Recommend
 
 Thumb up
 Hide
61 Posts
1 , 2 , 3  Next »   | 

BoardGameGeek» Forums » Everything Else » Religion, Sex, and Politics

Subject: A better strategy for gun regulation that was new to me.. rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: RSP_guns [+] [View All]
jeremy cobert
United States
cedar rapids
Iowa
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
this may be the single best thing I have heard about all year.The bill in TN got screwed up by the pro-mass shooting lobby but I would bet that other states are going to have people come up with similar bills.


Quote:
Heading into law this Friday is Tennessee’s Senate Bill 1736, which will put into action something gun owners have been encouraging for years.

As of July 1, if a handgun carry permit holder in Tennessee is injured, suffers bodily injury or death, incurs economic loss or expense, property damage or any other compensable loss on a property posted as a gun-free zone, they can sue the person or entity who stripped them of their right to self defense.

The law will enact a “duty of care” on any person who posts their property as a gun-free zone, making them responsible for the safety of any handgun carry permit holder while the permit holder is on the posted premises as well as while during their travel to and from the premises and the location where the permit holder’s firearm is stored.

Can you imagine? Holding gun-free zone property accountable for injuries people sustained by being disarmed and left defenseless? Groundbreaking.


http://bearingarms.com/jenn-j/2016/06/28/want-a-gun-free-zon...
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
casey r lowe
United States
butte
Montana
flag msg tools
mb
i think youve finally jumped the shark cobert
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Damian
United States
Enfield
Connecticut
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmb
Hmm, pretty sure you're the first guy to say that a private business should be able to have whatever policies it likes because you're free to not go there if you don't like it.
6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Damian
United States
Enfield
Connecticut
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmb
bjlillo wrote:
This is already the law in Wisconsin, but it isn't just the CCW holders that businesses are liable for.
That seemed highly unusual and I was a bit skeptical of that claim. I don't believe that's correct. I found a very long analysis by the Wisconsin Bar discussing the (then new) CCL laws.

They seem to come to nearly the opposite conclusion of your claim. See the section titled "Illustrations: Proprietors, Employers, Municipalities". Just because the law explicitly grants immunity from liability to those who allow carry, it does not make those who forbid carry somehow open to liability. While it is not completely impossible to find liability, it seems it would be very, very difficult and if there was it would not be due to the CCL law.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ron
United States
flag msg tools
Avatar
I'm not what you would call an rsp 'regular'. At what point are the threads so similar that we just start providing links to old posts and no other text in order to re-hash the same trains of thought?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Andrew Bartosh

Sunnyvale
California
msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
From what I can tell over the past couple weeks, we don't. We argue the same points, eventually a new hot button issue crops up and nearly all focus shifts to that across multiple topics while the previous topic gets the odd news story, and the wheel just keeps turning.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
jeremy cobert
United States
cedar rapids
Iowa
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
single sentences wrote:
i think youve finally jumped the shark cobert

Nope, I jumped the shark quite a while ago.


damiangerous wrote:
Hmm, pretty sure you're the first guy to say that a private business should be able to have whatever policies it likes because you're free to not go there if you don't like it.

Absolutely ! If we can agree to that policy, then I am cool but if we live under your nutty "public access means public owned" then I say , use the laws against the nutters.

Oh I wish I knew a gay man with a concealed carry permit who could test out some of the tolerant business's in the area.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chad Ellis
United States
Brookline
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
designer
publisher
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Anyone who argues that businesses should be able to choose how they operate, including who to refuse service to, should (I would think) oppose this law on principle.

The law seems to be saying that if a business says you may not carry a gun on premises that the business is violating the rights of people who choose to enter under those conditions?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Boaty McBoatface
England
County of Essex
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Yes, because you have to have a gun to defend yourself.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
James Myers
United States
St. Louis
Missouri
flag msg tools
Mandelbrot/Simurgh hybrid etc etc
badge
I made both of these fractals, hurray!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
linguistfromhell wrote:
I'm not what you would call an rsp 'regular'. At what point are the threads so similar that we just start providing links to old posts and no other text in order to re-hash the same trains of thought?

The cycle is apparent pretty quickly, given a small observation window.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
James Myers
United States
St. Louis
Missouri
flag msg tools
Mandelbrot/Simurgh hybrid etc etc
badge
I made both of these fractals, hurray!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
jeremycobert wrote:
this may be the single best thing I have heard about all year.The bill in TN got screwed up by the pro-mass shooting lobby but I would bet that other states are going to have people come up with similar bills.


