[Chemist_Geek]

You disarm a law abiding citizen, you have just taken on the responsibility of keeping them safe. Period.

False.

I have no more responsibility to "keep you safe" if, as a business owner I choose to prohibit you from possessing your precious firearms at my business.

Criminal attack is not a reasonably forseeable incident, nor is possession of a firearm a sufficiently likely guarantor of harm prevention, to make anyone financially liable for your safety.

Really, it's positions like yours which is why the gun-nut stereotype isn't.

[Dead Corpse]

Criminal attack is not a reasonably forseeable incident, nor is possession of a firearm a sufficiently likely guarantor of harm prevention, to make anyone financially liable for your safety.

Isn't that why our LEO's and military personal carry them? You sound like one of the Brady bunch now. They have used exactly the same argumentation in their frivolous lawsuits.

[FreedomHasACost]

"Criminal attack is not a reasonably foreseeable incident, nor is possession of a firearm a sufficiently likely guarantor of harm prevention."


Are you saying that I as an officer am not safer with a gun? And if attack is not reasonably foreseeable I should not be carrying a gun?

I think my post #349 applies to you quite well.