Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
Gun Free Zone Liability
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Aries" data-source="post: 3333645" data-attributes="member: 44328"><p>If the point of this game is that the signs don't prevent someone from bringing a gun in and committing a crime, that's a valid point but it's a straw man argument. I haven't seen anyone argue that the sign makes any business less likely to be a victim of a crime.</p><p></p><p>The question really is, should the government or anyone else be able to tell you that you HAVE to allow guns on YOUR property? Or if you don't, that you must be liable for a criminal who disregards your request and commits a crime on your property.</p><p></p><p>Back to the point I tried to make earlier... we argue that gun manufacturers should not be held responsible if their product is used in a crime, the victim of theft should not be held responsible if his gun is stolen and used in a crime, and law abiding gun owners in general should not be held responsible because criminals use guns to commit crimes. CRIMINALS should be held solely responsible for their crimes, not people or victims who were not doing anything illegal. Does anyone disagree with that?</p><p></p><p>But some of you seem to be saying that if a criminal ignores the business owners request and brings in a gun and commits a crime, the business owner should be held as much or more responsible than the criminal? The business owner is as much a victim of the crime as his customers.</p><p></p><p>And again... the signs only say what you can or can't do on the business owner's property. They don't say you can't have a gun, they just say don't bring it onto MY property. Some choices in life are hard, but it's still your choice.</p><p></p><p>Let's play devil's advocate again. Raise your hand if you believe that someone else should be able to tell you what to allow on your own property, and if you don't allow what they want, you are liable for anything bad that happens to them.</p><p></p><p>Now... if you want to talk about whether the signs are a bad idea, this will probably end quickly. I don't think anyone here is likely to disagree with that. Again, there are different conversations going on, and everyone is talking past each other. This is my position though, I don't want government or anyone else (any more than is necessary) telling me what I must or can't do on my own property, so I will respect that right for others even if I disagree with them.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Aries, post: 3333645, member: 44328"] If the point of this game is that the signs don't prevent someone from bringing a gun in and committing a crime, that's a valid point but it's a straw man argument. I haven't seen anyone argue that the sign makes any business less likely to be a victim of a crime. The question really is, should the government or anyone else be able to tell you that you HAVE to allow guns on YOUR property? Or if you don't, that you must be liable for a criminal who disregards your request and commits a crime on your property. Back to the point I tried to make earlier... we argue that gun manufacturers should not be held responsible if their product is used in a crime, the victim of theft should not be held responsible if his gun is stolen and used in a crime, and law abiding gun owners in general should not be held responsible because criminals use guns to commit crimes. CRIMINALS should be held solely responsible for their crimes, not people or victims who were not doing anything illegal. Does anyone disagree with that? But some of you seem to be saying that if a criminal ignores the business owners request and brings in a gun and commits a crime, the business owner should be held as much or more responsible than the criminal? The business owner is as much a victim of the crime as his customers. And again... the signs only say what you can or can't do on the business owner's property. They don't say you can't have a gun, they just say don't bring it onto MY property. Some choices in life are hard, but it's still your choice. Let's play devil's advocate again. Raise your hand if you believe that someone else should be able to tell you what to allow on your own property, and if you don't allow what they want, you are liable for anything bad that happens to them. Now... if you want to talk about whether the signs are a bad idea, this will probably end quickly. I don't think anyone here is likely to disagree with that. Again, there are different conversations going on, and everyone is talking past each other. This is my position though, I don't want government or anyone else (any more than is necessary) telling me what I must or can't do on my own property, so I will respect that right for others even if I disagree with them. [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
Gun Free Zone Liability
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom