[Double Naught Spy]

Either a major corporation like McDonalds can argue that they have never heard of any kind of shooting at a place of business or they know it can and does happen. Knowing about something and being responsible for it are two wholly different things. Denying something which is obvious, in a weak attempt to avoid responsibility, only makes one look foolish.

Which is specifically why people suing because of there not being enough security or for going into a place where they were not armed makes them look really foolish.

Just because you go into somebody else's business does not mean that the business assumes all responsibility for your safety against illegal acts.

I think we need to differentiate between our argument and the argument of the plaintiffs in the Aurora case. They didn't sue because they were unarmed due to Cinemark's "No guns" policy and thus could not protect themselves. They sued (effectively) because Cinemark didn't provide armed security to protect them.Yes, I understand that the argument is "If you're going to disarm me then it's your responsibility to protect me." In fact, I agree with that argument.

But that was not the argument of the Aurora plaintiffs.

Nope, and that was covered above. However, the same logic of the suit applies. The business is not liable for such acts. This is why such suits are usually doomed to failure.