Quote:
Heading into law this Friday is Tennessee’s Senate Bill 1736, which will put into action something gun owners have been encouraging for years.

As of July 1, if a handgun carry permit holder in Tennessee is injured, suffers bodily injury or death, incurs economic loss or expense, property damage or any other compensable loss on a property posted as a gun-free zone, they can sue the person or entity who stripped them of their right to self defense.

The law will enact a “duty of care” on any person who posts their property as a gun-free zone, making them responsible for the safety of any handgun carry permit holder while the permit holder is on the posted premises as well as while during their travel to and from the premises and the location where the permit holder’s firearm is stored.

Can you imagine? Holding gun-free zone property accountable for injuries people sustained by being disarmed and left defenseless? Groundbreaking.


http://bearingarms.com/jenn-j/2016/06/28/want-a-gun-free-zon...

Something tells me this won't let them sue the gun-free courthouse or the gun-free zone where this legislation was passed.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ron
United States
flag msg tools
Avatar
Chad_Ellis wrote:
Anyone who argues that businesses should be able to choose how they operate, including who to refuse service to, should (I would think) oppose this law on principle.

The law seems to be saying that if a business says you may not carry a gun on premises that the business is violating the rights of people who choose to enter under those conditions?
Shrug. Can't deny you service if you're straight or gay. Guess they can't deny you service if you are following the law and exercising your constitutional rights either.
Apparently.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ron
United States
flag msg tools
Avatar
slatersteven wrote:
Yes, because you have to have a gun to defend yourself.
Have to? No.
If you want a decent chance of coming out on top? Yes.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
jeremy cobert
United States
cedar rapids
Iowa
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Terwox wrote:
Something tells me this won't let them sue the gun-free courthouse or the gun-free zone where this legislation was passed.

No dont be silly. The first rule of the modern progressive is to place the governments safety above the individuals. I bet these gun free zones protect their government with guns.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Boaty McBoatface
England
County of Essex
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
linguistfromhell wrote:
slatersteven wrote:
Yes, because you have to have a gun to defend yourself.
Have to? No.
If you want a decent chance of coming out on top? Yes.
And sometimes using a gun gets you shot.

Also how do we define self defense, Someone getting a bit getting lairy, or running away? What about if you start the fight, or act in away that scares or intimidates someone so they decode to confront you?

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ron
United States
flag msg tools
Avatar
slatersteven wrote:
linguistfromhell wrote:
slatersteven wrote:
Yes, because you have to have a gun to defend yourself.
Have to? No.
If you want a decent chance of coming out on top? Yes.
And sometimes using a gun gets you shot.
True. But in many cases, you were going to get shot anyway. What's worse, "will get shot"? Or "may get shot"?
Quote:
Also how do we define self defense, Someone getting a bit getting lairy
Huh?
Quote:
or running away?
Unsurprisingly, lots of people will run when their supposed "victim" can defend themselves. I'd call that a success, sure.
Quote:
What about if you start the fight, or act in away that scares or intimidates someone so they decode to confront you?
Well, then that's obviously not self-defense, is it?

This isn't rocket science.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
casey r lowe
United States
butte
Montana
flag msg tools
mb
linguistfromhell wrote:
slatersteven wrote:
What about if you start the fight, or act in away that scares or intimidates someone so they decode to confront you?
Well, then that's obviously not self-defense, is it?

This isn't rocket science.
george zimmerman would disagree
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ron
United States
flag msg tools
Avatar
single sentences wrote:
linguistfromhell wrote:
slatersteven wrote:
What about if you start the fight, or act in away that scares or intimidates someone so they decode to confront you?
Well, then that's obviously not self-defense, is it?

This isn't rocket science.
george zimmerman would disagree
Seems to me - and the jury of that trial - Zimmerman didn't shoot until a man was literally beating his head into the pavement. I'd call that self-defense.

And so did the jury.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
rekinom
United States
New York
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Chad_Ellis wrote:
Anyone who argues that businesses should be able to choose how they operate, including who to refuse service to, should (I would think) oppose this law on principle.

The law seems to be saying that if a business says you may not carry a gun on premises that the business is violating the rights of people who choose to enter under those conditions?

More like, you are free to declare your business a gun free zone, but if you do, you have a responsibility for the safety of your customers as they cannot defend themselves because of the choice you made. That would be what you either agree or disagree with.

Property rights do not absolve a property owner of liability. If someone gets hurt on your property, you may have some liability exposure. Especially if your actions increased the chance that someone could have been hurt or failed to correct a problem that was foreseeable, i.e. like an attractive nuisance.

