We all know that “gun-free” zones serve as a dinner bell for whack-jobs, terrorists, and social misfits. Singer Christina Grimmie’s family has filed suit in recent days against the gun-free theater in Orlando where she was shot to death in June. The suit claims negligent security on the part of the venue. It raises a good point: If a property owner bans good guys with guns, then the property owner should be responsible for letting bad guys with guns get in.
Tragically, Miss Grimmie lost her life when a crazed man illegally entered the gun-free venue illegally carrying two firearms. He shot and killed her as she signed autographs following a concert.
ABC News reported the story.
“The owners of the facility in which she performed and the outside security company hired to provide security for the concert … failed to take adequate security measures to ensure the safety of the performers and the attendees at the concert venue,” the suit reads.
The security company is not named, but additional defendants include “ABC Corporation, John Doe and Jane Doe.”
Indeed the killer entered with two GLOCKs and a knife. The killer knew that “no guns” signage would keep law-abiding gun owners out. Nothing deterred him, however. He brazenly walked up to the 22-year-old singer and shot her dead. When tackled by her brother to end his rampage, the killer suck-started his pistol.
Ironically, the suit demands use of more of the same failed security that got the singer killed. According to the ABC report, the suit claims security provided “superficial bag checks with no body pat downs. …We are hopeful that our lawsuit will bring widespread attention to the issue of concert security and safety and more effective safeguards will be implemented to protect performers and attendees at concerts around the U.S. in the future.”
Somehow I suspect the family envisions TSA-style screening at venues with no regard for allowing law-abiding concert-goers to arm themselves. TSA-style screening, though, would likely guarantee a lot of Americans will simply decline to participate.
Good guys with guns stop bad guys with evil in their hearts. In short, “gun-free” zones create victims, not safety.
Tragic loss for the family. I hate to wave the bloody t shirt, but glad to see someone going after the right people…
They’re not going after the right people. The right people is dead. They’re going after the big pockets.
What was the concert venue supposed to do? Strip search everyone going in? Okay, that would work but no one would go in. Allow anyone to carry? Wouldn’t have done anything here. Aside from providing personal bodyguards (which should be her responsibility) there was nothing they could have done here.
One could argue that the family of the nut who killed her probably ignored his deranged obsession as well…
Given the fact that the whacko just walked up and capped her, I rather suspect that even private security would not have been able to react in time to have stopped the assault.
Yup, nothing short of the full body pat down’s metal detectors and clear bags they use at football games would have made a dent.
This guy was willing to die to kill christina Grimmie, and that’s real tough to stop.
As someone who has work as a security officer in the past and was a five-and-a-half year that with the 82nd Airborne in Iraq and then later again in Afghanistan I would have to say your kind of right but kind of wrong as well. If you have a competent security team that is armed and in communication with one another you have people scanning the crowd looking into the people’s eyes eyes will tell you everything following their hands and arms hands kill watch where they’re going keep your head on a freaking swivel. You can place security officer next to her at the table where she signing autographs so that if anything starts to go down he can place his body on top of hers until the threat is secured or neutralized. You have to have your men working the front of the crowd the rear of the crowd and at every elevated position possible this type of security though is very expensive. And I think that’s what it really comes down to the money these companies want to put out for security is a joke. Most of the time you get unarmed large fellows that don’t have any professional training wearing a fluorescent security t-shirt and that’s what they call security oh I almost forgot one or two Off Duty Officers in uniform if you’re lucky. You have to consider the risk and the threats that are out there today along with the mentally ill to complete your security profile. You never can be too safe. And yes of course I agree no gun zones are a friggin joke.
Actually the defendants are the right target of the civil action. They had a “Duty to Protect” which they failed to adequately do after acknowledging the potential for violence. The posting of the “Gun Free Zone”, the hiring of private security and the screening of visitors confirmed the acknowledgement. That the security was inadequate is the fault of those hosting the event. The victim could have also secured security, but was under no obligation. The plaintiffs will prevail in this action either in court or with a settlement.
In fairness, if this wack job simply wanted to kill Grimmie and die, it’s unlikely that an armed citizen would have stopped him, even if venue policy allowed such.
Furthermore, I can think of no place on earth I would less desire to get into a gunfight than a concert venue that is literally shoulder to shoulder with bodies. A single bullet could kill or injure multiple people, and every single round would hit a human.
