• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

If you are shot

Nap said:
As long as you leave when asked then you aren't breaking the law.
Click to expand...

Nope, you are breaking the Texas law (class A misdemeanor) by carrying anywhere adequately posted as prohibited, you are breaking a more serious Texas law (class C misdemeanor) by refusing to leave that area when asked.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Nope, you are breaking the Texas law (class A misdemeanor) by carrying anywhere adequately posted as prohibited, you are breaking a more serious Texas law (class C misdemeanor) by refusing to leave that area when asked.
Click to expand...

You might want to read the sentence before the bolded area.

Once you've posted the signs, it's your responsibility to ask those who have disregarded them to leave
Click to expand...

Edit: The wording of that seems a little too vague and can be interpreted either way. My issue is that it would be rather ridiculous to arrest someone simply because they did not notice a sign.
 
Last edited:
Logical1 said:
If you are shot in a gun free zone, and you didnt bring your fire arm to comply, shouldnt you be able to sue the store or group that posted the gun free zone sign. It seems only right.

If someone does sue and wins, I bet the idiot gun free zone signs would very quickly come down. Reminder, more than 90% of mass shootings happen in gun free zones.
Click to expand...


So, don't bother sueing the man/woman who actually shot you and deliberately or negligently caused you a great deal of harm.


If you were not in a gun free zone, every person you meet could be potentially armed and able to shoot you.


How does having a gun stop you from being shot ?
Oh that's right you can shoot back...is that before or after you've been shot ?
 
Nap said:
You might want to read the sentence before the bolded area.



Edit: The wording of that seems a little too vague and can be interpreted either way. My issue is that it would be rather ridiculous to arrest someone simply because they did not notice a sign.
Click to expand...

That is done for traiffic (misdemenor) violations on a regular basis.
 
Moderator's Warning:
Moving to a more appropriate forum.
 
Logical1 said:
If you are shot in a gun free zone, and you didnt bring your fire arm to comply, shouldnt you be able to sue the store or group that posted the gun free zone sign. It seems only right.

If someone does sue and wins, I bet the idiot gun free zone signs would very quickly come down. Reminder, more than 90% of mass shootings happen in gun free zones.
Click to expand...
I guess it would only be fitting since the anti gun people try to go after the manufacturer of a weapon or retailer. And yeah I bet the signs would disappear.
 
Logical1 said:
If you are shot in a gun free zone, and you didnt bring your fire arm to comply, shouldnt you be able to sue the store or group that posted the gun free zone sign. It seems only right.

If someone does sue and wins, I bet the idiot gun free zone signs would very quickly come down. Reminder, more than 90% of mass shootings happen in gun free zones.
Click to expand...

I think in this scenario in my state you would probably be able to get your medicals covered by premises liability insurance but if you wanted punitive damages you would have to show that the property owner's negligence caused your harm which would be pretty impossible to do if they weren't the shooter.
 
Acadia said:
I'm not sure what the answer is, but I think it's a very interesting topic. If you are forced to disarm and find yourself unable to defend yourself against a gunman who isn't following the rules and laws (as criminals do), is the property owner responsible to some extent?
Click to expand...
I think yes absolutely so. Just the way that the grabbers say manufacturers and retailers should be held libel. With the difference being the manufacturers duty or responsibility as far as who buys what is legally able too. The only time a suit might come about is a faulty product.

However the owner of a gun free establishment (business,corp. what have you) knows before hand a firearm may enter and the person obeying the laws or rules will chances are(chances) will disarm but the criminal won't. If said criminal shoots said disarmed person then said business owner is sued.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
No - since you were made aware of the risk which you voluntarily assumed.
Click to expand...
You do know that more and more places are gun free? Pretty soon you won't be able to leave your house armed w/o disarming yourself somewhere. And personally if someone shoots me I would like a little recompense if not for me my family.
 
=Grand Mal;1070705170]Why would you even live someplace where you need a gun to protect yourself? I sure as hell wouldn't.
Click to expand...
Is that a trick question? Has to be. That or you own a killer Qui-Board consult whenever you move.

And is that 14 year old girl ahead of you in the Burger King line-up armed? No? She's 'way more vulnerable than you are, lives in the same place and she's not only not armed, she's not allowed to be. Makes all those grown men with handguns hidden on them look kind of cowardly, don't it?
Click to expand...

I wonder if Chicago has any Burger Kings? Of course they do. Wonder how many 14 year old girls are armed oh hell how about 12-13 year olds.
 
