Suppose you owned a bar, sports stadium or some other crowded venue and decided that someone using a firearm in self defense posed a grave threat to bystanders? After all, not every shot hits the target and those that do hit sometimes pass through.
Here we arrive at the philisophical junction that the anti's love to dance around. So because there
may be a risk to others, I should not be capable of defending myself? My assailant should be able to attack me carte blanch, even kill me, because defending myself
might risk other's safety? Who's lives are worth more? Who decides?
On the flip side of that is any instance like the Colorado Springs church, in which an armed citizen in a crowded place saved lives. I submit that an armed citizen who has to use his or her weapon is more likely to be saving innocent people than hurting them, regardless of venue.
As far as I'm concerned, no one has the authority to limit my ability to defend myself unless they are able to provide a reasonably secure environment. For a place of public accomodation, that means effective screening (metal detectors) and armed security to deal with threats. If a store has both of those, I will disarm before entering. If not, screw them. Once again, my god given human right to defend myself supersedes their public private business property rights.
By going out in public, you accept certain risks. There is no way to avoid that, and your above mentioned reasoning that a business owner might want to prohibit firearms is quite reminiscent of the anti's screaming "the streets will turn red with blood" whenever CCW or RTC legislation is passed.
What about your right to eat and provide food for your children? Would that mean that you have a right steal food from "publicly owned" places?
That's an entirely different argument. Once again, CCW does not hurt anyone who doesn't try to hurt me first. Stealing food hurts the store economically. Arguing whether a starving man and his family have more right to live more than a store has a right to be properly compensated for their merchandise is a different argument for a different forum. It's also not a realistic scenaro in the United States. People simply don't starve to death in this country, unless they are completely unwilling to seek help from the myriad government and private organizations that exist solely for that purpose.