Ok, but it seems like a bit of a non-sequitur to say “ business owners aren't expected to prevent crimes against their customers” when there’s a body of law to the contrary.
Is there? In most US states, the concept of premises liability seems to be derived entirely from case law, not statute. Some states appear to have statutes limiting its scope, such as https://colorado.public.law/statutes/crs_13-21-115
Edit: to be clear, I don't think there's anything actually stopping someone from attempting to sue a bar or grocery store over a crime committed there, but it usually doesn't happen and would likely be an uphill battle for the plaintiff.
I think a better argument here is that common law/case law here is ambiguous enough to create a situation where there's an unreasonable and unpredictable risk for certain kinds of businesses.
Another problematic case this sort of liability leads to is hotels in Las Vegas routinely searching guest rooms after a lawsuit following the 2017 shooting. I don't think it's desirable to expect hotels to search rooms or to call the police if someone has "too much" luggage. That's paranoid, an invasion of privacy, and unlikely to prevent a future mass murder.
I don't want a world where I have to submit to searches to go anywhere or do anything, and I hope that's not a fringe position.
I was only responding to GP's statement that common law can be overridden by statute.
If I wanted to respond to the idea that premises liability should be eliminated then I would have responded to your first post.
And I actually do think that most people would call your position a fringe position once you actually start talking details like "but what about guns in schools?" If you truly believe that you shouldn't have to submit to a search to go ANYWHERE or do ANYTHING then you hold a fringe position.
I will concede the technical point: there is a body of law that sometimes expects business owners to prevent crimes and sometimes doesn't, with a whole lot of ambiguity about exactly what any given owner is actually expected to do. I think that ambiguity should be reduced by putting criminal acts out of scope.
Edit: to be clear, I don't think there's anything actually stopping someone from attempting to sue a bar or grocery store over a crime committed there, but it usually doesn't happen and would likely be an uphill battle for the plaintiff.