Replies

I guess what I’m getting at is that for any disarmament contract to be viable, it seems to me that an equal assurance of protection must be made towards the disarmed.

The actual reality of what companies are now getting away with is saying, “you agree to pay for our services and risk getting shot to death by a maniac while doing it, while we agree to take your money and let the maniac shoot you while stopping you from defending yourself.”

Now, if that contract is still considered valid, then why are there signs up banning guns? Shouldn’t there also be equally large signs ups addressing the other side of the same issue, i.e. signs banning guns, AND signs reminding patrons that they agree to be shot by gun-wielding criminals?

Reason being is that if the ONLY place that guns were banned was in the rest of the fine-print on the ticket, it wouldn’t be enough of a legal warning - right? Otherwise, why bother with the big signs banning guns in addition to the fine print saying the same thing on the ticket?

BUT, since banning guns makes the patrons directly liable to death by crime, with no allowed method of self-defense by the corporation, shouldn’t THAT also be put up in large print on signs along with the gun ban signs? Don’t patrons have a right to be reminded that they are risking the lives of their families and children, and are surrendering their right to self-defense in case a murder starts slaughtering them, and that that is what they are agreeing to when they pay for their ticket?

And WITHOUT such a specific reminder, is the contract valid, since it is merely “presuming” violent death i understood to be the risk, rather than guaranteeing that people KNOW that that is the risk?

Contract must be understood on both sides - that’s the root of contract law. Big gun-ban signs imply nig notice must be made of this issue, yet big agreement-to-die-like-sheep signs are not available to make clear the other side of the contract.

Lack of clarity creates lack of understanding that voids contracts.