[circlecity]

"If you as a private or public property owner or agency wish to ban firearms then YOU should be held fully and personally liable for any injury suffered by any person unable to defend theirself on your property,or who was unable to defend theirself while enroute to or from your property from their home."

That is nonsense. But if that's what you want than to be consistent a gun owner should be guilty of murder if they allow someone to steal their gun and kill someone else.

[dbehsman]

That is nonsense.

It most certainly is NOT nonsense. As a business owner, you have conscientiously made the decision to disarm another person through coercion. You have also willfully made that person an easy target for a criminal. You have made a decision that will help a criminal perpetrate a crime against the person you have coerced into disarming themselves.

But if that's what you want than to be consistent a gun owner should be guilty of murder if they allow someone to steal their gun and kill someone else.

Unless you can prove that the gunowner (who was a victim of theft) ASKED for his or her guns to be stolen, they bear NO responsibility.

[hoosierham]

No,it is NOT nonsense.

If you by DELIBERATE action ,prevent someone from defending themself you ought to be held responsible.

YOU are the one who wants to restrict other peoples' rights.

And your example is nonsense.Certainly if I give a gun to someone knowing they intend to commit a crime then I should be held liable;but if someone STEALS any item from me,they have committed first a crime of theft and it is beyond ridiculous to suggest I should be responsible for that which was taken without my permission.