The risk referred to in the OP; of being injured in a way that could have been prevented if you had a gun.
What **UDS **said. To be clear, *I *don’t think that leaving your gun behind increases your risk; I think really it would do the opposite. But my view isn’t important: it is inherent in the thinking of the supporters of the legislation referred to in the OP that they do think it increases their risk. Consequently they are hoist on their own petard. If they think there is a risk involved in entering certain premises, then they either take that risk on, or don’t enter the premises.
How do you prove one hypothetical and not any alternatives?
Sure, it’s choice. but it isn’t one you can figuratively leave in your car. If a store posted a ‘no Christians allowed sign’, then a Roman Catholic priest walking up and declaring “I’m a Hindu” so he could buy a box of Tic Tacs, and then stepping back outside and heading off to hold services isn’t the same thing as not carrying your weapon into the store.
Unless you have been shot, that right has not been violated. Your chances of being killed or injured by a gun in the United States in 2010 were about .00034%. I used numbers from a gun control advocacy site, by the way, that includes all firearm injuries and deaths from all causes - suicide, accident and murder. You still won’t read them though, as similar facts have been cited all over this board numerous times. That rate, by the way, has gone down since. In 2013 the chance was .0001%. Again, this includes all reported gun injuries and deaths, from all causes, in the US.
Hmm. Perhaps the United States is not for you, nor are the vast majority of other countries. Antarctica, maybe?
Sure. But of course you’re only going to sue the property owner if you have been shot. And, if you have, the existence of countless others who haven’t is not really relevant.
Look again at the OP. Under the law as actually passed in Tennessee (assuming the OP correctly summarises it) you can only recover from the property owners if you you are in fact injured by some event which could have been prevented by your carrying a gun.
(Note that you don’t have to show that it would have been prevented; just that it could have been.)
And people are very reasonably asking, if that’s the rule, why doesn’t the converse apply. If you are injured in an incident which could had the property owner made the property a gun-free zone, then why can’t you also recover in that instance?
The statute does seem to make it a criminal offense in TN to ignore these signs. It’s a lower-level misdemeanor, but still a criminal offense. This isn’t the case in many states, where the signs have little legal weight. In most states, if a property owner requests that you leave, and you do not, you can be charged with trespassing. But the sign itself is rather meaningless, and doesn’t represent a valid request to leave. The website handgunlaw.us has information regarding “no gun signs” within each state’s writeup, but they don’t have a convenient map showing the “force of law” status in each state.
I can’t imagine circumstances where not having a gun would cause you to be injured. Unless you are able to prove that you can outdraw and outshoot someone who has already drawn and started shooting…
Owning a gun might protect you-but it might not. Proving that the lack of a gun caused and injury seems very difficult. Sounds like a not so veiled attempt at intimating people who don’t want guns on their property. It wouldn’t work on me… 
Consider the two scenarios in a store:
- No law-abiding customers have a gun
- All law-abiding customers have a gun
In the “no guns” case, the customers would be at a disadvantage to a criminal with a gun. But even if a criminal comes in the store, there is a very low chance that he shoots anyone. It can and does happen, but the more likely case is that the criminal steals what he wants and leaves.
In the all guns case, the customers are better able to protect themselves from criminals, but they are at more risk from spontaneous gun use by the other customers. A scatterbrained customer may mishandle the gun when reaching for their wallet and it goes off. Or a short-tempered customer may use their gun because they are mad at a worker or their companion. Or someone having a bad day can decide to go off for no reason.
Although a madman may search out places where guns are not allowed, having everyone armed will also cause problems. You may feel like you’re a sitting duck sitting unarmed in a theater, but if everyone in the theater was armed, there would be more incidents of people shooting other patrons because they’re talking or using their phone.
Encouraging everyone to be armed doesn’t mean that just the calm, rational, well-trained people will be armed. It will also mean that people who aren’t mature and thoughtful enough will also carry guns, and those people will lead to more accidental and impulsive shootings.
Look again at my first reply, where I clearly state that, IMHO, it’s a stupid law.