I carry a gun because I’m taking my personal security into my own hands. If you prohibit me from carrying a firearm you are saying you will take my security into your own hands, and I will not NEED my firearm.
I think under than if I am attacked, harmed, or injured in a “Gun Free Zone” and I can make a reasonable claim that if I had been armed I could have protected myself from harm, then the person or entity that banned weapons in the establishment is responsible for my injury.
Frankly I think everybody killed or injured in Fort Hood should have sued for damages as everybody harmed was trained and proficient in stopping an attack like that.
Also a single jihadi with an underpowered pistol was not much of a threat against a fully staffed army base…except when the army is disarmed it was.
more here
This needs to be a test case…esp. on college campuses (campi?) like those in Texas that actively fought against campus carry with taxpayer funds….
Makes sense, but I just won’t patronize those places… no gun, no $$…
What I took out of it is something different — for many of those people, their principles can be bought for very little.
“Oh we don’t want people to be here armed…..but it would cost too much to get more insurance or hire a security guard”
“Oh, we don’t want people armed but we would lose business”
And those troops were deploying, that’s why they were in that building. ALL of them had qualified with their duty weapon within the last few weeks. I had qualified sharpshooter twice within the last month, mainly because Big Army issued us CCO’s and we had to re-qual with optics. But wait, there’s more! He wasn’t just ANY jihadi with an underpowered pistol, he is a Major in the United States Army, wearing the same damn uniform I do, and as an Officer, someone I am supposed to trust. And bound by the same regulations as me, as well. But those “regulations” didn’t stop him. I won’t say any more, lest I incriminate myself, but it’s one reason I’m getting out of the military. I wish the Army still had firing squads. I’d so volunteer.
I’ll agree…partially. The person ultimately responsible is the individual who attacked you. I know that should be taken as read, but it so often isn’t. And, to continue the position of Devil’s Advocate, would such a position then be flipped: if a person wasn’t armed, they would be liable for the attack on themselves? That could be an equally problematic, if in a different way, road to take.
I will say though that the legal fees from such a case would be appalling…which, come to think of it, might encourage the business to change their position, so it might be an effective tactic!
If a person chooses to not be armed, that is their choice. They have chosen to be at the mercy of all others during the time it takes the police to arrive.
If a person has chosen to be responsible for their own safety, and is armed, and you require that person to disarm to enter your property, then you have made yourself responsible for that person’s well being.