Gun Free Zone Liability

[corneileous]

why? a store that allows guns could be equally vulnerable if no one inside is carrying at the moment. Yet we are quick to say that the store has no responsibility since that always falls strictly to the individual.

You can’t expect there to always be a a good guy around for every bad guy.

You’ve been making some good points but this is a weak argument.

Edited to add:

Y’all who think you’re proving a point by not shopping at these places are less good guys who’s not always around when bad guy thinks he’s taking advantage of the “no guns” sign.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[druryj]

Sign? What sign? Sorry, but I walk faster than I read.

 

[Snattlerake]

Let's devil's advocate awhile.

Y'all remember the Denver moviehouse shooting? A fellow with a rifle was it? I don't remember if the movie was signed no weapons or not. Can you imagine if 5 people were in there armed? The media would have had a field day with the OK Corral which would have ensued not to mention the lawsuits. Hypothetically, good guys with little to no training could have shot good guys trying to stop the threat.

I found this

 

[TerryMiller]

Let's devil's advocate awhile.

Y'all remember the Denver moviehouse shooting? A fellow with a rifle was it? I don't remember if the movie was signed no weapons or not. Can you imagine if 5 people were in there armed? The media would have had a field day with the OK Corral which would have ensued not to mention the lawsuits. Hypothetically, good guys with little to no training could have shot good guys trying to stop the threat.

I found this

That movie theater in Aurora, CO was a gun-free facility. It was noted at the time that the perpetrator passed at least two other theaters showing the same movie (Batman, I think) between where he lived and where the Aurora theater is/was. Both of those other theaters were supposedly NOT gun free facilities.

 

[corneileous]

That movie theater in Aurora, CO was a gun-free facility. It was noted at the time that the perpetrator passed at least two other theaters showing the same movie (Batman, I think) between where he lived and where the Aurora theater is/was. Both of those other theaters were supposedly NOT gun free facilities.

Hmmm, ‘magine that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Aries]

If the point of this game is that the signs don't prevent someone from bringing a gun in and committing a crime, that's a valid point but it's a straw man argument. I haven't seen anyone argue that the sign makes any business less likely to be a victim of a crime.

The question really is, should the government or anyone else be able to tell you that you HAVE to allow guns on YOUR property? Or if you don't, that you must be liable for a criminal who disregards your request and commits a crime on your property.

Back to the point I tried to make earlier... we argue that gun manufacturers should not be held responsible if their product is used in a crime, the victim of theft should not be held responsible if his gun is stolen and used in a crime, and law abiding gun owners in general should not be held responsible because criminals use guns to commit crimes. CRIMINALS should be held solely responsible for their crimes, not people or victims who were not doing anything illegal. Does anyone disagree with that?

But some of you seem to be saying that if a criminal ignores the business owners request and brings in a gun and commits a crime, the business owner should be held as much or more responsible than the criminal? The business owner is as much a victim of the crime as his customers.

And again... the signs only say what you can or can't do on the business owner's property. They don't say you can't have a gun, they just say don't bring it onto MY property. Some choices in life are hard, but it's still your choice.

Let's play devil's advocate again. Raise your hand if you believe that someone else should be able to tell you what to allow on your own property, and if you don't allow what they want, you are liable for anything bad that happens to them.

Now... if you want to talk about whether the signs are a bad idea, this will probably end quickly. I don't think anyone here is likely to disagree with that. Again, there are different conversations going on, and everyone is talking past each other. This is my position though, I don't want government or anyone else (any more than is necessary) telling me what I must or can't do on my own property, so I will respect that right for others even if I disagree with them.

 

[Tanis143]

This is my position though, I don't want government or anyone else (any more than is necessary) telling me what I must or can't do on my own property, so I will respect that right for others even if I disagree with them.

There is a huge difference though. Do you allow anyone to walk into your home, uninvited? No, because its not a publically accessible place. Hypothetically, if I was to go to your house and you told me not to bring in my firearm, I would have no problem with that because of the low risk. You only allow people you trust into your home, so if I was there then the chance some crazy came walking in and harming me is extremely small (even smaller than it happening in a public place). However, going into a place of business that allows people to just walk in is a whole different story.

