Reply to Thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="rawhide" data-source="post: 914943" data-attributes="member: 3448">I&#039;ve thought the same thing everytime I read one of these &quot;liability&quot; discussions.Couldn&#039;t this issue be viewed from a different direction?&nbsp; An employer refuses to allow employees to CC but also does not provide armed security and metal detectors at every entrance.&nbsp; The employee is severly harmed or killed while at work.&nbsp; (In a situation that they would normally be able to defend themselves with a firearm.)&nbsp; Wouldn&#039;t the employer be liable for the damages to the employee because the employee could not adequately defend themselves?I think this applies to the government as well.&nbsp; Any place that I&#039;m forbidden from carrying (i.e. school) must be aggressively protected by the government.&nbsp; If the government won&#039;t allow me to protect myself then the government must provide the protection in those places.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="rawhide, post: 914943, member: 3448"] I've thought the same thing everytime I read one of these "liability" discussions. Couldn't this issue be viewed from a different direction? An employer refuses to allow employees to CC but also does not provide armed security and metal detectors at every entrance. The employee is severly harmed or killed while at work. (In a situation that they would normally be able to defend themselves with a firearm.) Wouldn't the employer be liable for the damages to the employee because the employee could not adequately defend themselves? I think this applies to the government as well. Any place that I'm forbidden from carrying (i.e. school) must be aggressively protected by the government. If the government won't allow me to protect myself then the government must provide the protection in those places. [/QUOTE]

Verification