View Single Post
Old January 10, 2009, 10:02 AM   #95
divemedic
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 12, 2006
Posts: 1,310
Quote:
Now, as far as a company's actions being immoral if they deprive you of a means to protect yourself, I would not have a problem with making compaines that choose to pursue no-weapons policies civilly liable for damages that occur as a result of depriving their employees a means of self-defense. If they want to pursue such inane policies, fine, but they should recieve no legal protection should they get sued because of them. Basically, I think the best approach for abolishing such policy is not to attack them through the legislature, but rather through their wallets.
I totally agree. The problem here is that the company invariably claims third party interference: that is, they claim that they have no control over whether or not a goblin chooses to rob their store and shoot half a dozen customers, therefore claiming that they shouldn't be held liable for that act, yet choosing to ignore the fact that their very act of ensuring a risk free environment for the bad guy to rob the store was a factor in the robbery, as well as ignoring the fact that the bad guy would not have been able to shoot those 6 customers had one of them been armed.
__________________
Caveat Emperor
divemedic is offline  
 
Page generated in 0.03562 seconds with 8 queries