Three gun control proposals that will actually work

[kaz]

It's not about government taking care of you. Get Ron Paul's dick out of your mouth for a second. If a store owner creates a dangerous situation and things go bad you should have recourse to the courts for relief. Simple concept.

Ron Paul? What does he have to do with anything?

So if you are saying a gun free zone is automatically a risk, you accepted that risk by going there, you can't have it both ways, Sparky.

It's private property. Don't like the rules don't go there. Don't turn your manhood over to government

Sorry, doesnt work that way. Property owners are liable for damage/injury occurring on their property when they knowingly create dangerous situations.

Actually, it works exactly that way. Google "definition assumption of risk". You are saying a gun free zone is automatically risky, that means you know that when you are entering it

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

You do realize that in the "no gun control" era of the "wild wild west" - there were a lot of shootings and it wasn't just the "bad guys" that got it.

Only on TV.

Interesting...you might be right, there's apparently a lot of myth on the violence there - I looked it up and found this tidbit:

Did the Wild West Have More Gun Control Than We Do Today?

Yet this is all based on a widely shared misunderstanding of the Wild West. Frontier towns -- places like Tombstone, Deadwood, and Dodge -- actually had the most restrictive gun control laws in the nation.

In fact, many of those same cities have far less burdensome gun control today then they did back in the 1800s.

Guns were obviously widespread on the frontier. Out in the untamed wilderness, you needed a gun to be safe from bandits, natives, and wildlife. In the cities and towns of the West, however, the law often prohibited people from toting their guns around. A visitor arriving in Wichita, Kansas in 1873, the heart of the Wild West era, would have seen signs declaring, "Leave Your Revolvers At Police Headquarters, and Get a Check."

A check? That's right. When you entered a frontier town, you were legally required to leave your guns at the stables on the outskirts of town or drop them off with the sheriff, who would give you a token in exchange. You checked your guns then like you'd check your overcoat today at a Boston restaurant in winter. Visitors were welcome, but their guns were not. ​

Indeed, the same as private property owners can restrict firearms on their property today.

Not in all cases. I'm a landlord and the state law prohibits me from restricting any tenant of mine from owning or possessing a firearm.

 

[Geaux4it]

It's not about government taking care of you. Get Ron Paul's dick out of your mouth for a second. If a store owner creates a dangerous situation and things go bad you should have recourse to the courts for relief. Simple concept.

Ron Paul? What does he have to do with anything?

So if you are saying a gun free zone is automatically a risk, you accepted that risk by going there, you can't have it both ways, Sparky.

It's private property. Don't like the rules don't go there. Don't turn your manhood over to government

Sorry, doesnt work that way. Property owners are liable for damage/injury occurring on their property when they knowingly create dangerous situations.

Actually, it works exactly that way. Google "definition assumption of risk". You are saying a gun free zone is automatically risky, that means you know that when you are entering it

Which is a good reason to carry anyway

I've been to the movies 3 times since the shooting and have packed every time.

My life is more important than some stupid law/rule that puts it at risk

-Geaux

 

[The Rabbi]

It's not about government taking care of you. Get Ron Paul's dick out of your mouth for a second. If a store owner creates a dangerous situation and things go bad you should have recourse to the courts for relief. Simple concept.

Ron Paul? What does he have to do with anything?

So if you are saying a gun free zone is automatically a risk, you accepted that risk by going there, you can't have it both ways, Sparky.

It's private property. Don't like the rules don't go there. Don't turn your manhood over to government

Sorry, doesnt work that way. Property owners are liable for damage/injury occurring on their property when they knowingly create dangerous situations.

Actually, it works exactly that way. Google "definition assumption of risk". You are saying a gun free zone is automatically risky, that means you know that when you are entering it

That's a fail.
Working on girders of a high rise is not comparable to eating in a posted restaurant.

 

[kaz]

You do realize that in the "no gun control" era of the "wild wild west" - there were a lot of shootings and it wasn't just the "bad guys" that got it.

Only on TV.

Interesting...you might be right, there's apparently a lot of myth on the violence there - I looked it up and found this tidbit:

Did the Wild West Have More Gun Control Than We Do Today?

