09-16-2012, 05:22 PM
BjornF16 Wrote:I don't disagree with that...but I believe the business then assumes a liability. LEO is not responsible for my protection...I am. If someone removes my ability to protect myself, they assume the responsibility (imo).
Regardless, if a business posts a legal prohibition to concealed carry (30.06 sign in Texas), they lose my business.
If the Aurora shooter was merely wearing a nylon weapons vest, one well placed shot could have stopped the rampage.
Heck, just someone shooting back might have stopped the rampage! The guy wasn't suicidal, he was making a statement; he wasn't willing to die, that's why he chose a signed theater.
While I agree with your sentiment about protection liability, no court in the land has so decided. When you make that decision, they are not assuming liability for protection, you are simply unilaterally disarming, and that is ALWAYS a mistake, whether nations or individuals are concerned. I simply refuse to take that chance.
You seek escape from pain. We seek the achievement of happiness. You exist for the sake of avoiding punishment. We exist for the sake of earning rewards. Threats will not make us function; fear is not our incentive. It is not death that we wish to avoid, but life that we wish to live. - John Galt