Should "no gun zones" also be liable for gun violence?

[aliendroid]

I think if your policy is to have a "no gun zone" then you have just taken it upon yourself to defend anyone in your "no gun zone" and thus you either risk being sued out of existence if someone does shoot someone while inside of your "no gun zone" or you have to pay a lot for metal detectors and security and even then people still do get through the security.

I think it is gross negligence to force upon people a "no gun zone" and then not protect them. I think virginia tech and fort Hood policies were gross negligence and those involved in the decision to make those areas "no gun zones" should not only be sued but should sit in prison for a while.

any thoughts?

[Arctic Dave]

1. Should gun makers be liable for gun violence?

[aliendroid]

7. no, because their product in the right hands reduces crime.

but if they try to sell guns in an illegal way to criminals directly, then yes they should be liable.

[downtrodden41]

11. I would think that a gun manufacturer would only be responsible for defects in workmanship.

I don't think that how a person chooses to use a gun would make the manufacturer liable in any way, do you?

[aliendroid]

13. unless a defect in the gun caused injury...

Such as a gun going off when it falls or in the case that a gun explodes while using factory spec ammo.

[downtrodden41]

27. Exactly. It would have to be some kind of defect in the gun.

[Arctic Dave]

16. OK then. So it s the fault of the individual, not the property owner?

So if someone has a CCW and is killed, does this mean the shooter is not liable because that person had the ability to defend himself but didn't?

This conversation can go a lot of directions lets see were it pans out to.

[aliendroid]

19. liability in this case is moot.

The shooter committed a homicide, so this is no longer a question of who owes who money, it is now a question of if the killer gets death or life or 50 years.

[Arctic Dave]

22. So it is the shooters fault not the facility in which it happens.

Whether or not it is a GFZ or not?

[aliendroid]

24. both are liable in different ways. Criminal is liable for murder. GFZ facility is liable for...

It is the facility's fault that the victim had no chance of defending himself in a "no gun zone". Thus the facility is liable. The criminal remains liable as well.

If a person ties me up and dips my feet into wet cement blocks, they make me more vulnerable to drowning. and if someone else comes in and pushes me into the water, that person is responsible for homicide. But both those dudes will go to prison for murder.

[Arctic Dave]

26. OK. With that argument people can hold gun manufacturers liable too.

If they didn't sell them to irresponsible people then people wouldn't be killed with them. Therefore all people involved in the gun industry is seen as complacent in the murder.

[aliendroid]

32. separated by time and location.

To make the manufacturer liable the manufacturer would have to selectively deny firearms to law abiding citizens while making them available to criminals. They allow anyone access to their product except for those who are known to be criminals, so it is the opposite. Gun manufacturers are very responsible compared to the facilities that are "no gun zones". When a criminal gets their hands on a gun, it is someone independent of the manufacturer that is responsible at a location independent of the manufacturer.

A "gun free zone" that is not enforced selectively disarms the law abiding but not the criminal. The facility is still liable because the crime takes place on their property while their policy promoted it. As long as they did not deter the victim from defending themselves and as long as they do not promote criminal activity, they would be free of liability. "gun free zones" not only promote criminal activity because there is less risk to a criminal but also render the law abiding defenseless.

[spin]

37. Gun stores handle the paperwork required to buy a firearm...

because most people do not have a Federal Firearms License.

If the dealer follows all the rules, I can see no reason that the manufacturer or the dealer should be held liable.

The buyer present proper ID and fills our the required paperwork. The dealer calls for an NICS background check. If the buyer passes he can get the firearm usually after waiting period.

It's hard for a gun store clerk to tell which customer is responsible and who is irresponsible.

It's similar to a car dealer who sells a car to a person. The individual may be totally irresponsible and a terrible driver who is an accident waiting to happen. Is it fair to sue the manufacturer of the car or the car salesman for what the driver will do with the vehicle after the sale?

Or suppose some fool goes on a chainsaw massacre and kills several people. Should the company that made the chainsaw get sued.

[Arctic Dave]

48. This is the point I am trying to make. It matters not what the rules are but the intent of the

individual. So if a facility says no firearms because we cannot, as you say, tell be any measure who is a "good" owner is. How are they any more liable then a store who can't tell who a "bad" owner is?

[aliendroid]

50. you're confused or you worded that wrong

It has nothing to do with being able to tell who is good or bad.

supreme court ruled we are responsible for our own safety. this is FACT. Highest law of the land, ok?

If a facility removes my means of providing my protection which is my responsibility they therefore must take responsibility for my safety or they are in fact committing a crime. It would be a crime for a mechanic to disable my airbag without permission or to remove the function of my seatbelt, it would be a crime if someone cut my parachute lines before I jumped from an airplane, it would be a crime if someone messed with the fire fighting equipment in my apartment building, it would be a crime if someone forbid emergency crews from getting to my apartment or office after I call them, you see, removing my ability to protect myself is a crime.
The only way those situations would not be a crime is if the same person prevented me from driving the car, jumping, and provided fire fighters and emergency services on site.

Same thing for a gun, which is meant to protect me from a criminal intent on a mass shooting. If you remove from me the option of having this protective equipment while on your property it should also be illegal, unless you provide on site security.

There may not be a case involving this yet but I'll bet there will be soon.

[Arctic Dave]

54. supreme court ruled we are responsible for our own safety. this is FACT. Highest law of the land, ok

Not allowing anyone to have firearms is a way to protect oneself, also. Like I posted earlier, there is no way to tell the difference between a good gun owner or a bad one so removing all guns would make it easier to tell who is bad. Zero tolerance means anyone with a gun is a bad gun owner and needs to be removed from the property.

[aliendroid]

55. yes, but telling people they can't carry guns but not enforcing it is the liability issue

You actually make half of my point. If the enforce the NGZ with security and metal detector, that is fine, a crime will have much less chance of happening thus the liability issue becomes moot.

But if they fail to provide enough security and a way to make sure no one has a gun, they are liable for the death and injury that occurs when the bad guy does take a gun to the NGZ and shoots others.

[spin]

56. So any building that posts a "no-gun" sign should have everybody...

pass through a metal detector before entry and should have armed guards present.

That way you would make sure that everybody was disarmed before entering the building, both good gun owners and bad gun owners. Plus you would have armed guards to back the system up.

But there should also be security in the parking lot.

That should eliminate mass murderers who plan to use firearms.

But if a building has a "no gun" sign posted and takes no measure to protect the people inside and an incident happens, the owner should be liable.

Without security a "no-gun" sign is a indication that the building is a

[Euromutt]

57. Firearms manufacturers don't sell directly to private citizens

A firearms manufacturer/importer generally sells the weapons to a distributor, who then sells them to a dealer, or (in the case of the Beretta Group) directly to the dealer. The dealer is a Type 01 Federal Firearms Licensee, who cannot sell a firearm without having the buyer fill out an ATF form 4473 and contacting NICS to run a background check on the buyer. Thus, the firearms manufacturing industry already follows precautionary procedures intended to prevent people deemed likely to use a firearm for unlawful purposes from acquiring one.

Thus, insofar as there is an analogy to "gun-free zones," it applies to those areas where the entity imposing the GFZ has taken active measures to ensure that the zone is actually gun-free, e.g. by installing security checkpoints with metal detectors and x-ray machines and entrances to the zone. It generally takes serious effort to bring a an actual or potential weapon into a courthouse, the secure zone of an airport, or a Citizenship and Immigration Service building (to name three locations I can think of). Less so in the case of a police station, but police stations by their nature have a large number of armed police officers present.

Personally, I'm fine with being asked to disarm before entering such areas, because reasonable measures have been taken to prevent a would-be spree shooter from strolling in at will with his firearms. This is not the case in shopping malls and US Post Offices or on college/university campuses, where people can simply wander in and out unobstructed.

[Callisto32]

65. Wrong.

Wrongful death, my friend.

Think the Simpson trial.

[aliendroid]

67. this only occurs when

the criminal trial fails and the victim's family has to use some other way to avenge their loss.
I'm not saying a criminal isn't liable for his murder, I'm saying that we have a much more potent way to deal with them which is a criminal trial for murder.

[Callisto32]

70. It doesn't only occur when a criminal trial fails.

It happens when the person accused has money.

[downtrodden41]

28. I do not follow you.

What do you mean "if someone has a CCW and gets killed"? Having a CCW permit in no way ensures one's safety. I do not follow your logic here. Can you please re-explain?

[Arctic Dave]

29. That was my point. Having a CCW doesn't guarantee safety. So, how can you lay blame

on a GFZ for not protecting you when having a gun doesn't ensure your safety either.

