Never happen.
Unfortunately because of the mentality of insurance companies, I’m thinking Snattle’s probably right because in their minds, “attempting” to ban guns from an establishment makes better sense rather than allowing them. They probably feel allowing defensive guns adds more risk and liability.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Nope. Their choice to ban guns in no way removes you of your ability to protect yourself as you still have a choice about being there. Don't want to be in danger in a gun-free private business, simply don't go there. It might not be easy for you, but you are still armed with the ability to stay out of a 'dangerous situation'.
I think this argument is akin to the gun grabbers who say 'oh, well clearly we need to make gun owners carry extra liability insurance'. It's not meant to make anyone safer but to be a barrier to that choice.
the balance you speak of is your ability to choose not to frequent a place that bans guns.
Another closet liberal spotted here.
Dont argue with idiots, they will bring you down to their level and beat you with experience in idiocy
Never heard of that one but ok, that’s one of them- but, what is it about their religion and not allowing guns on their property/establishments?
But how would I prove the majority to you?? I can’t. I guess I could go around to each and every business in America and start askin’ questions but, I don’t really think there is a feasible way to fully answer your question. But whatever the reason why whoever business/establishment bans guns, doesn’t matter.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Lots of quakers in this world. Especially in places like indiana, north carolina and Pennsylvania. My wife's family has been attending the same meeting (read church) for upwards of 260 years in North Carolina.
Some of the first conscientious objector laws in our country were written for them. Long tradition of pacifism and religious objections to violence and war. Some interesting stories from times like WWII where Quakers were unarmed litter carriers aiding injured troops. Some went so far as to volunteer for medical experiments as their was of contributing without violating their religious principles.
And your point about 'majority' is the same as mine. You are speculating why a business might object. It could be hatred of guns, or because their insurance company demands it for a lower rate. Either way, them choosing to ban weapons does not disarm you. Your choosing to go in disarmed does. The choices being made that put someone in danger happen before that person enters the store and it involves two sides.
And i agree, it doesn't matter why they ban guns nor should it. But lets not use bad laws to create special situations whereby they are more liable as a way to punish them. How long would it take for a democrat in Virginia to see a law like this and say 'great, let's create one too, only we are going to make a business more liable if they allow guns.' I'm sure they think that will surely protect susie soccer mom from someone carrying a highpoint in their sweat pant waistband who might as easily have an ND as save someone from from a random attack.
I guess I could see your point on that but I guess I’m just also looking too much at it like, of how they expect a no gun sign to keep the bad person out. And yes, I know that places like federal buildings and airports for example are held to different standards, but most of those places don’t rely on just a sign to keep guns out. They either have, or have a combination of armed security with pat-downs and metal detectors.
But I don’t know… Whatever the reason for expecting just a sign to protect an establishment from bad people who intend to do harm, they’re still a bad idea, and they still get people killed. Most everybody wants to end “gun” violence but expecting these aptly named robbers welcome or bad guys welcome signs to fob the job, doesn’t make anybody safer. Yeah, they may keep out the bozo whom which you described who stuffs a pistol in the waistband of a pair of sweatpants, but the bad guy who wishes to take advantage of all the would-be hero’s who’s abiding by the law and disarming, what are we all left to do to end the reason why anyone of us good guys would wanna carry in there armed in the first place? Sure, we can all just shop elsewhere but realistically, you’re not gonna get everybody to do that which means that no gun signs are still going to continue to get people killed. Even though in my humble little opinion, the majority of people gonna be at risk is all the liberals and the gun haters who think they’re safe by shopping in a no guns zone.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Similar threads
