- iSDaily Monday – February 19th, 2018 – Episode 031
Article Follows after show promotion [...]The post iSDaily Monday – February 19th, 2018 – Episode 031 appeared first on iState. […]
If it’s not private security, it’s almost guaranteed to fail
Ryan McMaken of the Mises Institute wrote an article on the institute’s site addressing the fallout from the Las Vegas shooting from a different angle than we’ve seen anywhere else. His perspective presents the idea that organizations, businesses, etc are the ones who should be responsible for the type of security that could prevent even incidents like the Las Vegas Shooting taking place. What we have excerpted here is the main point, that private owners are the best providers of security. He argues earlier in the article that relying on first responders to protect you is not reliable for a number of reasons and gun control won’t seriously prevent people with bad intent from either finding guns illegally or using so other tools to attempt to afflict mass casualties.
From the Mises Institute
Should Private Owners Be Expected to Provide Security?
But, as soon as someone suggests that private owners of public-access venues be expected to take security seriously, then the very idea is denounced by many as simply a bridge too far. For these critics, apparently, it’s much better to just trust in government, and hope for the best.
It’s easy to see why the private sector and its defenders might vehemently oppose the idea that private owners need to do more. Private security is costly and could drive up prices of goods and services. If the legal system simultaneously protects these owners from any responsibility in allegedly “unforeseeable” events, then we have no reason to expect them to do anything differently. The Aurora-Shooting lawsuits against the theater’s owners was significant because it called into question whether or not a private owner should be held legally liable for allowing a nut with multiple guns to so easily plan and set-up a mass-shooting scenario under their noses.
In the end, the theater was found not liable, and the theater owners’s attorney claimed the event was “unpredictable, unforeseeable, unpreventable and unstoppable.” This claim is obviously nonsense. Of coursethe shooting was preventable. It simply wasn’t preventable using the minimal amount of time and effort the theater owners were willing to devote to customer safety.
In the future, will we continue to label shootings of this nature as “unforeseeable”? It’s true that, given the size of the population, events of this magnitude remain exceedingly rare. Yet, how many times must an event of this nature take place before it does become foreseeable? How long will it be before customers should enjoy a reasonable expectation that private owners will plan ahead to prevent these sorts of threats?
The response of some people to this revelation will be to indulge in maudlin declarations of “it’s a crying shame.” “It’s a crying shame we have to live in a world where we have to worry about gunmen!” Perhaps. It’s also a crying a shame we live in a world where not everyone drives the posted speed limit in residential areas. If they did, we wouldn’t have to worry about our children as much when they play outside. It’s a crying shame we live in a world where the plane you’re flying in might malfunction and fall out of the sky. Thanks to human error, malice, and stupidity, many bad things happen every day.