If you’ve ever been to a concert like this you know how absolutely futile a handgun would be at stopping any sort of serious attack. You probably wouldn’t even see the attackers before a wall of stampeding screaming people crushed you to death.
Amen. The only thing that I can think of that might have some small chance of being useful in such a dreadful situation is a Taser (and I am familiar with all its imperfections and risks).
This is why professionals think of tactics and strategy and everyone else thinks of guns and gear.
The answer to your assertion is to always stay at the edge of the crowd, preferably near an exit. Michael Bane addresses this in his “Best Defense” series and on his podcast “Downrange Radio”.
I’ve done concert security. I’ve used physical force such as tackling and control holds, but I’ve never had to shoot anyone at a concert. I agree that it would be a nightmare in close quarters.
Also, my duty rig is pretty good for retention, but not for a lightning fast draw. I can throw a control hold faster than a draw. This would be tough to stop, even while armed.
Various security forces train to protect dignitaries by either firing handgun rounds upward into the ocular / cranial cavity to reduce collateral damage, and / or to step in with control holds.
We discussed this sort of situation in one class I took. The only chance is if you’re right next to the shooter; the only possible response at that point is to drop onto your back and shoot upward through the bad guy.
(One gal suggested an aiming point that is probably too low to be quite safe, though likely VERY effective at stopping the threat.)
Will the “TSA style” security extend to the freight/backstage entrances? If not then it is a gaping flaw and proves that it is all just security theater. It also moves more danger and criminal activity to the surrounding areas where disarmed people have left their guns in cars. I say hold the venue responsible for failing to provide for the security responsibility they assumed by disarming their vict.. I mean, patrons.
I sympathize with the family but their demands are counterproductive. Also, their suit won’t go anywhere. (Their lawyer should know better.) Remember the people who sued the Aurora, Colorado theater that James Holmes shot up? Not only did they fail to win but, until the theater relented, it looked like they would have to reimburse the theater for its legal expenses.
My thoughts precisely. In my view, no duty was owed to provide for her personal security, or for anyone else at the venue for that matter.
Rampage killers do tend to seek out “gun-free” places, but I highly doubt that the “gun-free” status of this venue was considered at all by this psycho. He was an obsessed fan, and he had a chance at access to Grimmie when she performed at a concert near where he lived. He wasn’t trying to rack up a body count of unarmed victims, he was focused on ambushing specific person, so gun-free zone or not, he very likely would have carried out this attack either way.
I agree with several of the commenters here. Even if she or her brother were carrying a firearm themselves, it would not have stopped her murder as it was likely an ambush style attack. However, if the man shot her, then continued shooting other autograph seekers, a law abiding gun owner would have had a fighting chance to stop more people from injury/death.
I understand performers not wanting the people in the crowd to have guns. With their SA turned down/off as they focus on their performance, and the vast amounts of people right in front of them, they would have no chance if someone in the first few rows started firing – even if they had a gun themselves. They would be lucky to even know who fired. That said, venues such as that need to beef up screening measures if they are going to ban guns. Something less invasive than TSA screening. I went to a concert in Vegas last year and we were herded through some sort of metal detectors or something, but I didn’t have to remove my belt, etc. It really wasn’t that invasive or slow. I really disliked being disarmed, but I understood from the performer’s perspective.
You are missing the point, bad guys don’t obey the law so if you allow carry in concerts you really don’t have to worry about anyone in the audience shooting the performers. Bad guys are going to be bad guys no matter what the law says and good guys are going to obey the law that’s just how it works!
I would be willing to let security give me a full body pat down at a concert, but first I’d like some small talk and maybe they can buy me a martini.
I worked security…. unarmed at a certain stadium. For me, a subcontracted employee for a concert, I had to be wanded and checked through the inhouse security. I completely forgot to remove my knife and stick it in my car before being bussed from the parking lot. I was paranoid…. the supposed professional wanded just my head…. got in fine. Then when I wanded people all that resulted was a pile of tiny key chain pocket knives left in the bushes….
Again, worked security for a fairly important event. Normally I did carry my knife, but technically we were not supposed to. Well this event had a presidential candidate, major politicians, etc… and the knife clip was viewable and nada I could have carried a gun no problem.