[aliendroid]

33. It's based on who makes the decision.

In a case of liability it is the decision maker or land owner who is liable.

If you let CCW permit carriers to carry on your property and they fail to defend themselves, they are liable for their own injury because they had the decision to carry the gun and the ability to defend themselves and they made that decision for themselves and also failed to defend themselves properly. A GFZ facility owner or law writer takes that decision away from the individual and therefore takes the liability for that person's safety.

[Arctic Dave]

47. OK. Now what happens if a gun store sells to someone who

does not keep their gun a safe. That person home is broken into and the firearm is used in a murder in a NGZ. Is the person liable for not keeping their gun in a secure compartment?
I would say they are because of negligence on the part of the gun owner.

Also, let me see if I got this straight, you are saying the NGZ is totally responsible for your safety when having a weapon on you doesn't provide total safety to begin with. It only gives a margin of safety depending completely on chance.

I am rambling a bit but the gist of what I am trying to get to is I can see this being used both ways for a NGZ facility and a person being liable for the use of the weapon.

[aliendroid]

49. look, it gets tiring after repeating and repeating myself.

If someone steals a gun from a gun owner then goes over to another location and commits a crime, the original gun owner is not liable because he did not commit a crime but was a victim of a crime.

NGZ facility is responsible for your safety if they take the decision away from you. If you have the decision to carry a gun or not, that decision to defend yourself is now in your hands and your responsibility and you are able to mess up and fail to protect yourself, and if that happens (you fail to protect yourself) you are still liable for your own failure. If you get shot in a NGZ it is their responsibility to maintain security and they are liable.

The government already admits guns = personal defense because police officers carry them.

[Arctic Dave]

52. Like I said this was an exercise in what ifs. I was looking for insight to other peoples opinions

I find it strange in my opinion that people want absolute safety in exchange for one that doesn't truly exist in the first place.

As for the owner not being liable for a stolen firearm, I also find that strange, considering if a person walks into my house and takes my car it is not stealing and it my fault because I left my keys in it.

[aliendroid]

53. evidence show you are more safe thanks to CCW holders.

Your opinion is that carrying a gun doesn't make you more safe. I think it makes you more likely to win a fight with a criminal. The government thinks guns make them more safe, police, FBI, soldiers carry guns. This graph here shows that those carrying guns with CCW permits have made YOU MORE SAFE!!




if a thief takes your car and the keys are in it, you go to jail? no. Is it not a crime? no, it is. The police are lazy, they will try to regulate the law abiding in order to prevent crime by telling you shame on your for leaving your keys in the car, but still, you are the victim and the car thief is the criminal, liable for the crime.

[X_Digger]

51. The straw you fail to keep grasping at is 'proximate cause'.. n/t

[downtrodden41]

35. First of all, I never laid any blame on a GFZ. I was only responding to your question

on whether a gun manufacturer should be responsible for the actions of a person that used their product, and I stated no.


In what way did I say that having a CCW would guarantee safety or that the owner of a gun free zone should have responsibility?

And you never answered my question as to how a gun manufacturer should be responsible for how a person uses their gun. Since you were the first one to pose that argument, please explain why you feel that way.

[Arctic Dave]

46. ? I must have posted to the wrong person. n/t

[krispos42]

63. Gun makers don't sell their guns directly to the people

It would be like suing Sony because somebody used one of their camcorders to make kiddie porn.

[Callisto32]

64. Red Herring Fail

[TheCowsCameHome]

2. Yes. Pass the popcorn

:popcorn: :popcorn:

[sharp_stick]

3. I think we should move the gungeon

crap off the latest page.

[spin]

39. In that case, to be fair you would have to move all sub-forums off...

the latest page.

Perhaps a method could be set up to block a sub-forum if you desired.

Contact the management.

[SteveM]

60. If you want the "gungeon crap" off the latest page, talk to the mods...

Many gun-control/ban people also post in General Discussion, probably in hopes of gathering around a handful of anti-gun folks so they can cast wicked verbal spells on the "gunnies" and not have to face rebuttals and debate from pro-2A people.

Please note in any event, the Latest always tags the post with the appropriate forum.

[fascisthunter]

4. no gun zones... sounds like a scary place to be

[SteveM]

61. Not really, but let me know when you find ont. nt

[virginia mountainman]

5. Absolutly YES...

They wish to disarm people, than the onus is on THEM to provide effective protection...