I agree with the argument that having government dictate what a business can and can not ban on their private property is bad (the libbies would have a field day creating laws that would make all businesses gun free zones and make carrying in one a felony). Yes, I agree I (or anyone else) could simply ignore the signs as here in OK it is not a crime to do so, but what about states where it is a crime, like Texas?

The problem I have is that as the consumer I have three choices: don't patronize that store even if its the only one close to me with the product/service I want, carry anyway and risk being asked to leave and not come back, or go into the store without my firearm and hope I've not just walked into one of the small instances that statistically I would have never been in.

Honestly, IMO, there is no good answer.

 

[Aries]

I didn't say home, I just said property.

No, I don't think there really is a difference... except that there is a presumption that you are NOT invited into my home until you are, but you ARE invited into my business until you are NOT. But business owners can un-invite you for many reasons, including that they don't want you to have a gun on their property. The sign simply tells you that your invitation is withdrawn as long as you have a gun.

Here is another scenario to consider. You're concerned about the risk of an armed robber coming in while you are unarmed, but could the business owner (or his customers) be concerned about the risk that someone (not any of us here who are all well trained, intelligent, experienced, and responsible of course... you know, one of those OTHER idiots...) could bring a gun in and accidentally shoot one of his other patrons? Is he then responsible for that as well, because he did NOT have a no gun sign? Maybe the business owner believes that he IS protecting his customers by not allowing guns, but he should not have a right to make that decision?

And if you require him to provide armed guards to protect you while you comply with the no gun sign, you realize that costs more, and that cost will be passed on to his customers. So your demand may result in his prices being so high that you are forced to find another store, and/or he goes out of business. Then you REALLY have no choice. But at least his sign will be down.

(but honestly, I don't think any of you expect him to provide protection, I think you just don't want him to have the right to ask you not to bring a gun onto his property)

Honestly, IMO, there is no good answer.

This is essentially true, because you simply cannot remove every risk. Life is dangerous. You have to make the best choices you can, as does every business owner. I don't think we should take away their rights unnecessarily, even if I don't like their decision.

 

[Tanis143]

I didn't say home, I just said property.

No, I don't think there really is a difference... except that there is a presumption that you are NOT invited into my home until you are, but you ARE invited into my business until you are NOT. But business owners can un-invite you for many reasons, including that they don't want you to have a gun on their property. The sign simply tells you that your invitation is withdrawn as long as you have a gun.

That is the big difference between personal property and commercial property. In someone else's home I have a greater expectation of safety because not anyone is allowed to just walk in (granted, laws won't stop someone who is determined to get in, but in principle people won't just walk in). Businesses are the exact opposite. I walk into a QT with no guarantee that some wacko isn't just going to walk in after me (yes, I know QT allows firearms, just using them as an example). Business owners are held to keep their place of business as safe as possible for their customers/patrons. Does putting up a gun free sign decrease the safety of those in that business? That would be a study that will never happen. One of the things I've seen said (and I say as well) is that gun free zones don't work, they only make the area a target rich environment. On the flip side of that is businesses are only held liable for situations that they have reasonable control over. If you go klutzo in a store and trip over your own shoe, the store is not liable for your injury. However if they fail to put out a wet floor sign after someone spills a jug of water, they can be held liable if you fall on the wet floor. The business is not accountable for the actions of someone in their business, but can they be held liable for creating an environment that is less safe. I think that is where we disagree. Several posters on here have related this to holding the business responsible for the bad guy's actions. That is not what I am saying. I'm saying they should be held responsible for creating an environment that decreases the level of safety for their customers.

 

[Aries]

You are correct that anyone can enter the business, but that also means that the youtube guys that we all love to make fun of because they obviously know nothing about handling firearms safely, can enter as well.

Which is the bigger threat, a criminal with a gun or an idiot with a gun? Who gets to decide? It is THEIR property. You can decide on YOUR property.

You are also correct that it is possible they MAY be held responsible depending on various factors (probably not just because they had a no gun sign). So if there's an incident, sue them. You *might* win, but I seriously would expect their attorney to point out that you voluntarily entered their property knowing their conditions.

The real question is do they have a right to decide if they want to allow guns on their own property. You say it makes the environment less safe, but that doesn't make it true. Their intention is probably to make it more safe, and they think keeping the John Rambo types out is a better idea. Who is more likely right? I think you are, but it's their property so they should have a right to decide.