Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: gun Control Kills...Just an idea that I had

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Tennessee, ,
    Posts
    695

    Post imported post

    after reading about the latest shooting spree, I had a thought. We can all certainly agree that in this country you can sue a ham sandwich, much less a corporation, this strikes me as rather odd.

    take a look at the number of mass shooting in any mall, workplace, or other commercial establishment and you will most likely find one similarity in at least 90 % of these events:

    The establishment was a "Gun Free Zone".

    most times, that fact is "conveniently" forgotten by the media coverage, but I found one article relating to last years West Roads Mall shooting which did bring up this fact. according to the article:
    There are plenty of cases every year where permit holders stop what would have been multiple victim shootings every year, but they rarely receive any news coverage. Take a case this year in Memphis, where WBIR-TV reported a gunman started "firing a pistol beside a busy city street" and was stopped by two permit holders before anyone was harmed.
    (source: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,315563,00.html)

    this brings me to the point of this thread.

    given the fact that so many of these senseless tragedies could have been avoided had the business not had their signs posted, why has no one ever brought a lawsuit against one of these businesses?

    Statistics show that even if one of us had to use our guns in self defense, we would undoubtedly go broke from all the civil suits related to that event, and more than one gun maker has been brought to civil suit after their products fell into the wrong hands; and yet these establishmentsrecklessly jeapordize the lives of their patrons, and never have to think twice about it. Something about that just isn't right to me.



  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Catasauqua, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    3,047

    Post imported post

    A good question indeed.

    I don't know whether it was a rhetorical question or not, though.

    Anyhow, first I'd look at the demographics of the people getting shot. A small minority (though growing) actually takes the responsibility to protect themselves and their families by carrying a gun, "legal" or not. Presumably, probability insists that there's a low chance of these people getting involved in a mass shooting. And, if they are involved, they will shoot back and end the threat, as we've seen (under)reported in the media from time to time.

    Now, the other people who don't carry a gun and take no responsibility for their own safety, will probably not attribute his injury or the death of a loved one to a lack of security. They will look to the government to protect them, most likely through oppressing whatever demographic attacked them. So, essentially, the people who understand the more guns=less crime concept aren't getting victimized, and the people who think that more guns=more crime are getting victimized.

    Furthermore, the latter group of which I speak would probably be discouraged from filing a suit of the nature you describe due to guilt. If you knew that you didn't do everything you could to ensure the safety of your loved one, wouldn't you blame yourself and not those who discouraged this lapse in responsibility?

    Even in the first group I describe, there may be members who did carry a gun, but couldn't bring themselves to pull the trigger. Those would also avoid a suit out of guilt and, perhaps, embarassment.

    So, that combination of factors is what I attribute to the fact that there are no suits of this type, even though they are gravely needed.

  3. #3
    Campaign Veteran deepdiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Southeast, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    5,974

    Post imported post

    IANAL, however I'm thinking it is likely a matter of having legal standing to bring such a suit. I think it would take someone who can prove that they regularly and typically carry a firearm, or perhaps the wife or child of that someone when they are together, getting injured in a gun free zone shooting. At that point, such a person who suffered damages as a result of a shooting, where they were not armed because of the open to the public location banned firearms, may have a chance at getting that to trial.

    Then again, being that IANAL, I could be completely wrong and everything I wrote above may be utter nonsense.


    Bob Owens @ Bearing Arms (paraphrased): "These people aren't against violence; they're very much in favor of violence. They're against armed resistance."

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Salt Lake City, Utah, USA
    Posts
    800

    Post imported post

    I have written my State level representatives about passing legislation that would make the property owners of "gun free zones" accountable for any violent acts that may occur against disarmed visitors/customers.

    I do believe in the rights of property owners, they should be able to do what they want on their property, but if I am stripped of my firearm and then unable to defend myself, they should be held accountable.

  5. #5
    Campaign Veteran deepdiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Southeast, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    5,974

    Post imported post

    ScottyT wrote:
    I have written my State level representatives about passing legislation that would make the property owners of "gun free zones" accountable for any violent acts that may occur against disarmed visitors/customers.

    I do believe in the rights of property owners, they should be able to do what they want on their property, but if I am stripped of my firearm and then unable to defend myself, they should be held accountable.
    While I like the concept, I fear the rule of unintended consequences if something like this should pass.

    Let's say a law is passed that reads something like: "Property owners of lands generally open to the public which post prohibitions against the legal carry of firearms as otherwise allowed in the statute have no immunity from tort in the case that a person, not acting in the commission of a crime, is injured on their property in a manner from which the injured party may have defended him/herself with such a legally carried firearm. Private property statutorily prohibited from firearm carry is hereby immune from this provision."

    That last sentence, and something along those lines is going to have be part of any such law as private property owners cannot be responsible for firearm restrictions levied by the legislative branch, is going to be the killer. What will happen is that the Grocers Association, the Restaurant Association and every other business association in the state is going to ask to be added to the prohibited list to remove their liability. In the meantime, the insurance rates for all such businesses given this new legislated liability are going to go up and those costs are going to be passed to their customers.

    I don't think that is the way we are going to win this battle.
    Bob Owens @ Bearing Arms (paraphrased): "These people aren't against violence; they're very much in favor of violence. They're against armed resistance."

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •