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

[davebb]

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 dichotomy

 

[martybegan]

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?

How about answering the question?

 

[martybegan]

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

The patting down is a method of control and would mitigate any responsibility on the part of the owner.

The issue is places that just put the sign up and don't do anything to assure EVERYONE is unarmed.

 

[Anathema]

They SHOULD be required to provide armed security at all times if they deny citizens their RTKBA. They SHOULD also be liable for any injury due to being disarmed.

Since they are not, I ignore their “NO WEAPONS” signage and walk in fully armed.

 

[JLW]

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.

I'm fine with that, so long as the gun manufacturers and distributors are held liable for the shootings that occur in the establishment. This is what is called what is good for the goose is good for the gander. Do we have an agreement?

 

[M14 Shooter]

I'm fine with that, so long as the gun manufacturers and distributors are held liable for the shootings that occur in the establishment.

Mindless nonsense
This is no different that holding Ford, and Ford dealers, responsible for drunk driving deaths involving Mustangs.

 

[JLW]

Mindless nonsense
This is no different that holding Ford, and Ford dealers, responsible for drunk driving deaths involving Mustangs.

I am responding to the OP. If he wants to hold establishments liable for banning weapons, then those who bring weapons into the establishment, as well as those who manufactured and sold the weapons, should be held liable for shootings that occur at the establishment.

There is a huge difference between holding Ford or Ford dealers liable for autos misused for malicious purposes and gun manufacturers and distributors. The primary purpose of a car is not to kill. If your product's primary purpose is to kill or maim, then you should be held liable if you sell the weapon to someone unfit to own such a product.

 

[Zincwarrior]

Of course.

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

They are private entities and it is a central point that people are not liable for the intervening criminal actions of third parties.

 

[martybegan]

I'm fine with that, so long as the gun manufacturers and distributors are held liable for the shootings that occur in the establishment. This is what is called what is good for the goose is good for the gander. Do we have an agreement?

False equivalence is False.

 

[Jarlaxle]

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.

Some places, it's not the business, it's state or local laws.

 

[M14 Shooter]

There is a huge difference between holding Ford or Ford dealers liable for autos misused for malicious purposes and gun manufacturers and distributors.

You are full of shit.

Legal liability requires a demonstrable breach of duty. Look that up.

NO manufacturer of any legal product has any control whatsoever over the use and abuse of its product once it leaves the factory/ distributor -- and such, NO manufacturer can be held liable for that use/abuse.
None. Zip. Zero. Zilch.

This applies, with absolute equity, to Ford, Colt, Gerber, Louisville Slugger, Craftsman -- anyone and everyone who manufactures a legal product sold on the open market which can be used/abused to harm others.

 

[AZrailwhale]

I'm fine with that, so long as the gun manufacturers and distributors are held liable for the shootings that occur in the establishment. This is what is called what is good for the goose is good for the gander. Do we have an agreement?

What are the companies that manufactured and distributed a perfectly legal items crimes? Are you willing to hold breweries and distilleries liable for the actions of drunk drivers?

 

[Zincwarrior]

They SHOULD be required to provide armed security at all times if they deny citizens their RTKBA. They SHOULD also be liable for any injury due to being disarmed.

Since they are not, I ignore their “NO WEAPONS” signage and walk in fully armed.

I try to make it a point that I always have my two arms with me at all times.

 

[Zincwarrior]

Legal liability requires a demonstrable breach of duty. Look that up.

Generally true. There are certain exceptions but those have not been held to apply to firearms so far (explosives being a strict liability test for example). It is EXTREMELY rare that an owner or third party can be liable for the intervening criminal acts of another.

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

I'm fine with that, so long as the gun manufacturers and distributors are held liable for the shootings that occur in the establishment. This is what is called what is good for the goose is good for the gander. Do we have an agreement?

No. Gun ownership is NOT a privilege. It is a God given and Constitution certified US Citizen RIGHT.

And post #32 makes A great point.
That said, BARS CAN BE HELD LIABLE for selling excessive alcohol to a patron who then causes an automobile accident while DUI.

By THIS same reasoning, establishments that ban guns should be held liable if a patron is injured by criminals while in that establishment.

The stupidity of such rules is self evident. Criminals don't give a **** what your sign says.