No Handgun! - Who is responsible?

[Glocktogo]

Since he put a round through his head I dont think that he would have cared If anyone was carring or not. Im sure he knew what the end result was going to be.

Actually, it's pretty much known in workplace violence prevention that these deranged spree killers will kill themselves at the first sign of armed resistance. They want to go out on their terms, not someone else's. Their worst fear is getting wounded and captured. A bullet in the brain is pretty painless compared to getting gutshot, patched up, paraded in front of the cameras, getting tried and convicted, then sent to prison where you share a cell with Bubba the top.

 

[Gun$linger]

News today.
Gunman kills eight, Self in Connecticut. Officials say the gunman had been asked to resign before going on a rampage at a family-owned beer distributor company outside Hartford.

Since business owners are allowed to ban employees from carring hand guns, does this make them responsible for your life since we can't protect ourselves? Sure, you can now have it in your vehicle in the parking lot, but what good does that do in this situation? I think this law needs to be changed.

No they are not ever responsible for your life, you are. Or maybe the person trying to take it from you. If you dont like or dont feel safe not being able to CC then get a new job. The only one to blame for the people that man shot was the guy pulling the trigger. No gov. or business can prevent people from losing it and doing others harm. The only change that would be made by presenting this argument to lawmakers would not benifit anyone.

 

[Glocktogo]

Seems to me that making companies think twice before prohibiting lawful CCW would benefit some?

 

[Gun$linger]

I do agree that CCW should be legal almost anywhere. But I also agree that on private property the property owner should have almost all say of what goes on. I dont agree though that the owner should be liable for the actions of a crazy, he did not put a gun to your head and make you work there. You came of your own free will and the fact that you are CC holder means that you were already aware that you may have to defend yourself. You chose to go where the ability to defend yourself would be deminished of your own free will. There is no good anwser except that the right to keep and bear arms should have never been taken away in the first place. It was taken away by very articulately written gun laws(piles and piles of them). That is what makes me iffy on writeing more of them for any reason.

 

[Gun$linger]

My previous post sounded bad. Glocktogo you are right that the owner is makeing a choice that will limit an idividuals ability to protect them and the owner is responsible for this choice. I dont feel it is needed to limit CCW, only that there is a right to do so. Like I said though by going into a place w/ prior knowlege of the possibe need and lack there of of proper protection from threat one would be also accepting a degree of this responiblity. There is no good answer to who is responsible?

 

[LtCCMPUnit42]

If an employer has reason to believe that an employee will engage in actions harmful to another and does not take "reasonable" measures to prevent the attack or protect its employees, then the employer is liable for the harm resulting from inaction. It all comes down to what a "reasonable" person/organization should do knowing there is a potential threat. The fact that an employer does not allow concealed carry doesn't automatically increase its liability or its requirement to provide additional protection.

I think the guy would have done the same thing even if he knew there were people who were carrying. He went in for revenge. Even if the employer allowed carry, it would most likely be a minority of employees who took advantage of the opportunity.

After careful consideration, I have to concede your point. there is a major diference between public service and private industry. The number of private citizens that do carry is far less than those who do not. Sometimes I forget that everyone doesn't carry all the time like we are required to. Out in the rural areas where I work, it is unusual to come across an individual that doesn't have a firearm of some kind (pistol, rifle, shotgun) in their vehicle or close at hand. 99% of those people are carrying for reasons other than personal protection (guarding livestock, hunting, varmints), but most all of them have a firearm of some sort. I can see that in Baltimore that would not be the case.

 

[Glocktogo]

My previous post sounded bad. Glocktogo you are right that the owner is makeing a choice that will limit an idividuals ability to protect them and the owner is responsible for this choice. I dont feel it is needed to limit CCW, only that there is a right to do so. Like I said though by going into a place w/ prior knowlege of the possibe need and lack there of of proper protection from threat one would be also accepting a degree of this responiblity. There is no good answer to who is responsible?

I readily agree that there's no good answer. Each is a compromise. I'm not against property rights at all. I'd just prefer that these decisions be made using reason, rather than emotion. The odds of a properly vetted and licensed CCW permit holder committing a violent crime is statistically insignificant compared to the odds of a criminal doing so.

FWIW, you'd think a bank would be a place where CCW would be prohibited if anywhere. I think that if I lived in Chappell Hill, Texas, I'd bank here:

[Broken External Image]

[Broken External Image]

 

[Gun$linger]

nice, I love it.

 

[cinman14]

[Broken External Image]

[Broken External Image]

 

[vvvvvvv]

either that's a DA/SA, or they forgot to cock the hammer...