Gun Free Zone: Liability?

[KAPA]

So when I go to Sprouts or school or the Pepsi Center and someone shoots the place up killing or harming me can I or my family sue the owners of said establishment for not providing security while stripping me of the ability to provide my own?

Obviously some places just have a sign up such as Sprouts and most schools while other schools and the Pepsi Center have walk through metal detectors. Legally aren't they taking on the duty of keeping me safe while I am on their premises? Kind of the same thought process of a guest at my house slipping on ice out front that I failed to remove. I know people have successfully sued and won for the ice thing. I also know there were some lawsuits for this exact thing against the theater in Aurora but I believe they are yet to be decided. Any thoughts?

[Irving]

Not unless you live in a fantasy world where everyone is safe and you have zero obligation to take care of yourself. Your ice example is not congruous as the ice is a known condition that can reasonably be prevented against. A successful lawsuit of what you are talking about could change things in a manner which you would not want things to change.

[Skip]

They are creating an expectation of safety, but in reality, creating a safety vacuum by denying a natural right. There is an argument that you voluntarily give up that natural right by being there, through contract or purchase.

I think some of this is playing out in court on the Aurora mass-murder, right?

The ice example doesn't quite fit. You are forced to assume a duty to clear the walks in front of your home--that doesn't involve you taking the ability of others to clear the ice for themselves. These establishments are voluntarily assuming a duty to protect you (because they have disarmed you
and deprived you the opportunity to protect yourself).

We all know why they do it. Their lawyers tell them "No Guns" = safety because the sheeple currently believe that myth. If they ever go to court they can misrepresent that they tried to create safety by banning guns. If public opinion changes, and acknowledges gun free zone actually decrease safety, I think a lot of these policies would change.

[spqrzilla]

Its very difficult to sue a party for the independent tortious acts of a third party. The few times its successful, is because of specific knowledge of the likelihood of the third party acts.