Special to L. Neil Smith’s The Libertarian Enterprise

More “gun violence” at an Albuquerque mall on Thursday, 31 March 2022, as reported by the Albuquerque Journal, and reposted by the Journal to Facebook^[1] —

Five teens accused of beating at Coronado Center, by Matthew Reisen, Journal Staff Writer by Matthew Reisen, Journal Staff Writer

At least this time, no one seems to have been injured or killed as a result of shots fired.

Meanwhile, there have been several firearm-related homicides (involving shots fired at the victims) at other locations around Albuquerque—in the Downtown area, for example.

“Rbj Benjamin” posted a comment

Where’s our concealed carriers when you need them?

To which I replied

Concealed carry is not permitted on the property, per Coronado Center policy.

Blame Coronado for this one with their "No weapons allowed on site" policy, not concealed-carriers for their "failure" to be first responders to this incident.

And then there’s my follow-up comment

So when Ross and Morales were allegedly pistol-whipping the Fuddruckers employees, should that be considered "gun violence" (firearm(s) were involved) or "blunt-object violence" (no shots were fired at that time) ?

ONCE AGAIN, we see just how "effective" this sort of "No weapons allowed" policy is (it is NOT effective, for those too dense to understand sarcasm) in stopping firearm-related crime.

As for the "gun free" status of Coronado (and Winrock, Cottonwood, etc.), if someone is injured or killed by a criminal there, and that injury or death could have been prevented had the victim been armed, I hope the victim or their survivor(s) sue the property owners into non-existence.

Something not yet brought up: Ross and Morales are both under the age of 21. This means their mere possession of handguns was a federal offense. ANOTHER failure of the victim disarmament statutes.

Apparently, I made a mistake—per 18 U.S.C. § 922(x)(2)^[2], Ross was legal in possessing a handgun.

Still, Ross’ alleged pistol-whipping of the Fuddruckers staff was definitely NOT legal, and would probably constitute battery, if not aggravated battery

30-3-4. Battery.
Battery is the unlawful, intentional touching or application of force to the person of another, when done in a rude, insolent or angry manner.

Whoever commits battery is guilty of a petty misdemeanor.

30-3-5. Aggravated battery.
A. Aggravated battery consists of the unlawful touching or application of force to the person of another with intent to injure that person or another.
B. Whoever commits aggravated battery, inflicting an injury to the person which is not likely to cause death or great bodily harm, but does cause painful temporary disfigurement or temporary loss or impairment of the functions of any member or organ of the body, is guilty of a misdemeanor.
C. Whoever commits aggravated battery inflicting great bodily harm or does so with a deadly weapon or does so in any manner whereby great bodily harm or death can be inflicted is guilty of a third degree felony.

What’s the takeaway here?

The lessons to be learned from this incident are as follows:

FIRST, victim disarmament edicts, whether they are in the form of public-sector statutes and regulations, or a private-sector "NO WEAPONS ALLOWED" policy, don’t do much of anything to deter violent criminals from committing crimes.

If anything, they do the exact opposite—they make it easier for the criminals to victimize others.

Think of them as a sort of "workplace safety" code for the bad guys, making what are supposed to be "safe spaces" for shoppers and tourists into a happy hunting ground for the crooks.

As the saying goes, "When seconds count, the cops are minutes away."

But … but … what about the "NO WEAPONS ALLOWED" sign? Surely, those intent on committing assault, battery, robbery, burglary, and possibly murder will see that sign, and then leave their guns in the car, right?

Well, you see, the criminal element always seems to find that massive loophole in all of the various victim-disarmament schemes called "breaking the law."

If they’re willing to kill you over pocket change, what makes you think that they’re going to obey your hoplophobic prohibitionary edicts?

As the saying goes, "When seconds count, the cops are minutes away."

And the reality of it all is this: You are your own best defender. Sure, you can contract the task out to someone else, but that person wants to go home to their family, too. That person will put their own personal safety above yours, if it comes down to it.