It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Proposed bill would hold "gun-free" zones liable

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 14 2007 @ 07:37 AM
link   

A. Any person, organization or entity, or any agency of government that creates a gun-free zone shall be liable for damages resulting from criminal conduct that occurs against an individual in such gun-free zone, if a reasonable person would believe that possession of a firearm could have helped the individual defend against such conduct. In the event the conduct is a result of a terrorist attack as federally defined, or adversely affects a disabled person, a person who is a member of a minority as federally defined, a senior citizen or a child under 16 years of age, treble damages shall apply. Source


Sounds good to me. If these establishments really believe being "gun-free" will prevent shootings the likes of which we have recently seen at, well, "gun-free" zones, they have nothing to lose by supporting this.

If they oppose this then they are indirectly admitting to the folly of the "gun-free" zone concept. Win-win.




posted on Dec, 14 2007 @ 12:18 PM
link   
reply to post by thisguyrighthere
 


Thisguy
I did not read the entire link. But based on what you quoted I don't agree with it. Based on the quote it said the entity of the gun free zone shale be responsible for all crimes, not just crimes from guns. I don't think that will work. If it is amended to just being responsible for crimes from guns, I could see that as having a better chance of passing.

In my opinion, in the end, I will be a little surprised if this passes.



posted on Dec, 15 2007 @ 07:12 AM
link   
reply to post by thisguyrighthere
 


this is stupid...
especially in cases of private property. any organization that wishes to limit anything on their own property should be allowed to without being help liable (unless it's oxygen) whether it be guns, red (yes, the color), certain genres of music, statues of buddha, hardhats, lamps, or books.

this is, in essence, a limiting of freedom to do with your property as you wish.



posted on Dec, 15 2007 @ 09:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by thisguyrighthere
 


this is stupid...
especially in cases of private property. any organization that wishes to limit anything on their own property should be allowed to without being help liable (unless it's oxygen) whether it be guns, red (yes, the color), certain genres of music, statues of buddha, hardhats, lamps, or books.

this is, in essence, a limiting of freedom to do with your property as you wish.


Any public entity that restrict your safety should be held accountable.

Creating a "gun free zone" throws open the door to these nut jobs.

A "gun free zone" screams, mass targets and no one to stop you.

Roper



posted on Dec, 16 2007 @ 02:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Roper
 


what sort of logic is that? airports and amusement parks don't seem to be "mass target and nobody stops you"
you don't need a gun to stop somebody... in fact, all you need a gun to do is kill someone. is that the sort of world you want to live in? kill to prevent... killing. how about maim to prevent killing, something that is a bit harder to do with guns than it would be to do with nonlethals.

if someone is creating a gun free zone, they tend to have metal detectors and other precautions to prevent guns from entering, don't they?

and it's simple that there are some places where weapons just don't belong.



posted on Dec, 16 2007 @ 03:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by Roper
 



if someone is creating a gun free zone, they tend to have metal detectors and other precautions to prevent guns from entering, don't they?

and it's simple that there are some places where weapons just don't belong.


Horse feathers! V. Tech is a gun free zone, did that help? Did they have metal detectors? The mall shooting was a gun free zone and every school in the USA is a gun free zone.

What type a logic do you have mad-soul, where you want people to be victims of some nut.

Any place that bars a man from carrying a weapon is the place you need one.

Roper



posted on Dec, 16 2007 @ 05:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Roper
 


question: would we be in the predicament if we had measures to prevent psychotics and other unstable individuals from getting these weapons in the first place?

and again, it's a question of property rights being infringed upon. if i choose to make my property a zone where i don't allow guns, it's my right. if i choose to bar people from wearing the color green, it's my right. if i choose to bar people from practicing a certain religion, it's my right.

and just what this country really needs, another reason to sue people...
also, there's the question of accidental shootings rising. the number one cause of gun deaths in the USA is accidental shootings... which might rise if this passes.



posted on Dec, 16 2007 @ 06:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by Roper
 


question: would we be in the predicament if we had measures to prevent psychotics and other unstable individuals from getting these weapons in the first place?

and again, it's a question of property rights being infringed upon. if i choose to make my property a zone where i don't allow guns, it's my right. if i choose to bar people from wearing the color green, it's my right. if i choose to bar people from practicing a certain religion, it's my right.

and just what this country really needs, another reason to sue people...
also, there's the question of accidental shootings rising. the number one cause of gun deaths in the USA is accidental shootings... which might rise if this passes.


To your question. We already do, it's called the "instant check" . Before anyone buys a firearm the gun dealer must fill out paper work and then call the Federal Government to check that person out. Like any government program it doesn't work all the time and when it fails people get killed.

If a business has a "Gun Free policy" then it must provide security, don't you think? Look at the mall shooter in Nebraska, the kid cased the joint out. Where was the security?

Your home is yours to do with what you like, if you don't want guns there then it is fine with me.

For all of you anti-gunners why don't you get some "no guns allowed " or " This is a gun free home" signs and put them up around your home? If you feel this strongly about guns, stand up and make a statement.

I double dog dare you.

Roper



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 08:15 AM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


Isn't a private entity like a WalMart or Target liable if I slip and break my head open on a puddle of pudding they didn't clean up or a patch of ice on their walk?

So why shouldn't Target be liable if they follow "gun-free" policies and I get shot to death? My wife would say that I never go anywhere unarmed but Target's policies forced me to disarm before entering and then I or any number of bystanders get shot to death.

Of course I just don't go into "gun-free" buildings. The problem would be an employer who requires all employees to abide by this rule, like VA Tech or Columbine or any government buildings.

If you're going to say that the public cannot defend itself within the walls of your building then you must provide them security. What's wrong with that?


[img]http://www.caglecartoons.com/viewimage.asp?ID=[E4FA55AA-4C83-4A6A-8796-FF065C4AA6DC][/img]

Besides, if making an area a "gun-free" zone actually work then the business/owners have nothing to worry about, right?

[edit on 17-12-2007 by thisguyrighthere]



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 12:22 PM
link   
The cartoon was excellent.


Why don't these nut job shoot up a police station? Just like your cartoon.

People must wake up and smell the coffee, gun free zone are not gun free to the criminal or the head cases.

Roper



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 12:26 PM
link   
reply to post by thisguyrighthere
 


By this logic, an unarmed person who gets shot should be held liable for their own injury.



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 12:52 PM
link   
reply to post by The Walking Fox
 




Is an unarmed person walking down the street unarmed because of personal choice or because the neighborhood or township in control of the street he is walking on has deemed the street to be "gun-free" thereby forcing the individual to be unarmed?



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join