|
Fat Ogre posted:You missed this part chief. Yeah I don't think that part is going to actually work in practice. People are going to take their guns inside then change their mind, etc. It's just got BAD IDEA written all over it. Weapons and bars don't mix.
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2014 22:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 7, 2024 08:48 |
|
|
SedanChair posted:Who loving cares? If you don't like it DON'T GO IN. It's stupid and pointless but so are a million things. It doesn't affect your safety. It amazes me how much of this debate seems to be about feelings and attitudes rather than concrete matters.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2014 22:18
|
|
|
Nessus posted:Well it makes them feel stigmatized. Pretty much. As I said, nothing but toadies and failed cops who want not only to carry their comfort binkies at all times but to be regarded as heroes for it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2014 22:20
|
|
|
Well that's wonderful. Good thread, y'all.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2014 22:22
|
|
|
Slipknot Hoagie posted:When I say private businesses, I mean businesses in general as opposed to privately-held or publicly-traded. So all businesses, Costco and Shop-Rite alike. Sorry if I was confusing. That isn't the same thing. McDonald's is open to the public meaning they have to follow federal labor laws, comply with the non discrimination laws etc and I support that. If you want to be open to the public congress has the right to require you to play by the rules they lay out. The Moose Lodge or the Free Mason groups aren't businesses but instead are private clubs and can set any rules they like about who can and can't join etc. If you want to sell stuff to people as a business you should be held liable for policies you enable in your store. No shoes policy and someone steps on glass, you'll get sued. No helmet policy and someone pops you in the head while playing ball, expect a lawsuit unless they signed a waiver. No gun policy and people get hurt by someone with a gun....same issue.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2014 22:24
|
|
|
But guns are not safety equipment like shoes or a helmet. They're weapons.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2014 22:25
|
|
|
Slipknot Hoagie posted:I don't think private businesses should be able to discriminate against weapon carriers. In regions where weapon carrying is currently forbidden it is socially unpopular to do so, and a person might find themselves unable to acquire goods and services without extensive research on which segregated facilities are willing to accommodate them. I agree. It just seems so unfair. I mean, if people were allowed to discriminate on the basis of whether someone was carrying a gun, why, vast swaths of the country would just starve. If only these concealed carry weapons weren't actually immutable characteristics of these people's persons, so that they could do something like just leave their gun at home when it's time to go grocery shopping. If only it were that easy.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2014 22:25
|
|
|
Kiwi Ghost Chips posted:Show that gun control laws reduce overall murder and violent crime rates. There are lots of laws out there to look at. That isn't what I said. I said LESS GUNS, reduce the amount of people who get killed by guns. As is evidenced in pretty much every other first world country with sane gun policy.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2014 22:25
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Who loving cares? If you don't like it DON'T GO IN. It's stupid and pointless but so are a million things. It doesn't affect your safety. Never said it did. You're projecting or making up a straw man here. I'm simply saying they should be held liable if they say no guns (since this doesn't affect safety) and someone comes in with a gun and shoots up the place. Why have that policy, why advertise it, if they aren't taking reasonable steps to enforce it?
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2014 22:26
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:But guns are not safety equipment like shoes or a helmet. They're weapons. So does self defense not involve safety now?
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2014 22:27
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:That isn't what I said. I said LESS GUNS, reduce the amount of people who get killed by guns. As is evidenced in pretty much every other first world country with sane gun policy. And "less people killed by guns" is a pointless benchmark unless you can follow it up with overall lower violent crime rates.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2014 22:27
|
|
|
Slipknot Hoagie posted:Well that's wonderful. Good thread, y'all. Gun debates, in my opinion, are the most difficult of the debates to do on the internet. It is a really touchy subject in the US.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2014 22:28
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Yeah I don't think that part is going to actually work in practice. People are going to take their guns inside then change their mind, etc. It's just got BAD IDEA written all over it. Weapons and bars don't mix. Maybe ban alcohol or ban bars then? Or maybe just hold the bars liable for not keeping their patrons safe? We already get pissy and sue them for serving drinks to people that are too drunk. And not stopping drunk drivers. Why is this any different?