Yet this is all based on a widely shared misunderstanding of the Wild West. Frontier towns -- places like Tombstone, Deadwood, and Dodge -- actually had the most restrictive gun control laws in the nation.

In fact, many of those same cities have far less burdensome gun control today then they did back in the 1800s.

Guns were obviously widespread on the frontier. Out in the untamed wilderness, you needed a gun to be safe from bandits, natives, and wildlife. In the cities and towns of the West, however, the law often prohibited people from toting their guns around. A visitor arriving in Wichita, Kansas in 1873, the heart of the Wild West era, would have seen signs declaring, "Leave Your Revolvers At Police Headquarters, and Get a Check."

A check? That's right. When you entered a frontier town, you were legally required to leave your guns at the stables on the outskirts of town or drop them off with the sheriff, who would give you a token in exchange. You checked your guns then like you'd check your overcoat today at a Boston restaurant in winter. Visitors were welcome, but their guns were not. ​

Indeed, the same as private property owners can restrict firearms on their property today.

Not in all cases. I'm a landlord and the state law prohibits me from restricting any tenant of mine from owning or possessing a firearm.

That's not the same thing. When you lease out the space, they have the space. When they come in your kitchen, you have every right to restrict guns. When you go into their kitchen, it's their choice. Even if they leased the space from you

 

[The Rabbi]

It's not about government taking care of you. Get Ron Paul's dick out of your mouth for a second. If a store owner creates a dangerous situation and things go bad you should have recourse to the courts for relief. Simple concept.

Ron Paul? What does he have to do with anything?

So if you are saying a gun free zone is automatically a risk, you accepted that risk by going there, you can't have it both ways, Sparky.

It's private property. Don't like the rules don't go there. Don't turn your manhood over to government

Sorry, doesnt work that way. Property owners are liable for damage/injury occurring on their property when they knowingly create dangerous situations.

Actually, it works exactly that way. Google "definition assumption of risk". You are saying a gun free zone is automatically risky, that means you know that when you are entering it

Which is a good reason to carry anyway

I've been to the movies 3 times since the shooting and have packed every time.

My life is more important than some stupid law/rule that puts it at risk

-Geaux

Agree. Unless there's a metal detector, I'm carrying. It's no one else's business.

 

[kaz]

It's not about government taking care of you. Get Ron Paul's dick out of your mouth for a second. If a store owner creates a dangerous situation and things go bad you should have recourse to the courts for relief. Simple concept.

Ron Paul? What does he have to do with anything?

So if you are saying a gun free zone is automatically a risk, you accepted that risk by going there, you can't have it both ways, Sparky.

It's private property. Don't like the rules don't go there. Don't turn your manhood over to government

Sorry, doesnt work that way. Property owners are liable for damage/injury occurring on their property when they knowingly create dangerous situations.

Actually, it works exactly that way. Google "definition assumption of risk". You are saying a gun free zone is automatically risky, that means you know that when you are entering it

That's a fail.
Working on girders of a high rise is not comparable to eating in a posted restaurant.

What does that have to do with the point?

This is simple, and you're a simpleton. It's in your native language, you should grasp it.

if gun free zones are automatically risky, then by entering a gun free zone, you are knowingly accepting that risk. You willfully engaged in that risky activity

stop being a liberal and expecting government to fix life for you. make your own choices, man up to life. eat at restaurants that aren't gun free zones if that's your choice. don't run to mommy government to make them stop being a meanie

 

[kaz]

It's not about government taking care of you. Get Ron Paul's dick out of your mouth for a second. If a store owner creates a dangerous situation and things go bad you should have recourse to the courts for relief. Simple concept.

Ron Paul? What does he have to do with anything?

So if you are saying a gun free zone is automatically a risk, you accepted that risk by going there, you can't have it both ways, Sparky.

It's private property. Don't like the rules don't go there. Don't turn your manhood over to government

Sorry, doesnt work that way. Property owners are liable for damage/injury occurring on their property when they knowingly create dangerous situations.

Actually, it works exactly that way. Google "definition assumption of risk". You are saying a gun free zone is automatically risky, that means you know that when you are entering it

Which is a good reason to carry anyway

I've been to the movies 3 times since the shooting and have packed every time.

My life is more important than some stupid law/rule that puts it at risk

-Geaux

Agree. Unless there's a metal detector, I'm carrying. It's no one else's business.