Logical1 said:
No one has addressed the fact that over 90% of mass shooting have occurred in gun free zones.
Click to expand...

No one has addressed the fact that 90% of the mass shootings were to settle a grudge, or for some personal slight- free of 'guns' or no.

Most 'gun' free zones aren't really that, off duty law enforcement can ignore the ban sign, on duty undercovers, regular security, patrol cops... fact is the 'gun' owners are making up a false narrative to push their agenda.

Like it or no but the courts have decided that they can control what they allow onto their property. When some grumble that a cake maker can refuse service to gay folks with- "let the marketplace decide if the baker is to be punished". If you don't like the 'gun' free Walmart (which ironically sells firearms) go to the 'gun' friendly Target store (which doesn't sell firearms)

It's a strange, strange world... :peace
 
Originally Posted by Mr Person
How many mass shootings have been stopped by a good guy with a gun? Only thing I recall is one saying re: the Gabby shooting that he almost shot a bystander.
Click to expand...
Why do you refer too it as the "Gabby shooting" why not the Gabriel or Christina or Dorothy or Dorwan or Phyllis? After all they died not Gabby. But I guess they weren't well known enough to garner support for gun control huh.
Gabriel Zimmerman, 30, was among those killed. The girl who died was identified as Christina Green, a third grader. The others killed were Dorothy Morris, 76; Dorwan Stoddard, 76; and Phyllis Schneck, 79. Let's not forget the Clackamus Mall.
 
Stealers Wheel said:
Actually, there is. It's called private property rights. If you're on my property and I've posted it is a 'gun free zone' you had damn well better be unarmed or I will call the cops and press charges for trespass. You don't get to dictate your rights on my property.
Click to expand...
Does that go for family and good friends as well?
 
Mr Person said:
Because he hopped up on stage? Come on, how can you 'review' Aurora and conclude that? You have to be assuming someone with the training/experience to have nerves of steel, identify a muzzle flash, and then fire right where he/she needed to to hit the target, all in the dark. Again, not an expert, but that has to be luck.

I was focused mainly on the hypothetical in-the-dark theatre, but it can be expanded. Let me put it this way: the more armed people, the more likely chaos will lead to extra casualties, the lower the probability that a good shot with a gun will get the bad guy in time. The dark exacerbates this.



Would there be good cases? Yes. But I can only think there would be a lot more of worse cases if a small group of heavily armed people in an enclosed space - especially if it's dark - has a contingent of armed people at various locations in the crowd, who all just start shooting at the person they think is the one with the gun.

(On that note... yet another danger: good guys with a gun mistaking good guys with a gun for a bad guy. Add more: cops showing up and seeing a shootout. What then?)





The good guy with a gun thing only works if it's a small setting where the target is neutralized quickly AND before the police show up. The more people/elements you throw in, the worse the recipe.
Click to expand...

you sound like you want disarmed cops. I prefer to be armed
 
Grand Mal said:
Why would you even live someplace where you need a gun to protect yourself? I sure as hell wouldn't.
Click to expand...
I suppose you could live on an island all by yourself, but even there you might still need a gun to protect yourself from wild animals.

Grand Mal said:
And is that 14 year old girl ahead of you in the Burger King line-up armed? No? She's 'way more vulnerable than you are, lives in the same place and she's not only not armed, she's not allowed to be. Makes all those grown men with handguns hidden on them look kind of cowardly, don't it?
Click to expand...
Good point. All the more reason perhaps why 14 year old girls should be allowed to be armed.
 
OscarLevant said:
So, the secret service are idiots for making Trump rallies gun free zones.



How logical, ( not so ) logical1
Click to expand...
Trump rallies are not gun free, the secret service itself consists of tons of bodyguards armed to the teeth.
 
Nap said:
You posting a sign isn't a law. As already mentioned in post #53 the cops are simply going to escort them off the premises. Most of the people that I know that Conceal Carry don't bother leaving their guns in the vehicle as the weapon is already concealed and odds are if someone sees it then it was needed. As the saying goes, it is better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6.
Click to expand...

Not the smartest thing to do if you have to go through metal detectors or any other kind of weapon detectors.
 
DebateChallenge said:
Not the smartest thing to do if you have to go through metal detectors or any other kind of weapon detectors.
Click to expand...

I wasn't talking about places with actual metal detectors or security but places that simply place a sign up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom