If one of my family members ever gets seriously injured by an attacker-- or murdered-- in a place that bans guns, you can bet I'll sue the owners and management of the place. There's a minimum you can do for safety, and banning guns is a dereliction of duty in that regard.
I'm not "sue-happy" (I've never been involved in a lawsuit) but when someone negligently or intentionally helps the bad guys, they need to be sued. Hard.
I spent yesterday in Amarillo, and I don't think I saw a single business that didn't have a "We don't care if you die" sign on the door. Yet, I hear people from other parts of Texas who say this isn't their experience. Lucky them-- or maybe they just don't notice the posted insults to human dignity like I do. Each one of those signs is a slap in the face.
If cops made you remove your seat belts from the car before driving on "their" roads, and you were killed in an accident when a seat belt might have saved you, they would be at fault just as much as whatever caused the accident.
If firefighters made you remove the fire extinguishers and smoke alarms from your house, and you died in a fire that you might otherwise have survived or put out, they would be responsible for the tragedy no matter how the fire started.
And if a business bans guns-- safety equipment-- and someone is harmed by an attacker, then that business might as well have given the bad guy the gun and ammunition, and helped him pull the trigger. The owners and management are responsible, whether they like it or not.
-
Writing to promote liberty is my job.
I hope I add something you find valuable enough to support. If so...
YOU get to decide if I get paid.
Writing to promote liberty is my job.
I hope I add something you find valuable enough to support. If so...
YOU get to decide if I get paid.
If a business doesn't allow you to bring in something you consider essential to your safety, don't go in. Problem solved.
ReplyDeleteTheir property, their rules, and initiating force over it with malicious/frivolous litigation isn't the way to handle the disagreement.
I'm not talking about just if they forbid-- I'm talking about if they forbid and someone is harmed as a direct result. Then it is their responsibility whether they like it or not. Their property; their rules; their responsibility.
DeleteTheir property, their rules, YOUR responsibility.
DeleteYou can follow their rules, or not use their property, but they don't magically become responsible for what others do either way.
I have to disagree, Kent. The proper response to a business that forbids guns is not to enter that business. You have no positive right to be served by businesses with practices you like. You are of course free to start up a rival business which allows guns, but you are not legitimately "free" to dictate on what terms someone else's business operates.
ReplyDeleteIn this case I'm specifically talking about someone agreeing to abide by the anti-gun bigot's rules and dying as a result. I WILL hold that business accountable,even though the dead person might have been OK with the rule.
DeleteI agree that property rights are essential... but they aren't sufficient for liberty. They are a piece of the puzzle, not the whole thing.
"Accountable" to who, and for what?
ReplyDeleteParty A sets rules for use of his or her property. Party B agrees to those rules. Party C attacks and kills Party B.
In what universe is Party A responsible for Party B's voluntary agreement to go disarmed, or for Party C's initiation of force?
Accountable to those who have lost a family member due to A's use of his property in a way that violates the natural rights of others-- even if they foolishly agree to those rules-- in such a way to cause them harm.
DeleteIt's the same universe where if A builds a nuke in his garage and it blows up and kills his neighbors he is accountable. Even if his neighbors know about his nuke and don't move away because of it. You could say they voluntarily agreed to how he was using his property. Even if A didn't intend for it to go off, or even if it blows up because a bad guy breaks into his garage and detonates the bomb, he made a choice as to the use of his property-- and it caused harm. He owes for the harm his choice caused.
All rights come with responsibilities. Even property rights. If you use your rights in a way that causes harm, you don't get to avoid accountability because you did something you had a right to do.
DeleteSetting rules for use of your property violates no one's natural rights -- by definition. It's your property, not theirs, and it's their choice to use it on the conditions you set, or not.
DeleteIt's sad that you undersdand liberty, but then when it comes to guns, all of a sudden "but I WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAANT" becomes your criterion of constitutes a right.
Or maybe I don't understand liberty at all.
DeleteJust say no. Avoid their property.
ReplyDelete