Unless you're on someone else's private property. Then it's their right just like it's your right on your property to say what people can do and bring to yours

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Did gun control work in Australia?

John Howard, who served as prime minister of Australia from 1996 to 2007, is no one's idea of a lefty. He was one of George W. Bush's closest allies, enthusiastically backing the Iraq intervention, and took a hard line domestically against increased immigration and union organizing (pdf).

But one of Howard's other lasting legacies is Australia's gun control regime, first passed in 1996 in response to a massacre in Tasmania that left 35 dead. The law banned semiautomatic and automatic rifles and shotguns. It also instituted a mandatory buy-back program for newly banned weapons.

On Wednesday, Howard took to the Melbourne daily the Age to call on the United States, in light of the Aurora, Colo., massacre, to follow in Australia's footsteps. "There are many American traits which we Australians could well emulate to our great benefit," he concluded. "But when it comes to guns, we have been right to take a radically different path."

So what have the Australian laws actually done for homicide and suicide rates? Howard cites a study (pdf) by Andrew Leigh of Australian National University and Christine Neill of Wilfrid Laurier University finding that the firearm homicide rate fell by 59 percent, and the firearm suicide rate fell by 65 percent, in the decade after the law was introduced, without a parallel increase in non-firearm homicides and suicides. That provides strong circumstantial evidence for the law's effectiveness.

This is what you want? Well, that is what you people are going to get with your continued idiocy concerning the proliferation of firearms in this nation. And when it happens, it will happen exactly as in Australia. A final straw that offends everyone so badly that they simply override the stupidity of the NRA and GOP.

Your statistics are correct but very misleading.

National review looked into those claims. As I said, those results are accurate. But what's omitted is the fact that the gun suicide and murder trends have been on the same decline ten years before the law was enacted. In other words, nothing changed. The decline only continued.

The only real change (that makes no sense) were the non-gun related suicides. After the law passed, the non-gun related suicides took a deep dive. I don't think that had anything to do with gun confiscation, it just happened to be a coincidence.

 

[The Rabbi]

Ron Paul? What does he have to do with anything?

So if you are saying a gun free zone is automatically a risk, you accepted that risk by going there, you can't have it both ways, Sparky.

It's private property. Don't like the rules don't go there. Don't turn your manhood over to government

Sorry, doesnt work that way. Property owners are liable for damage/injury occurring on their property when they knowingly create dangerous situations.

Actually, it works exactly that way. Google "definition assumption of risk". You are saying a gun free zone is automatically risky, that means you know that when you are entering it

Which is a good reason to carry anyway

I've been to the movies 3 times since the shooting and have packed every time.

My life is more important than some stupid law/rule that puts it at risk

-Geaux

Agree. Unless there's a metal detector, I'm carrying. It's no one else's business.

Unless you're on someone else's private property. Then it's their right just like it's your right on your property to say what people can do and bring to yours

Nah. It's no on eelse's business.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

You do realize that in the "no gun control" era of the "wild wild west" - there were a lot of shootings and it wasn't just the "bad guys" that got it.

Only on TV.

Interesting...you might be right, there's apparently a lot of myth on the violence there - I looked it up and found this tidbit:

Did the Wild West Have More Gun Control Than We Do Today?

Yet this is all based on a widely shared misunderstanding of the Wild West. Frontier towns -- places like Tombstone, Deadwood, and Dodge -- actually had the most restrictive gun control laws in the nation.

In fact, many of those same cities have far less burdensome gun control today then they did back in the 1800s.

Guns were obviously widespread on the frontier. Out in the untamed wilderness, you needed a gun to be safe from bandits, natives, and wildlife. In the cities and towns of the West, however, the law often prohibited people from toting their guns around. A visitor arriving in Wichita, Kansas in 1873, the heart of the Wild West era, would have seen signs declaring, "Leave Your Revolvers At Police Headquarters, and Get a Check."

A check? That's right. When you entered a frontier town, you were legally required to leave your guns at the stables on the outskirts of town or drop them off with the sheriff, who would give you a token in exchange. You checked your guns then like you'd check your overcoat today at a Boston restaurant in winter. Visitors were welcome, but their guns were not. ​

Indeed, the same as private property owners can restrict firearms on their property today.

