-
ODT Gun Show this Saturday! - Click here for info and tickets!
Texas businesses that ban guns should be liable
- Thread starter RamRoddoc
- Start date
And if discovered its of to jail you go, bye bye your permit to exercise a right.
If they had mopped the floor and forgot the sign the are liable for injuries sustained. It works both ways. A specific group thinks armed citizens are a threat to public safety despite all the data reflecting the opposite.
Private property rights are important, too.
And let's be honest-- there is very little evidence that private property "no weapons" rules affect violent crime one way or another. Plenty of murders, robberies, and kidnappings take place at businesses that aren't posted with gun-banning signs, and where carry is legal per state law.
At the most, let the legislature just open the door a little bit by announcing that one aspect of the duty of care owed to patrons of a business is to NOT infringe on any visitor, guest, or customer's right to carry a weapon or use force in lawful self-defense UNLESS the manager of the business can justify it by pointing out circumstances of his facility, or the nature of his business or his clients, that would cause any reasonable business manager to believe that in his case, a "no weapons" rule would be effective as a crime prevention measure and would result in a net increase in safety.
Announce that the general rule, and the public policy of this state, is to include armed citizens with carry permits as resource against violent crime. Let the anti-gun business owners attempt to justify a private property gun ban if they think they can.
If they ban guns WITHOUT proving a legit reason to do so, based on evidence (and not just feelings or political beliefs), then they're liable for the actions of any criminal who harms a victim who would otherwise have been armed but for the weapons ban.
And let's be honest-- there is very little evidence that private property "no weapons" rules affect violent crime one way or another. Plenty of murders, robberies, and kidnappings take place at businesses that aren't posted with gun-banning signs, and where carry is legal per state law.
At the most, let the legislature just open the door a little bit by announcing that one aspect of the duty of care owed to patrons of a business is to NOT infringe on any visitor, guest, or customer's right to carry a weapon or use force in lawful self-defense UNLESS the manager of the business can justify it by pointing out circumstances of his facility, or the nature of his business or his clients, that would cause any reasonable business manager to believe that in his case, a "no weapons" rule would be effective as a crime prevention measure and would result in a net increase in safety.
Announce that the general rule, and the public policy of this state, is to include armed citizens with carry permits as resource against violent crime. Let the anti-gun business owners attempt to justify a private property gun ban if they think they can.
If they ban guns WITHOUT proving a legit reason to do so, based on evidence (and not just feelings or political beliefs), then they're liable for the actions of any criminal who harms a victim who would otherwise have been armed but for the weapons ban.
It's only difficult to determine because in most of the states that have "shall carry" permit laws (the majority of states) only 3-4% (growing trend) have obtained a permit to carry. The "may carry" states (no longer a right) have far less.
If I decide to rob and murder in a public business and the business has 50 patrons inside then statistically one or two might have a permit and even less would be armed. If that business post a sign banning weapons even less as permit carriers tend to abide by laws more so than the rest of society.
However, when accessing a potential target even the majority of criminals will often perform "risk assessment". They calculate the risk of being caught or injured vs. the gain; money, goods, rape etc. It's been well documented in the criminology field.
Even the majority of nut jobs perform risk assessment to maximize body count. They block exits, take high ground overlooks or fabricate a car trunk shooting den. The Colorado shooter passed by much closer theaters, playing the same movie at the same time but chose the "gun free" signed one that carried the weight of law.
If one can critically think and scrutinize; a criminal who has equal opportunity to target two businesses where one prominently places a "no guns" sign that carries the weight of law and one that doesn't or even has signage that encourages legal carry that an average criminal will select the business that carries less risk of failure.
At the very least,
A property owner bears a measure of responsibility to the safety of his patrons. Far too long have the left and the press gotten away with simply claiming armed citizens are a threat and risk to public safety with no peer reviewed honest empirical supporting data and state governments have begrudgingly restored 2A carry rights.
And this is why the left is so desperate for "research" that is supported by a government agency (CDC, DOJ, FBI). Their problem is the foundation to their theory is flawed and consistently proven wrong (decades of data) when a fair observation at risk vs. benefit is actually conducted.
So that's why nearly every "research" model these leftist use is based upon studies involving risk only, ignoring any benefit or positive impact. Or worse the ones that "claim" to use proper scientific models then don't or intentionally sabotage the research in order to support their agenda.
Did you know you can significantly reduce suicides (1/2-nearly 2/3's by firearm) by eliminating access to firearms...
If I decide to rob and murder in a public business and the business has 50 patrons inside then statistically one or two might have a permit and even less would be armed. If that business post a sign banning weapons even less as permit carriers tend to abide by laws more so than the rest of society.
However, when accessing a potential target even the majority of criminals will often perform "risk assessment". They calculate the risk of being caught or injured vs. the gain; money, goods, rape etc. It's been well documented in the criminology field.
Even the majority of nut jobs perform risk assessment to maximize body count. They block exits, take high ground overlooks or fabricate a car trunk shooting den. The Colorado shooter passed by much closer theaters, playing the same movie at the same time but chose the "gun free" signed one that carried the weight of law.
If one can critically think and scrutinize; a criminal who has equal opportunity to target two businesses where one prominently places a "no guns" sign that carries the weight of law and one that doesn't or even has signage that encourages legal carry that an average criminal will select the business that carries less risk of failure.
At the very least,
A property owner bears a measure of responsibility to the safety of his patrons. Far too long have the left and the press gotten away with simply claiming armed citizens are a threat and risk to public safety with no peer reviewed honest empirical supporting data and state governments have begrudgingly restored 2A carry rights.
And this is why the left is so desperate for "research" that is supported by a government agency (CDC, DOJ, FBI). Their problem is the foundation to their theory is flawed and consistently proven wrong (decades of data) when a fair observation at risk vs. benefit is actually conducted.
So that's why nearly every "research" model these leftist use is based upon studies involving risk only, ignoring any benefit or positive impact. Or worse the ones that "claim" to use proper scientific models then don't or intentionally sabotage the research in order to support their agenda.
Did you know you can significantly reduce suicides (1/2-nearly 2/3's by firearm) by eliminating access to firearms...
Alabama already has that. If a business puts a no guns sign up in Alabama they have to have an armed guard or a checkpoint when you come in. If they don't have any type of security their sign is useless and you can't be prosecuted for carrying on their property.
I'm sure I don't have that exactly right, that's just from my freshly woken up memory.
Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk
I'm sure I don't have that exactly right, that's just from my freshly woken up memory.
Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2013
- Messages
- 27,488
- Reaction score
- 108,638
Makes perfect sense. The best way to prevent criminals from committing crimes is to put up a sign informing the public law abiding citizens are not allowed to defend themselves. We all know criminals are law abiding concerned citizens. I have to go now. I have to buy a gun legally. I'm robbing the gas station at 3rd and Elm at noon today. Good thing I have a weapons permit to save time buying a gun.
First things first. How many of you that answered this thread do not vote? Hillary has to be kept out or nobody will be legally carrying,or maybe not even legally owning firearms. You can`t depend on our state to buck the feds. Maybe a little,but not much or for long. Remember Gov Deal didn`t back campus carry. Under the constitution all states have the right to secede,but it won`t happen. Get out and vote.
If the FBI can be bought off, whose to say the electoral college is any better off? Your vote doesn't matter.
