Reply #81: forgive me, but [View All]

[iverglas]

That just looks like one of those litigious-idiot cases, waaaay down the evolutionary scale from hot coffee and transfatty food cases.

<i><b>Did the individual in question at some point lose the ability to choose for himself whether or not to enter a store that prohibited him from toting a firearm into it???</b></i>

Whew, spare me from that kinda "reasoning", I'm afraid.

What did I do to improve "overall security"? I didn't have to do anything. The tenant was perfectly free to rent or not rent the apartment, under the terms and conditions I and the law imposed on him. If he didn't like those terms and conditions, he could either lump them and comply with them, or walk away.

I provided a rental unit with brand new, lockable doors and windows, a brand new furnace, brand new wiring and light fixtures, brand new hard-wired smoke detectors, and the seal of approval from the city building apartment and all the relevant authorities. I provided exactly what I was required by law to provide (and a fair bit more). If someone had thought that s/he needed a personal bodyguard on the premises in order to be safe, I wouldn't have had to provide that.

And I don't have to be governed by any tenant's or prospective tenant's notions about what else s/he needs to be safe -- because I am entitled to take *my* interests, and my other tenants' interests (which obviously at least overlap my interests), and the interests of anyone else I like, into account in deciding what is safe and what is not safe, and what will be allowed and what won't. Imagine if one tenant thought that having a chihuaha made him/her safe enough, while another didn't feel safe unless s/he had ten trained attack-Dobermans in the house ... and I had to allow it. Ha! I think not.

.