Not in all cases. I'm a landlord and the state law prohibits me from restricting any tenant of mine from owning or possessing a firearm.

That's not the same thing. When you lease out the space, they have the space. When they come in your kitchen, you have every right to restrict guns. When you go into their kitchen, it's their choice. Even if they leased the space from you

No, because I can still say what goes on in that space even though I'm renting it out.

I will not permit people to run illegal drugs or have prostitution in that space. I may not permit animals in the rental unit. I determine how many people will live there, and the tenant has no right to move his friends of family in without my permission.

There are lots of restrictions that landlords can make, but in my state, we are prohibited from banning firearms.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

It's not about government taking care of you. Get Ron Paul's dick out of your mouth for a second. If a store owner creates a dangerous situation and things go bad you should have recourse to the courts for relief. Simple concept.

Ron Paul? What does he have to do with anything?

So if you are saying a gun free zone is automatically a risk, you accepted that risk by going there, you can't have it both ways, Sparky.

It's private property. Don't like the rules don't go there. Don't turn your manhood over to government

Sorry, doesnt work that way. Property owners are liable for damage/injury occurring on their property when they knowingly create dangerous situations.

Actually, it works exactly that way. Google "definition assumption of risk". You are saying a gun free zone is automatically risky, that means you know that when you are entering it

That's a fail.
Working on girders of a high rise is not comparable to eating in a posted restaurant.

What does that have to do with the point?

This is simple, and you're a simpleton. It's in your native language, you should grasp it.

if gun free zones are automatically risky, then by entering a gun free zone, you are knowingly accepting that risk. You willfully engaged in that risky activity

This is correct, but you do the exact same thing when you go to an establishment that sells alcohol.

You drink alcohol on their property with full knowledge of it's effects. Yet, if they continue serving you alcohol after you are impaired, the bar or restaurant can be held liable if you get into a car accident and kill somebody on the way home.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The Progressive Gun Control Song Remain the Same.

We must disarm you, for your own protection

 

[kaz]

Sorry, doesnt work that way. Property owners are liable for damage/injury occurring on their property when they knowingly create dangerous situations.

Actually, it works exactly that way. Google "definition assumption of risk". You are saying a gun free zone is automatically risky, that means you know that when you are entering it

Which is a good reason to carry anyway

I've been to the movies 3 times since the shooting and have packed every time.

My life is more important than some stupid law/rule that puts it at risk

-Geaux

Agree. Unless there's a metal detector, I'm carrying. It's no one else's business.

Unless you're on someone else's private property. Then it's their right just like it's your right on your property to say what people can do and bring to yours

Nah. It's no on eelse's business.

Manning up and making your own decisions just isn't an option, huh? Government needs to take care of you?

 

[kaz]

Ron Paul? What does he have to do with anything?

So if you are saying a gun free zone is automatically a risk, you accepted that risk by going there, you can't have it both ways, Sparky.

It's private property. Don't like the rules don't go there. Don't turn your manhood over to government

Sorry, doesnt work that way. Property owners are liable for damage/injury occurring on their property when they knowingly create dangerous situations.

Actually, it works exactly that way. Google "definition assumption of risk". You are saying a gun free zone is automatically risky, that means you know that when you are entering it

That's a fail.
Working on girders of a high rise is not comparable to eating in a posted restaurant.

What does that have to do with the point?

This is simple, and you're a simpleton. It's in your native language, you should grasp it.

if gun free zones are automatically risky, then by entering a gun free zone, you are knowingly accepting that risk. You willfully engaged in that risky activity

This is correct, but you do the exact same thing when you go to an establishment that sells alcohol.

You drink alcohol on their property with full knowledge of it's effects. Yet, if they continue serving you alcohol after you are impaired, the bar or restaurant can be held liable if you get into a car accident and kill somebody on the way home.

The difference is the restaurant isn't automatically liable. If I have one beer and that has nothing to do with the accident they can't be sued. You have to show they acted with wrecklessness. Like serving me when I was clearly intoxicated and probably about to drive. Rabbi is proposing that just a gun free policy makes them liable. And again, if that's enough to be "risky" then that means you assumed the risk by going there, again that doesn't apply to a bar

 

[kaz]

Only on TV.

