12/11/2007 8:06 PM

Over at Misha's place, a commenter makes the point that these private malls are forced into a no-guns policy by their liability insurers. I think losing a couple of massive lawsuits - in which the insurers are forced to cough up a billion or two bucks - might result in insurers demanding that malls remove gun-free zones wherever legally permitted in order to get insurance.

Rolled Out On: 12/12/2007 11:29 AM

WQ, that is most probably the reason the Westroads Mall signs prohibiting weapons have been removed before reopening. Now that the Mall has aided in the murders of 8 people, they want to avoid the consequences of such behavior. I am fairly certain we would win the bet if we bet the insurers and there lawyers were all for the sign removal at this stage.

Rolled Out On: 12/12/2007 11:46 AM

Remember that all insurance is is legalized gambling. The chances of you getting killed by a whacko gunman at a mall is still infinitesimal. For every massacre we hear about, millions of others go to and from the mall without incident. Why insurance companies assume that they won't cover a business because people might carry a firearm is beyond me. I CCW everywhere here in Florida and again, I'm not the problem. It's the people who don't follow the rules.

I still believe it's not the malls' responsibility if someone comes in with a gun and starts shooting. Now, if the mall requests that nobody brings in weapons and creates sitting ducks, then yes, they are responsible for taking away an option and not supplying the counterbalance.