There have been a number of "duty of care" lawsuits where victims of a mass shooting have sued the property owner, including Cinemark, Virginia Tech., Long Island Railroad, San Ysidro McDonalds, etc. As far as I can tell, these types of lawsuits have all failed. If you hear of one that was successful, please let me know.

There are a couple of mass shooting "duty of care" lawsuits currently in action which will be interesting to watch. Victims of the Planned Parenthood shooting in Colorado Springs are suing Planned Parenthood, claiming that Planned Parenthood knew that a potential for an attack was foreseeable and the security at the facility was negligent. Families of victims of the Sandy Hook school shooting are suing the district because the doors could not be locked from inside the classroom, the substitute teacher in one classroom did not have a key and would not have been able to lock the door, and the school's active shooter policies were not followed.

I actually have mixed feelings about this law. It only increases the liability when someone could have otherwise been carrying. It does not increase the liability if the victim does not have a carry permit. If a gun free sign is like an attractive nuisance, then the liability should exist regardless of who the victims are. I am also more concerned about bad security practices at places that my family can't choose to avoid, like schools.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Daniel Edwards
United Kingdom
Chigwell, Essex, London
Unspecified
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmb
What a terribly bad legal doctrine.

How on earth would a property owner discharge a duty of care to protect a customer while they drive to and from their business? How on earth would you insure your liability?

"Hold on Buddy-Lee. Next time you want to come over and buy my surplus army gear for your militia/book reading club you need to give me a call first so I can come over and sit shotgun for you with my shotgun so if someone tries to randomly shoot you in transit I have you covered. Oh and my prices have gone up 2000% to cover my time and insurance costs."
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David Dearlove
United Kingdom
Isleworth
Middx
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
linguistfromhell wrote:
single sentences wrote:
linguistfromhell wrote:
slatersteven wrote:
What about if you start the fight, or act in away that scares or intimidates someone so they decode to confront you?
Well, then that's obviously not self-defense, is it?

This isn't rocket science.
george zimmerman would disagree
Seems to me - and the jury of that trial - Zimmerman didn't shoot until a man was literally beating his head into the pavement. I'd call that self-defense.

And so did the jury.
So if you start a fight and begin to lose you can pull out a gun, kill someone and call it self defence?
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kaitlyn Smith
United States
Florida
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
DavidDearlove wrote:
linguistfromhell wrote:
Zimmerman didn't shoot until a man was literally beating his head into the pavement. I'd call that self-defense.

And so did the jury.
So if you start a fight and begin to lose you can pull out a gun, kill someone and call it self defence?
If you're going to die otherwise, I'd say the answer is yes.

Now, a question for you - would you have asked the same question if Zimmerman was black and Martin was white?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jon Badolato
United States
Connecticut
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Kaitlyn_Res wrote:
DavidDearlove wrote:
linguistfromhell wrote:
Zimmerman didn't shoot until a man was literally beating his head into the pavement. I'd call that self-defense.

And so did the jury.
So if you start a fight and begin to lose you can pull out a gun, kill someone and call it self defence?
If you're going to die otherwise, I'd say the answer is yes.

Now, a question for you - would you have asked the same question if Zimmerman was black and Martin was white?

Of course, it may have never come to that if Zimmerman hadn't stalked Martin and then exited his vehicle when police told him not to do so. But I realize some live in an alternate reality.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Josh
United States
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Simple solution. Gun free zone signs now include a little bkurb at the bottom putting liability back on the consumer if the consumer chooses to patronize the store.

That 1% of nutters will read and maybe avoid the store, the rest of us who weren't armed for the cinema won't care.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David Dearlove
United Kingdom
Isleworth
Middx
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Kaitlyn_Res wrote:
DavidDearlove wrote:
linguistfromhell wrote:
Zimmerman didn't shoot until a man was literally beating his head into the pavement. I'd call that self-defense.

And so did the jury.
So if you start a fight and begin to lose you can pull out a gun, kill someone and call it self defence?
If you're going to die otherwise, I'd say the answer is yes.

Now, a question for you - would you have asked the same question if Zimmerman was black and Martin was white?

I think if you start a fight and then pull out a gun when you are losing that is murder pure and simple. It just the same as starting out by shooting. I think a UK jury would agree with me.

I don't really care about the black/white issue as you Americans are all foreign to me. I fail to see why I should identify with "white" ones instead of "black" ones. Also calling them Black and White is living proof of the racism that is American racial characterisation.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
1 , 2 , 3  Next »   |