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2014 22:28
|
|
|
Fat Ogre posted:Never said it did. You're projecting or making up a straw man here. But saying no to guns actually might increase safety, because drunk people with guns are a bad idea? You're creating a legal catch-22. Either the bar owner says "no guns" and he gets sued when someone brings a gun in anyway and shoots someone, or the bar owner says "yes guns" and he gets sued when someone brings a gun in and shoots someone.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2014 22:29
|
|
|
Fat Ogre posted:So does self defense not involve safety now? There's a difference, as I'm sure (?) you can understand. For example, no matter how pointy your shoes are, there's really very little chance of them killing a bystander as they protect your feet from shards of glass.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2014 22:29
|
|
|
Fat Ogre posted:I'm simply saying they should be held liable if they say no guns (since this doesn't affect safety) and someone comes in with a gun and shoots up the place. Why have that policy, why advertise it, if they aren't taking reasonable steps to enforce it? Because having a policy against a thing which is not 100% effective doesn't mean you're not enforcing that policy.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2014 22:30
|
|
|
thefncrow posted:I agree. It just seems so unfair. I mean, if people were allowed to discriminate on the basis of whether someone was carrying a gun, why, vast swaths of the country would just starve. If only gays would just stop being so flaming in public. Leave the PDA outside guys, don't hold hands. Could those ladies stop wearing a cross on their neck and just flaunting their disgusting religion gosh. Take off your burqa ma'am. You can still be a Muslim but you can just leave it at home when you come in here.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2014 22:31
|
|
|
Kiwi Ghost Chips posted:And "less people killed by guns" is a pointless benchmark unless you can follow it up with overall lower violent crime rates. Why do I always forget that this forum is as a whole a progressive place until you bring up guns... If you honestly believe that reducing people's access to the weapon that makes killing other people (and themselves) as easy as possible wouldn't have an effect on people's ability to kill others or themselves then you're living in a fairy tale land of make believe.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2014 22:32
|
|
|
Fat Ogre posted:If only gays would just stop being so flaming in public. Leave the PDA outside guys, don't hold hands. BOOM there it is folks.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2014 22:32
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:But saying no to guns actually might increase safety, because drunk people with guns are a bad idea? How exactly is get getting sued for negligence in the second option?
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2014 22:32
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:BOOM there it is folks.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2014 22:34
|
|
|
Fat Ogre posted:How exactly is get getting sued for negligence in the second option? "You encouraged people to bring guns here then you didn't do enough to prevent their misuse." The part you're missing is that the lawsuits don't have to have actual winnable merit to bring the bar down. They just have to create enough factual dispute that it could go to a jury. Jury trials are prohibitively expensive.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2014 22:34
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:Why do I always forget that this forum is as a whole a progressive place until you bring up guns... If you honestly believe that reducing people's access to the weapon that makes killing other people (and themselves) as easy as possible wouldn't have an effect on people's ability to kill others or themselves then you're living in a fairy tale land of make believe. Evidence showing that should be easy to find then.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2014 22:35
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:There's a difference, as I'm sure (?) you can understand. For example, no matter how pointy your shoes are, there's really very little chance of them killing a bystander as they protect your feet from shards of glass. So chance of killing is your threshold then? If I own a rock climbing place and say you have to use my ropes, and then those ropes fail should you be able to sue me for having lovely ropes? If you use your own ropes, and the onus of safety is on you now, how exactly are you suing me for your ropes failing you?
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2014 22:35
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:"You encouraged people to bring guns here then you didn't do enough to prevent their misuse." That's true about any small business. In no case am I saying we change the law to make it extra easy to sue people. I'm just saying it shouldn't be illegal to sue them for doing that, and that it shouldn't be surprising when it happens.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2014 22:37
|
|
|
Fat Ogre posted:So chance of killing is your threshold then? People going to a bar are not rock climbing, and bars are often not sites of mass shootings. Schools are, though.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2014 22:39
|
|
|
Kiwi Ghost Chips posted:Evidence showing that should be easy to find then. It was. http://www.salon.com/2013/03/07/gun_control_reduces_gun_violence_and_other_studies_that_confirm_the_obvious/
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2014 22:39
|
|
|
Fat Ogre posted:I'm just saying it shouldn't be illegal to sue them for doing that To reiterate, exactly what thing do you want to change? You certainly didn't think this kind of suit was (e: presently) frivolous when I asked earlier. eviltastic fucked around with this message at 22:42 on Apr 24, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2014 22:40
|
|
|
Fat Ogre posted:So chance of killing is your threshold then? No maybe it's that I may not prefer to condone random morons engaging threats in my place of business. Maybe I've decided that it's better to risk a massacre than to encourage the presence of pale, slovenly "Molon Labe" types because they are gross to be around and drive away desirable customers. Maybe I want to bait entitled scum into comparing themselves to people with real problems.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2014 22:40
