XveryYpettyZ: You really live in a wild-west fantasy, don't you? You're on your own? Yep, there have to be armed guards available at all times otherwise you're unsafe, citizen.

Explain to me this then:
Say you are walking down the street and a stone hits you on your head. You look around and don't see who threw it, or where it came from. Can you sue the state for not saving you from that injury?

In most places the cops are not held accountable for not-saving you from a crime. You can hope they come when you call and catch the criminal, but they aren't liable if they don't. You are effectively on your own.

Now if you enter a building and a piece of its ceiling falls down and hits you, is the building owner liable?
Hell's yes. If he didn't warn you that this was a hardhat area, he can be sued for injuries caused by his building.

I'm only going a step further to suggest that if he has taken security upon himself, by telling you this is a gun-free zone, he should be liable if someone is attacked on his property. Especially if the attacker exploited poor security measures to do more damage.

Putting up a velvet rope is as good as taking down a "hardhat" sign.

Jim_Callahan: StoPPeRmobile: What pistol has a clip?

Revolvers. You can apparently also use a stripper clip as a speed-loader, according to wiki, though I've not ever actually done that. I have used moon clips for a high-caliber revolver, though, they're fairly popular.

Revolvers aren't pistols.

fusillade762: "The Aurora theater where the Batman shooting occurred also had a gun-free policy,"

I think this has become the Godwin's Law of gun threads.

Why? It's a good point.

A lot of mass shootings are in gun free zones. That's because the psychos who commit mass shootings are attracted to defenseless targets. That's why when people discuss the difficulty of defending oneself in a shooting, pointing out the carnage that would ensue, they may be missing the point that many attacks would have been prevented.