[tularetom]

6. It isn't the responsibility of the government or the cops to protect you

That's been upheld in the courts many times.

If you live in a no gun zone and feel threatened my advice is move or get a gun anyway.

[aliendroid]

10. yes, but try to understand the question.

They do not bother to protect you, but they decide you are not allowed to have a gun to protect yourself. If a "no gun zone" is safe because it is a "no gun zone" then they should be liable for any gun crime that happens there because it is not a students choice to avoid "no gun zones" and a teacher can't avoid them either.

If those who imposed "no gun zones" were liable for any gun violence on that site, they would either try to enforce it (which would reduce the chance of gun violence) or they would allow permit holders to carry (which has been shown to reduce violence) so either way that would reduce the violent trends in "no gun zones".

[tularetom]

15. I understand the question perfectly

What I am advocating basically is civil disobedience. If I lived in one of these "no gun zones", and I felt threatened by violence from assholes running around with guns, I would sure as hell arm myself, regardless of what any goddamn law said. How are they going to know? Are you gonna tell them?

And I don't think you should have to have a permit to carry a handgun. Constitution doesn't say anything about permits.

[aliendroid]

17. I agree but...

The movement to CCW was a relaxation of gun control. We have to take steps. The next step will be that states will remove the need for permits for people to carry guns. Some states will never do this (Cali) others will probably do it.

[downtrodden41]

8. That is an interesting take on this.

Are you talking only about private property or do you mean public property as well?

[aliendroid]

12. yes public property also.

So all the families of the victims and the injured should be able to sue virginia tech or their state or federal government, whichever is responsible for that location being a "gun free zone". This would result in the feds and state level governments staying out of the decision and schools would either enforce the no gun zone or they will allow CCW permit holders on campus. I think as long as the location allows for some method of legally carrying a gun, they can escape the liability.

[spin]

42. I think both private and public ...

Courthouses often have metal detectors and armed security.

Any building that has a no/gun sign posted should be legally responsible for protecting patrons, especially in a state that allows concealed or open carry.

A shooter, knowing that he might run in someone carrying a firearm, often decides to pull his killing spree off in a building that forbids firearms. Such buildings are a shooting gallery.

I've been in gun stores in Florida that have a sign on the door that says "No loaded firearms". The clerks inside usually have firearms on their side.

[aliendroid]

44. true

and the gun stores take responsibility for the customers by providing security. But if a bad guy does happen to shoot a customer they should be liable, so they may reconsider the sign and consider putting on the sign, notice to criminals, we are armed and willing to shoot you.

[slackmaster]

9. Yes, definitely

If you want to declare an NGZ you should actively enforce it.

[gorfle]

14. Interesting question.

It is an interesting question.

If you disallow people from carrying effective means of self-defense, and the need for self-defense arises, I could see how this could potentially cause a liability issue.

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[aliendroid]

20. just those who take it upon themselves to do so.

I don't care if an individual decides not to carry a gun, I just want it to be an option. Then criminals, who carry guns whenever they feel like it, will not be the only ones with guns and will consider a new line of work.

Why do you need to make one line comments that are full of emotion? Are you bankrupt in argument? Have you no hard evidence to show gun control reduces crime? Yes, you do not.
What is the point of being against guns, when they are not the problem, violence is a society problem.

You compare Japan and the USA to show us gun control reduces violence yet your forget to mention Switzerland, lots of guns, almost no crime.

[Don Caballero]

23. I will admit that the data does lead one to believe that more guns will equal less crime

I will give that to you. Guns also lead to not only tens of thousands of deaths in the States each year in the form of murder, but also suicide. I would love to see the numbers of those who commit suicide with a gun shot to the head. No one will ever convince me that guns are good. Guns are not good. They especially are not good in the hands of criminals and people with mental imbalances.

[aliendroid]

25. if you don't think guns are good, you are welcome de deny yourself the ownership of a gun

but you will not determine if I own one. I will decide that.

[cowman]

38. Nobody here

EVER advocated letting Felons, Mentally Unstable people have firearms

[cowman]

30. Oh yeah

this coming from someone who advocates having foreign armies entering america to disarm the american population. THAT IS NUTTY TALK

[aliendroid]

34. not only that

advocating foreign armies enter the USA to regulate pretty much advocates mass death and genocide. So he wants to save the lives of a few thousand people who probably would have died anyway by knives or blunt objects and to get there he wants to kill millions. Hitler, Mao, Stalin all agree with that plan.