Interesting...you might be right, there's apparently a lot of myth on the violence there - I looked it up and found this tidbit:

Did the Wild West Have More Gun Control Than We Do Today?

Yet this is all based on a widely shared misunderstanding of the Wild West. Frontier towns -- places like Tombstone, Deadwood, and Dodge -- actually had the most restrictive gun control laws in the nation.

In fact, many of those same cities have far less burdensome gun control today then they did back in the 1800s.

Guns were obviously widespread on the frontier. Out in the untamed wilderness, you needed a gun to be safe from bandits, natives, and wildlife. In the cities and towns of the West, however, the law often prohibited people from toting their guns around. A visitor arriving in Wichita, Kansas in 1873, the heart of the Wild West era, would have seen signs declaring, "Leave Your Revolvers At Police Headquarters, and Get a Check."

A check? That's right. When you entered a frontier town, you were legally required to leave your guns at the stables on the outskirts of town or drop them off with the sheriff, who would give you a token in exchange. You checked your guns then like you'd check your overcoat today at a Boston restaurant in winter. Visitors were welcome, but their guns were not. ​

Indeed, the same as private property owners can restrict firearms on their property today.

Not in all cases. I'm a landlord and the state law prohibits me from restricting any tenant of mine from owning or possessing a firearm.

That's not the same thing. When you lease out the space, they have the space. When they come in your kitchen, you have every right to restrict guns. When you go into their kitchen, it's their choice. Even if they leased the space from you

No, because I can still say what goes on in that space even though I'm renting it out.

I will not permit people to run illegal drugs or have prostitution in that space. I may not permit animals in the rental unit. I determine how many people will live there, and the tenant has no right to move his friends of family in without my permission.

There are lots of restrictions that landlords can make, but in my state, we are prohibited from banning firearms.

Fair enough, but you also can't consent to a police search of their personal property. As a libertarian, I think you and the leasee should be able to make any agreement you want. But legally now it is considered their space for the period of the rental

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Sorry, doesnt work that way. Property owners are liable for damage/injury occurring on their property when they knowingly create dangerous situations.

Actually, it works exactly that way. Google "definition assumption of risk". You are saying a gun free zone is automatically risky, that means you know that when you are entering it

That's a fail.
Working on girders of a high rise is not comparable to eating in a posted restaurant.

What does that have to do with the point?

This is simple, and you're a simpleton. It's in your native language, you should grasp it.

if gun free zones are automatically risky, then by entering a gun free zone, you are knowingly accepting that risk. You willfully engaged in that risky activity

This is correct, but you do the exact same thing when you go to an establishment that sells alcohol.

You drink alcohol on their property with full knowledge of it's effects. Yet, if they continue serving you alcohol after you are impaired, the bar or restaurant can be held liable if you get into a car accident and kill somebody on the way home.

The difference is the restaurant isn't automatically liable. If I have one beer and that has nothing to do with the accident they can't be sued. You have to show they acted with wrecklessness. Like serving me when I was clearly intoxicated and probably about to drive. Rabbi is proposing that just a gun free policy makes them liable. And again, if that's enough to be "risky" then that means you assumed the risk by going there, again that doesn't apply to a bar

Sure it does. When you decide to drink alcohol at that bar, you assume the risk of getting too loaded and getting into an accident. The bar owner too is liable for creating that risk.

Now don't get me wrong, it's not that I agree with it, but merely pointing out how liability works. I don't know where and when, but according to a work associate that also works on the side teaching CCW classes, a store owner was sued for liability because a customer was forced to disarm before entering his store and suffered some kind of an attack. I never looked into the story and only assuming what he told me was the truth since he teaches the classes.

Years ago companies used to throw office parties. The owner would get a full stocked bar and people would party right in their workplace. You don't see much of that anymore because the business owner could be held liable if one of his employees got into an accident. They still have parties on Christmas and whatnot, but no alcohol.

 

[kaz]

Actually, it works exactly that way. Google "definition assumption of risk". You are saying a gun free zone is automatically risky, that means you know that when you are entering it

That's a fail.
Working on girders of a high rise is not comparable to eating in a posted restaurant.

What does that have to do with the point?