Again, I worked for the Oscars, security, and well the holes I can tell you in their security…..
I’ve had my pocket P238 beep when wanded and they just waved me in… Some “security”…
“We all know that “gun-free” zones serve as a dinner bell for whack-jobs, terrorists, and social misfits.”
I don’t know this. In fact I think the statement has a lot of assumptions built into it. This is one of those lines that’s like the phrases the Left likes to use: catnip for people who already agree but pretty light on substance to back up the claim.
People said this about James Holmes. I lived a block and a half from the guy and my roommate worked with him. That asshole shot friends of mine. The arguments that he picked the venue due to a no firearms policy ring completely hollow for me.
I don’t think he knew or cared about the firearms policy. He picked the biggest venue nearby that was showing the movie he wanted. Period. People who have advanced other arguments lack a basic knowledge of the area that shooting took place in.
A singular example: He didn’t target theaters closer to him.
Well no, he didn’t because the closest theater to his former home only plays movies in Spanish, wasn’t showing The Dark Knight movie he wanted to attack and has small theaters because it’s in a strip mall. The next closest to him was even smaller, also not showing his preferred film and not open that night after about 11.
Then there’s the fact that GFZ’s are unenforceable in Colorado unless they have a security checkpoint which must feature a magnetometer according to the law.
As for other GFZ shootings, I still say there’s no real evidence that they “attract” shooters. It strikes me that we’re looking at correlation rather than causation here. Mass shooters have generally fallen into two groups: people who have a target for [likely] psychotic anger or people who just want to shoot a bunch of people.
What do you do when you want to shoot a bunch of people? You go to a place where there are a bunch of people. Those places which, rather conveniently, have been made into GFZ’s by our various governments (in their infinite wisdom of course). That doesn’t mean the shooter is attracted to the GFZ per se, it’s more likely that they’re attracted to the crowd which just happens to be in a GFZ due to dumbass governmental policy. You can’t shoot a large group of people where there is no large group of people. Just sayin’.
As for targets of anger I think the same applies. Seung-Hui Cho was a senior at VT when he shot up the place. I’d suspect that his anger was directed at the school (though I can’t prove that) so he shot it up. Same with Columbine, Newtown etc. The shooter had an object of their anger and decided to kill people there. That place happened to be a GFZ.
Now, I could be wrong about all this but even if I am that doesn’t change the fact there’s no conclusive way to say that shooters are attracted to GFZ’s. That’s like saying that airplanes that crash land are attracted to airports (the pilots might be for obvious reasons, but pilots crash land outside airports too). There’s a strong correlation between event and location but it doesn’t mean one causes the other.
Either way, GFZ’s are stupid. They likely (again not provable) increase the body count and they very clearly do not work as intended… er, advertised?
I tend to agree. There have been a few instances where it’s known that a bad guy picked a GFZ, but extending that to all bad guys is fallacious. The problem is that our idiotic governments have effectively decreed that all target-rich environments be guaranteed-victim environments, which puts bad guys who want to kill a bunch of people in GFZs.
I think if you actually look into it you will find that there are more than just a “few” cases of GFZs where bad guy’s have committed their crimes. Is it every instance no, it never is but it definitely tips way in favor of the GFZ, especially the high profile cases.
You miss one of the major points of GFZs, Good Guys Obey the Law and won’t carry in a GFZ, that’s how they are enforced. You don’t have to have screening or any other means of testing, good guys by nature are going to follow the law. Now are there exceptions absolutely just like in everything in life, but the vast majority will obey the law and not carry if the law so no you can’t carry here. On the other hand Bad guys don’t care what the law says they are hell bent on doing evil and if I for one do believe that bad guys pick GFZs because they feel they can kill more innocent lives before being stopped and that is important to them. Anyway it’s all just our own opinions since we are the good guy’s!
I don’t think it being a GFZ had anything to do with what happened. Unstable people will do what they are going to do and it is just a risk we take living in this world and attending events with a lot of people. It would be impossible to do a proper screening of that many people and not have a riot of unhappy fans. Look at the long lines at airports.
Also, if it was not a GFZ, would you want to be in the crowd if the shooter started shooting and several concealed carriers in the crowd decided to be a hero and started shooting? If I was there with my gun, I would be reluctant to use my gun for fear of injuring and killing innocent people.