[Name removed]

45. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[AtheistCrusader]

21. Corporations that absolutely restrict areas for security reasons are required to keep

literally nursing staff on hand, to administer first aid, defibrilation, and transport a paitent, in case a worker collapses for some reason. This is done by companies like Weyerhaeuser, in restricted areas where they will not allow an ambulance crew to enter.

Just a thought.

[spin]

43. Very true. I used to work in a restricted area. (n/t)

[X_Digger]

31. Interesting question..

On the one hand, there is a direct, foreseeable consequence of depriving people of the means of possibly defending themselves- fish in a barrel.

On the other hand, having a gun doesn't guarantee one's safety, and we have SCOTUS precedent that the police have no duty to protect you, the individual, unless you are in custody.

[aliendroid]

36. which means that

If you are the only one responsible to protect yourself and you have that ability taken away from you by someone else's decision, that person takes on the liability and responsibility of protecting you.

now let's get a court case going on this.

[rrneck]

40. I'm not an attorney

but you would have to prove that an individual's possession of a firearm would provide a high probability of defense against assault in the gun free zone. If you can't prove beyond a preponderance of doubt that you can defend yourself in almost all circumstances, you can't prove that you were denied the ability to do so. Their liability would be based on your skill and equipment, factors that they could not possibly control. In other words, the owners of the gun free zone can't deny you anything you didn't have to begin with.

[aliendroid]

41. not necessary to show anything. Government already admits that guns are necessary for protection.

The government already admits that a firearm is necessary for personal security when police and FBI have them. No need to show this.

[beevul]

58. Absolutely.

If you take the responsibility out of the individuals hands, you then bear its burden.


If the individual fails/declines to be in a position to possibly succeed to defend themselves, its on them.


If the entity that removes the responsibility from the individual fails/declines to be in a position to possibly succeed to defend, its on that entity.


It really isn't complex.

[rrneck]

59. This comes to mind too...

It may depend a whole lot on whether you were required to be at the facility. If they make you show up, then they have to see to your protection if they won't allow you to do so.

Something like a store or a resturant on the other hand does not compel your presence nor do they require you to stay once you have entered. That might absolve them of any liability in the event of an assault. A "no guns" sign could be the same as a "no shoes, no shirt" sign.

[SteveM]

62. Another interesting twist: "no shoes, no shirt" signs can be readily enforced...

by the owner; a concealed weapon cannot. But if the owner does determine you have a concealed weapon, he/she can only throw you out, NOT prosecute you (assuming the establishment is in a class where firearms are NOT forbidden by law). Hence, if you went into Joe Blow's Texas BBQ with a legal concealed weapon, the owner can only post a GFZ for his own reasons, and can forbid a known gun-carrier, but could not otherwise have you prosecuted. Then, the "liability" of that owner is reduced: He/she has no real way to enforce a policy against self-protection, other than by telling some individual to leave. Do I have this right?

[rrneck]

66. Yeah, that sounds right.

They can ask you to leave for any number of reasons and a refusal to do so would be trespassing. Another sign you see a lot is their ability to "reserve the right to refuse service to anyone". Which leads to another twist I guess. Are they reserving the right to serve any particular person, or an entire class of people? If it's an individual person, okay. But they cannot reserve the right to refuse service to an entire class of people, like those carrying firearms. That would be discriminatory wouldn't it? You shouldn't be able to discriminate against an entire class of people even if that class were defined by participation in a legal activity, unless that participation could be proven to result in damages to the shopkeeper.

[SteveM]

68. The 1964 Civil Rights Act doesn't bar discrimination against "classes"...

of people per se. The Act cites race, religion, national origin, creed. Unless "creed" is wildly interpreted to mean a belief in RKBA. But perhaps "implicit" in the Act's intent is sex and probably sexual preference. I just don't know.

[guardian]

69. Here's the only "no gun zone" sign that I think is effective

[DissedByBush]

71. Won't work for regular places

The retort would be that if you don't like the no-gun rules then don't enter the place.

I think this could only apply to places where citizens are pretty much forced to go on occasion, such as courthouses or other government offices.