This is simple, and you're a simpleton. It's in your native language, you should grasp it.

if gun free zones are automatically risky, then by entering a gun free zone, you are knowingly accepting that risk. You willfully engaged in that risky activity

This is correct, but you do the exact same thing when you go to an establishment that sells alcohol.

You drink alcohol on their property with full knowledge of it's effects. Yet, if they continue serving you alcohol after you are impaired, the bar or restaurant can be held liable if you get into a car accident and kill somebody on the way home.

The difference is the restaurant isn't automatically liable. If I have one beer and that has nothing to do with the accident they can't be sued. You have to show they acted with wrecklessness. Like serving me when I was clearly intoxicated and probably about to drive. Rabbi is proposing that just a gun free policy makes them liable. And again, if that's enough to be "risky" then that means you assumed the risk by going there, again that doesn't apply to a bar

Sure it does. When you decide to drink alcohol at that bar, you assume the risk of getting too loaded and getting into an accident. The bar owner too is liable for creating that risk.

Now don't get me wrong, it's not that I agree with it, but merely pointing out how liability works. I don't know where and when, but according to a work associate that also works on the side teaching CCW classes, a store owner was sued for liability because a customer was forced to disarm before entering his store and suffered some kind of an attack. I never looked into the story and only assuming what he told me was the truth since he teaches the classes.

Years ago companies used to throw office parties. The owner would get a full stocked bar and people would party right in their workplace. You don't see much of that anymore because the business owner could be held liable if one of his employees got into an accident. They still have parties on Christmas and whatnot, but no alcohol.

You can't sure the bar for getting loaded there, your victim can. Your victim never assumed liability. You did.

How does that compare to you knowingly going to a gun free zone and suing the property owner?

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

In the law of torts, an invitee is a person who is invited to land by the possessor of the land as a member of the public or one who is invited to the land for the purpose of business dealings with the possessor of the land. The status of a visitor as an invitee (as opposed to a trespasser or a licensee) defines the legal rights of the visitor if they are injured due to the negligence of the property owner. However, the case of Rowlands v. Christian sought to eliminate the distinction between business invitee and licensee in regard to a land occupier owing a duty to act as a "reasonable man" in rendering the property safe for others.

The property owner has a duty to make the property safe for the invitee, which includes conducting a reasonable inspection of the premises to uncover hidden dangers. The property owner also has a duty to warn the invitee of hazardous conditions that cannot be fixed. Furthermore, property owners assume a duty to rescue an invitee who falls into peril while visiting the property. If an independent contractor hired by the landowner injures an invitee (intentionally or through negligence), the owner can be held vicariously liable. This represents the broadest duty of care owed to any class of visitors to the property.

An invitee is only an invitee within the scope of permission granted by the landowner. Thus, if an invitee is invited to do business in a store and is injured snooping around in the private storage area, he does not have invitee status in that area. So if the invitee is snooping around in the dark, trips and falls on something, the land occupier is not liable since the snooper exceeded the consent given him/her.

There are generally two types of invitees i.e. Business Invitee and Public Invitee. Business Invitee is a person who enters business property to do business with the land occupier. Public Invitee is a person who enters land in the possession of another of which the property is held open to the public and no business purpose is involved. Licensee is a person who enters certain property with express or implied permission of the land occupier and no business purpose is involved. A social guest would be an example of a licensee.

 

[NYcarbineer]

1) Repeal the 1968 Gun Control act. This Act has totally failed at its purpose of keeping guns from the hands of criminals. The only thing criminal here is the criminalizing of otherwise legal behavior. We have had nearly 50 years of experience with this law. It doesnt work. It needs to go, period.
2) Treat mass shooting perpetrators like rape victims. Ever see a rape victim's name in the paper? No, of course not. Mass shooters should get the same anonymous treatment. Since man of them are motivated by getting their 15 minutes, the knowledge they will get nothing but an obscure grave or jail cell will discourage this kind of celebrity seeking
3) Outlaw public gun free zones, and make private ones liable for shootings on their property. Virtually every mass shooting in this country in the last 20 years has happened in a gun free zone. They dont work. Period. No public property should be off limits to law abiding citizens with guns. Private property should be able to post No Guns, but if a criminal shoots someone who could have had a gun and doesnt the property owner should get sued.

Three of the worst ideas ever.