Should entities that ban guns be liable if you are injured in their establishment

[BasicHumanUnit]

If a Bank, for example, has a NO GUNS POLICY, and then while you are there doing business some criminal(s) enter the bank and you get shot or injured, should that bank be held liable for your injuries since it was their specific policy that left you defenseless? If they are against your means of self defense, shouldn't they be totally responsible for your safety?

At some point I would imagine this will play out somewhere (if it hasn't already), and I hope the injured parties are able to recover massive damages. Banning guns WILL NEVER DISCOURAGE OR STOP CRIMINALS.
In fact, it puts you much more at risk.

 

[marvin martian]

If a Bank, for example, has a NO GUNS POLICY, and then while you are there doing business some criminal(s) enter the bank and you get shot or injured, should that bank be held liable for your injuries since it was their specific policy that left you defenseless? If they are against your means of self defense, shouldn't they be totally responsible for your safety?

Definitely. They would have also failed to enforce their "no guns" policy if they experienced armed robbery, so that's two violations.

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

Tried to fix title of poll but it wont allow it

BAN....not BUN

 

[MisterBeale]

Of course.

If they violate your human and protected constitutional natural rights, and it leads to injury, of course they should be held responsible.

 

[Seymour Flops]

I'm sorry, but I have to dissent on this one.

I like your thinking, but if you walk into an anti-gun establishment to give them your business you are assuming the risk of being unarmed.

 

[Dekster]

Many businesses have no-fault liability insurance for injuries on their premises up to a certain limit. After that, you will have to prove fault.

 

[0311]

If a Bank, for example, has a NO GUNS POLICY, and then while you are there doing business some criminal(s) enter the bank and you get shot or injured, should that bank be held liable for your injuries since it was their specific policy that left you defenseless? If they are against your means of self defense, shouldn't they be totally responsible for your safety?

At some point I would imagine this will play out somewhere (if it hasn't already), and I hope the injured parties are able to recover massive damages. Banning guns WILL NEVER DISCOURAGE OR STOP CRIMINALS.
In fact, it puts you much more at risk.

The number cause of death for school age children is gun violence and all YOU can do hug your ******* guns. Which is more important....children or guns?

 

[M14 Shooter]

The number cause of death for school age children is gun violence and all YOU can do hug your ******* guns. Which is more important....children or guns?

The right to keep and bear arms.
That's why it is specifically protected by the Constitution - without a "but the children" exception.

 

[marvin martian]

The number cause of death for school age children is gun violence and all YOU can do hug your ******* guns. Which is more important....children or guns?

We should have a law against "gun violence", huh?

 

[toobfreak]

I like your thinking, but if you walk into an anti-gun establishment to give them your business you are assuming the risk of being unarmed.

Why? What if you leave your gun in the car and go in defenseless because you are trying to comply with store policy and you need to use their services? If they disarm you and force you to use their store defenseless because of your policies, why shouldn't it be YOU who assumes responsibility for these people who were made defenseless by you?

 

[toobfreak]

We should have a law against "gun violence", huh?

It sure would have saved Charlie's life! As usual, Marv, you're a day late and a dollar short---

Where were you 3 weeks ago???!

 

[MisterBeale]

The number cause of death for school age children is gun violence and all YOU can do hug your ******* guns. Which is more important....children or guns?

False dilemma - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Seymour Flops]

Why? What if you leave your gun in the car and go in defenseless because you are trying to comply with store policy and you need to use their services? If they disarm you and force you to use their store defenseless because of your policies, why shouldn't it be YOU who assumes responsibility for these people who were made defenseless by you?

I get it, but they are not really forcing you to use their store. I never shop at places that have what we in Texas call 30.06 and 30.07 signs.

I don't know. I might think differently if I wasn't in a place where anti gun stores are much more rare.

Yes I will concede that point. if I were in a place where I basically could not go buy things without agreeing to be disarmed, then yes, I think I should be able to sue the idiots that required me to be disarmed.

Well argued sir or ma'am!

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

IN MANY cases, you may have been a customer LONG before they implemented the policy. Changing banks is not always that easy especially if you live in a small town with few options.

What's worse is that many states have made it a FELONY if you are caught carrying on those properties that post no gun signs.

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

I'm sorry, but I have to dissent on this one.

I like your thinking, but if you walk into an anti-gun establishment to give them your business you are assuming the risk of being unarmed.

Actually, Criminals don't discriminate. You could run into them anywhere at anytime.
I think that's why the right to bear arms is a Constitutional Right..not just a "privilege", like driving.

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

The number cause of death for school age children is gun violence and all YOU can do hug your ******* guns. Which is more important....children or guns?

Mental sickness cannot be magically Unicorned away, which you crazy far leftists believe.
So if certain trained male teachers had prompt access to a firearm IN SCHOOLS, it would deter and probably all but eliminate school shootings.

But because of your fantasies, your kind instead leave schools defenseless.
It is your irrational fear of firearms THE TOOL that causes the VAST majority of violence, both with and without guns.
You are incapable of differentiating between good and evil....which is why most of you are atheists or satanists.
Makes absolutely no difference in your crippled mind who holds a gun.....it's the GUNS fault when a criminal or mentally ill person uses a gun to kill. pathetic.

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

Please note:

Those who voted NO are likely the same ones who 100% approved of firearm manufacturers being liable when someone sick uses a firearm criminally.

 

[toobfreak]

I get it, but they are not really forcing you to use their store.

You're at the store. About to walk in. Not another store like it around, and you're short on time. Now you find out they don't allow concealed carry and you don't want any trouble, so you leave the gun in the car.

So you go in the store unarmed that otherwise you would have been armed--- you still want to run with that they didn't force anything jazz?

Then you get mugged while in the 'gun free zone,' and don't claim any responsibility?

Sounds to me like the ONLY reason you got mugged was because of the store's 'no gun' policy.

 

[braalian]

Nobody’s forcing you to patronize their business.

If you decide to go into an establishment that bans guns, well, that was your decision, wasn’t it?

I know most clubs aren’t going to let you in with a gun. That’s why most pat you down on the busy nights

There’s certain environments where you don’t want people packing, for obvious reasons

 

[fncceo]