View Single Post
Old July 12, 2005, 05:01 AM   #20
Junior member
Join Date: May 21, 2004
Posts: 1,101
Would you please elaborate on your reply in post # 11?
What you posted makes no sense, at all
I should have elaborated more earlier: I think it's a dumb idea for the government to start legislating what you can be held liable for in this type of case. I wouldn't like it if the government specifically passed a law that said "A store can be held liable if a legal CCW carrier negligently kills someone inside if they didn't post signs that say "no guns" anymore than I would like it if the goverment said "A store can be held civially liable if they adopt a policy that prohibits guns and someone is killed in violation of criminal or civil law and there was no one around with a gun to stop it."

it would hold the owners of places which prohibit possession of defensive firearms liable for damages suffered by victims of certain criminal acts where a defensive firearm would have made a difference.
The "would have made a difference" part bothers me too. You can't ever say that a defensive gun WOULD have made a difference, only COULD have....
FrankDrebin is offline  
Page generated in 0.05218 seconds with 7 queries