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:BOOM there it is folks. Nessus posted:That came up earlier in the thread, frankly; in fact I believe Fat Ogre made explicit comparison to gay marriage and abortion. If self defense is a fundamental right, it is just as important as your right to religion, free speech, privacy etc. And to argue that it isn't or is just something you should just put away when you go into some place is laughable. Not only are fat white guys being denied that right to self defense but so are all the other groups that have traditionally had their civil rights hosed over as well. Seriously why is it so bad to let gay guys carry a gun into the gay bar to keep from getting stomped when they walk to their car later? Why is it such a bad thing to allow guns into churches etc to keep Sikh's, Muslims or Jews from being attacked when they enter or leave? How about a stripper that wants to be armed when she walks to her car after her shift? Or a bartender being armed with a conceal carry piece? You're making it seem like self defense is only the realm of the fat white guys that want to be militia assholes which is bull poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2014 22:44
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:It was. That's gun-related death, not overall violent crime. Try again.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2014 22:45
|
|
|
eviltastic posted:To reiterate, exactly what thing do you want to change? You certainly didn't think this kind of suit was (e: presently) frivolous when I asked earlier. I want people to think about what it means to toss up signs that say no guns.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2014 22:45
|
|
|
Fat Ogre posted:I want people to think about what it means to toss up signs that say no guns.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2014 22:48
|
|
|
Fat Ogre posted:If self defense is a fundamental right, it is just as important as your right to religion, free speech, privacy etc. Carry is a stupid digression in the history of self defense. Of course people should be able to carry weapons in public, and business owners and private individuals should be able to say "not here" without fears of being used into oblivion. When it comes to the right of marginalized groups to protect themselves, the right to proper infantry weapons is much more important. So why are we obsessing over carrying in theaters when we should be obsessing about repealing NFA? Cowboy fantasies are the reason. We're not talking about muggers, that's what is bullshit. We're talking about the Klan and rogue police.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2014 22:49
|
|
|
Nessus posted:Do they need to openly profess agreement with you, or will mere compliance be sufficient? Comply with what signage? Being held liable? poo poo no, I don't think everyone has to agree with me.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2014 22:52
|
|
|
Fat Ogre posted:In no case am I saying we change the law to make it extra easy to sue people. I'm just saying it shouldn't be illegal to sue them for doing that, and that it shouldn't be surprising when it happens. I don't think you're drawing a distinction with a difference there. You can either sue someone for something or you can't. If you can, people will. The specific situation you've described would make such suits profitable because they would necessarily involve a fact question ("did the owner do enough to protect") and thus could be forced to trial rather than dismissed on summary judgment. Because trial costs are high, this means such suits would be an easy way for predatory attorneys and desperate plaintiffs to ding bar owners for cash any time a shooting happened nearby. It's just a BAD IDEA in capital letters. It's one of those concepts that sounds all Principled and Libertarian-Logical in the abstract but that would cause all sorts of real problems in the real world.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2014 22:53
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Carry is a stupid digression in the history of self defense. Of course people should be able to carry weapons in public, and business owners and private individuals should be able to say "not here" without fears of being used into oblivion. It is all baby steps. Once you establish that carrying in the home is ok. Then you establish carry outside the home is ok. Then you establish what kind of carry is ok. Then you establish what you can carry. NFA is at the bottom of the steps right now.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2014 22:54
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:I don't think you're drawing a distinction with a difference there. You can either sue someone for something or you can't. If you can, people will. The specific situation you've described would make such suits profitable because they would necessarily involve a fact question ("did the owner do enough to protect") and thus could be forced to trial rather than dismissed on summary judgment. Because trial costs are high, this means such suits would be an easy way for predatory attorneys and desperate plaintiffs to ding bar owners for cash any time a shooting happened nearby. This already happens with ADA compliance and is an easy way for lawyers to sue the poo poo out of small businesses. Holding people liable for saying no guns is a drop in the bucket considering how infrequently people get shot anyway.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2014 22:55
|
|
|
I know, I am saying your priorities are hosed. Malcolm X had an M1 carbine to defend his house from filth, he should have been able to have an MG42 if he wanted one. Meanwhile, you're over here like "what if a private citizen doesn't want me to carry my gun in their business?" Nothing, that's what. Focus on getting your rights back from the government.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2014 22:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 7, 2024 08:48 |
|
|
Fat Ogre posted:I want people to think about what it means to toss up signs that say no guns. Good lord dude, you were clearly taking a position broader than that which somehow involved law in some respect, and which you have put some thought into, and I'm still unclear on what the heck it is. As near I can tell, you think a kind of claim is under-litigated, but I guess it could be you think it's already happening and business owners aren't taking notice?
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2014 23:01
|
|