|
I'm going to go out on a limb, here, and say perhaps some businesses should be sued when their victim-disarmament zones prove tragically effective. To date, there have been, what, ZERO such lawsuits? The company's insurance carrier compares the risk of being sued for prohibiting carry with the risk of being sued for permitting carry, and it's a no-brainer: No Carry = No Risk! Now, times, they are a changin'. There is now more acceptance of concealed carry, and more acknowledgement that carrying a weapon is a prudent and effective means of self-defense and crime prevention. If liability insurance carriers start having to spend big bucks to defend the actions of clients who prohibit concealed carry, they may become, at least, less hostile to the concept of not prohibiting concealed carry. If we can, through lawsuits, level the playing field to the point that companies aren't rewarded by their insurance carriers for prohibiting carry, then a lot of the "no weapons" signs will disappear.
It goes against my grain to encourage lawsuits, but in this instance, perhaps we might derive some secondary gain from such actions.
__________________
Violence is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and valorous feeling which believes that nothing is worth violence is much worse. Those who have nothing for which they are willing to fight; nothing they care about more than their own craven apathy; are miserable creatures who have no chance of being free, unless made and kept so by the valor of those better than themselves. Gary L. Griffiths (Paraphrasing John Stuart Mill)
|