Glenn Reynolds on the Omaha Mall shooting:

it’s worth noting — since apparently most of the media reports haven’t — that this was another mass shooting in a “gun-free” zone. 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.There’s even an academic literature on mass shootings and concealed-gun carriage.

Perhaps we need legislation. If it saves just one life, it’s worth it.

I keep wondering why so many of those who take this view of small arms are ready to start a war to defend precisely the opposite view of nuclear weapons. Surely atom bombs don’t kill people, right? People kill people. A nuclear-armed Persian Gulf is a polite Persian Gulf. After all, once they impose gun control on Iran, they’ll be here next.

Further on the issue of consistency, if Reynolds supports lawsuits against places that ban guns, owing to their effect on the availability of guns for OK Corral-style shootouts in the crowded aisles of suburban shopping malls (which he thinks are a good thing), shouldn’t he also support New-York-City-style lawsuits against gun manufacturers who flood the market with cheap weapons aimed at the criminal crowd, owing to their effect on the availability of guns for people who use them for crimes? After all, if the issue is that the availability of guns has an effect on the balance of power between criminals and other citizens, both sides of that equation are equally contributory, and presumably those who supply guns to the wrong side are at least as much at fault as those who prohibit them to the right side. If it saves just one life, it’s worth it.

I’m sure the Instapundit will be quick to adopt a consistent position on both these issues.

UPDATE: (fixed some formatting errors and typos)

As one commenter noted, Reynolds has responded on his blog. Sadly, all he has managed to do is undermine his own reputation for critical thinking ability.

(1) We don’t allow felons or the mentally ill to carry guns. Iran seems to fit in to this category.

I’ve already responded to a version of this claim in the comments, but I’m surprised to see it from Reynolds. It’s obvious nonsense. For one thing, nations aren’t subject to mental illness. For another, Iran’s leaders don’t seem to be in the least bit irrational, though certainly repressive. (And on the plus side, they’ve invaded fewer countries than George Bush, and likely killed fewer people.) But most important of all, the logic of his own argument has nothing to do with sanity or its lack. His argument against gun control is that it is not successful in preventing felons and the mentally ill from obtaining gus, and that is his reason for advocating wider availability of guns for all; that only serves to strengthen my point. He claims that wider distribution of guns will allow for more aggressive response in cases of violence (what’s better than one person shooting into a crowd in a shopping mall, if you’re Glenn Reynolds? - everyone in the crowd shooting at each other!); obviously that would also be the case regarding nuclear weapons, and so, if his argument makes any sense, he ought to advocate it in that scenario as well. I’m glad he (implicitly) agrees that it would be unthinkable to encourage unregulated distribution of nuclear weapons, but there is no distinction between the logic of my argument for doing so and the logic of his argument for doing the same thing with small arms. I’m glad he also (implicitly) agrees with the rest of the sane world regarding gun control, but it’s disappointing that he doesn’t realize that he agrees. I hope this helps.

(2) Suits against gun manufacturers are an attempt by government officials to circumvent the political process, using tort law to do what they can’t do via legislation because the voters oppose it. I don’t think that applies to my example at all.

How could it not apply? First, the reason for the lawsuits is irrelevant. If the case is actionable - and it certainly should be - the tortfeasors (i.e., irresponsible and murderous gun makers) ought to be held accountable. There’s no right to commit torts against the body politic and then be immune to answering for your actions merely because the civil penalty is brought in a court and not in an election. (The courts are one of the branches of governmental authority. They exist for a reason.) Second, civil authorities are well within their rights to use court actions to enforce public policy - they do it all the time. Distributing guns irresponsibly is as much a public health threat as distributing tainted food or leaded paint, and the government is right to do something about it. Finally, how are ideologically-motivated lawsuits (no doubt ginned up by the same bunch of paid political activists and subsidized plaintiffs as are behind the current Supreme Court gun-rights suit) against what Reynolds himself has noted, on his blog, are “places of public accomodation”, in order to force them to increase the number of guns used in every shooting incident, any less an attempt to create policy through the courts and not the ballot box than are lawsuits aimed at limiting the number of guns used in such incidents? It seems that, for Reynolds, “I don’t think that applies . . .” really means “I realize that refutes . . .”.