Michigan Bill Would Put Gun-Free Zone On The Hook For Injuries

[spat]

@spat if you know it is a gun free zone that is then, by your logic, your warning in the same way a "wet floor" sign is your warning. I see absolutely no reason why a store should have a duty to protect you from criminals regardless of whether they are a gun free zone or not.

Except being aware of the wet floor is sufficient to avoid the danger. You can walk more carefully there.

Merely being aware of the danger of a gun free zone is insufficient to avoid the danger. You can't just "step with more care" if an active shooter shows up.

If you have a balcony with no railing, just putting a "watch your step" sign up is not going to cut it.

Maybe that's what we need, OSHA mandates that gun free zones are too hazardous altogether.

The libertarian in me agrees with @Darth and @GOPerfect. Let the business owner do what they will and the risk is on you. But our society doesn't work that way. Many of the gun free zone signs are misguided attempts by businesses to avoid liability they shouldn't have to begin with.

So we either need a law, with serious teeth, that says they can't be held responsible for the criminal acts of another (which would be the right answer, but isn't going to happen), or we need this.

 

[Darth]

Except being aware of the wet floor is sufficient to avoid the danger. You can walk more carefully there.

Merely being aware of the danger of a gun free zone is insufficient to avoid the danger. You can't just "step with more care" if an active shooter shows up.

If you have a balcony with no railing, just putting a "watch your step" sign up is not going to cut it.

Maybe that's what we need, OSHA mandates that gun free zones are too hazardous altogether.

The libertarian in me agrees with @Darth and @GOPerfect. Let the business owner do what they will and the risk is on you. But our society doesn't work that way. Many of the gun free zone signs are misguided attempts by businesses to avoid liability they shouldn't have to begin with.

So we either need a law, with serious teeth, that says they can't be held responsible for the criminal acts of another (which would be the right answer, but isn't going to happen), or we need this.

OSHA as an excellent example of government failure and precisely what is wrong with big government intervention.

 

[spat]

OSHA as an excellent example of government failure and precisely what is wrong with big government intervention.

I agree wholeheartedly, but we are stuck with them for the foreseeable future.

There is the way the world should be, and the way it is now. The path from one to the other isn't a straight line.

 

[Darth]

I agree wholeheartedly, but we are stuck with them for the foreseeable future.

There is the way the world should be, and the way it is now. The path from one to the other isn't a straight line.

Opening the doors for rediculous frivolous lawsuits probably isn't the best idea.

As soon as the power shifts left, first shooting in a non gun free zone and the owners are liable? Fuck that.

Stop shifting blame from the sole party responsible.

 

[spat]

Opening the doors for rediculous frivolous lawsuits probably isn't the best idea.

As soon as the power shifts left, first shooting in a non gun free zone and the owners are liable? Fuck that.

Stop shifting blame from the sole party responsible.

If the power shifts much further to the left liability isn't going to matter much.

Here's the problem, you think we can set a precedent that "this sort of thing is off limits" by not taking advantage when we can. That's wrong. Not pressing the advantage when we can does absolutely nothing to restrain the left.

This is like the run up to WWII, and people are like "we don't want to anger Hitler, let him have Poland". No, the left does not play by any rules, we can setup a fair and equitable system once they are defeated, but until they are no longer an imminent threat we need to pull out all the stops.

 

[Darth]

If the power shifts much further to the left liability isn't going to matter much.

Here's the problem, you think we can set a precedent that "this sort of thing is off limits" by not taking advantage when we can. That's wrong. Not pressing the advantage when we can does absolutely nothing to restrain the left.

This is like the run up to WWII, and people are like "we don't want to anger Hitler, let him have Poland". No, the left does not play by any rules, we can setup a fair and equitable system once they are defeated, but until they are no longer an imminent threat we need to pull out all the stops.

And it's all fun and games to think like that until you aren't the party in power and you end up with NY.

 

[spat]

And it's all fun and games to think like that until you aren't the party in power and you end up with NY.

We aren't the party in power. We haven't been in a long time.

 

[BDinPutnam]

What does OSHA have to do with it?

OSHA is for employees, not customers.

So if you want to talk about employees... if you dont like working in a gun free zone- don't.

 

[Blimey]

Thumbs down.

Do I have a duty to protect you in my house if you come over (very, very simple version, I grant you)?

Fair point for private businesses.

But for locations we are more or less mandated to visit such as government buildings to do things any reasonable person does (social security office, DMV, etc.) these are not really optional. The same is in schools. If you have a kid you have to send them to the school, by law. The current state of affairs is that you have to send them to a place in which nobody is compelled to protect them.

 

[spat]

What does OSHA have to do with it?

OSHA is for employees, not customers.

So if you want to talk about employees... if you dont like working in a gun free zone- don't.

If a company says leave your PPE at home that's not ok, but if they say leave your active shooter protection at home it's fine ?