No

Very interesting argument actually! As someone who prides themselves as a pure moderate, I see both sides but in a rare twist I lean right on a gun issue here.

I see two scenarios. Let's say a gunman in a movie theater goes nuts. A gun toting conservative likely could shoot and kill that guy. However the theater rendered him a weapon less victim. However again, he assumed the risk by entering a gun free zone.

On the other hand, some mandatory places are gun free where you don't really have the option to not go there. The DMV, post offices, school, etc. hard to just opt not to go there.

So should all these places require their own security if they're going to force areas to be gun free? You know what, yeah that kinda makes sense.

No you still can't hold anyone responsible except the shooter. I'm speaking as a gun owner and a a strict believer in freedom to own and carry. I also believe that a property owner has the right to establish his property as weapon free. Of course schools have to be. and Federal, State and County buildings are guarded by armed members of the police. I don't know about the DMV or the Post Office.

We are actually sponsoring a CCW class at our house this spring and our son-in-law who is a postal carrier is taking the course I'll have to ask him Thursday what their rules are.

Back to the subject. We need to keep responsibility where it belongs and that's on the finger of the person that decide to start killing people. Not the business owners, not the gunstore owner's not the gun makers but the asshole who want's to make people die. Lay the blame where it deserves to be laid.

Keep in mind that under civil law, if I allow you on my property and you are injured, you are legally able to seek a judgement against me for your loss (say for example that I allow you to snowmobile or hunt on my land).

For what it's worth, if we still put great store in the legal notion of assumption of risk https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assumption_of_risk, I would absolutely not hold the establishment liable. However, assumption of risk has fallen to disfavor for comparative negligence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparative_negligence in most states, meaning that parties are not typically found to be 100% liable for anything.

It is interesting, at first I had the knee jerk reaction thats been posted here but the more I've thought about it the more I think in the right court this could be pulled off.

It really doesn't apply to me except at work or when I go to sporting events on a school campus or a stadium where I get searched because I always carry except for the places specifically spelled out by my states laws as off limits.

Are you suggesting that a lawsuit could be made against the institution for not protecting you adequately? (like by having armed guards)

Or are you saying a lawsuit could be made because they left you defenseless and you got shot by some madman, whom you may or may not have been luck enough to have cleared your holster and shot over other innocent people's heads, and hit the gunman well enough to kill him? ( not judging, I have no idea of your marksmanship, if you open carry hopefully you practice.)

Life in the 21st. century isn't 100% safe, the sooner we take on the idea that when we crawl out of the covers, we start taking risks. The idea is to learn to cope with the risk potential there really is no other way around it. Blaming other people and things for everything in life that happens just turns a person into a fucktard when a undodgable problem hits.

Lol, so reactional. Them: "Don't bring a gun here" You: "Murderers".

You gun rights people are so hysteric and incapable of introspection or reflection. Just react, react, react.

You people? the whole group behaves the same way?
do you just read the OP and then write your opinion, assuming everyone's reactions?
I admit that you've had a load more education than I've had I even venture that you probably are sharper now.
but you get pretty dismissive in this group of people whom like to trade ideas and thoughts.

It would be for not protecting patrons adequately. Just a personal opinion but I believe that if you make everybody disarm by law then you should have some form of security in place. Around here most places/events have off duty law enforcement or constables on premise providing security, and I believe while not 100% fool proof that would be adequate. All our high schools have a school resource officer on duty while school is in secession but the elementary/middle schools do not, I think that needs to change. All of our college/university campuses are protected by unarmed private security officers that don't carry so much as pepper spray.

Point 2 thats a fair enough assessment. I don't open carry I usually pocket carry a ruger LCP .380 (seriously considering upgrading to a S&W Shield in 9mm or .40 and IWB carrying) and I do try to go to the range every month and put a minimum of 50 rounds through it but I do not practice drawing from the holster or hostage shots or anything like that. I also have some formal firearms training that most people that conceal carry do not posses although that trigger time was restricted to full size handguns, ar-15's and shotguns. Also, I don't carry to take out a gunman and be a hero, if there are shots fired my ass is getting out, my gun is in case a bad guy gets between me, my family/friends and the exit. Selfish thinking but I'm no hero. I get your way of thinking though, there are people think that a gun and a concealed carry permit makes them a volunteer police officer. They make the rest of us look bad

For your third point


Couldn't agree more but I do think there are precautions that can be made that bring the odds down significantly.

This post was edited by tman65ky on Nov 22 2015 04:34pm

That is such a one-step mindset, like your thought process isn't complete.

The vast vast vast majority of gun violence is in areas where it is legal to carry.
For every one justifiable homicide, there are 44 criminal homicides. Not accounting for the dramatic suicide rates that are spiked by access to guns.

On campuses, crime rates are DRAMATICALLY lower than the surrounding areas, especially violent crimes.
Typically, the biggest crime is theft. The largest causes of death are suicide or alcohol.

So why introduce guns (which are absolutely proven to increase suicide rates) to an environment where theft and alcohol-related deaths are the biggest concerns?

It's such a silly idea.

In my state, all the boards of governors for the university systems vehemently oppose introducing open/concealed carry on campus. The majority of students oppose it. The chiefs of police oppose it. Yet NRA lobbyists still manage to get this shit through the House.

The chief of police told me the rigorous training they have to go through in shoot-or-don't-shoot scenarios. Over 700 hours total. To get a permit in my state, no specific training is required.

He told me the fear he would have responding to a campus shooting where other concealed carriers were trying to get involved. Instead of easily identifying the shooter, he would have to determine who's whom in a very high-stress moment of shoot-or-don't-shoot, and the shit storm that would ensue if he misidentified the shooter and killed the wrong person terrified him.

So not only does it make students and faculty more on edge, it increases police hesitation in the heat of the moment.

This post was edited by CoheedAndCambria on Nov 22 2015 05:34pm