Please Help To Keep The
"Conservative News and Views"
on FR coming by "Clicking Here"!!
Sponsoring FReepers are contributing
$10 Each time a New Monthly Donor signs up!
Get more bang for your FR buck!
Click Here To Sign Up Now!
Posted on 10/31/2013 4:51:57 PM PDT by HokieMom
“Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University”
I.e. not a “private” entity...
I hear ya - it's obvious that gun-free zones are targets. But if students choose to attend knowing the gun-free policy is in place, isn't that their free choice and thus their responsibility for the outcome?
not in wisconsin.
Sorry to be obtuse, please explain...
I still don’t agree with the concept and the state law doesn’t as far as I know require that state universities allow concealed carry. And this has a lot implications beyond just this case and they would present a gold mine for leftists which we the tax payers would end up paying for. It surely wouldn’t come out of the pockets of the Alumni Association. The only exception would be if were proved the university knew the individual in question was talking or indicating that he would be violent and did nothing but then again even with that we must be careful or we end up with idiot liberals having students committed for making handgun gestures or playing with toy guns. I am very uncomfortable with anything that moves away from the clarity that the person who commits a crime is the responsible and liable party. The idea that we are just going to sue who happened to be there who has the money to pay is a very bad precedent.
if businesses ban guns they are liable for the security of shoppers in their stores.
Thanks. That's pretty cool.
:-)
If they promise a GFZ and that GFZ is not gun free, then of course they should pay!
The problem is they wont end up paying we will. There was one criminal involved in that shooting. He is dead and he was the only one responsible. The law should not extend beyond that unless the school had reason to believe the man was a threat and did nothing. I don’t care if it is a gun free zone or not. The left uses this kind of shared guilt to transfer blame all the time to gun manufacturers etc. It is not logical nor does it serve the purpose of individual liberty and while it may be convenient to get back at an academia that is hostile to guns and individual liberty when it extends beyond hedonism we should not accept premises that will hurt us in the end.
That dog just might hunt in today’s topsy turvey world.
If the government can force a cafe owner to serve certain ethnic or all ethnic groups, it can forse the same owner to allow armed people on the premises
They were not a third party. Because of their no gun stance, the university actively disarmed the victims and inhibited their right to self defense. They were, in short, complicit.
My primary point is that, as a state institution, they were obligated to either provide a level of security and awareness that would not allow an occurance like this to be successfully undertaken, or allow the students the right to carry the means of their own defense per state law overall.
The actual law should be that any institution that prohibits you the option of providing for your defense should be blanket liable for your demise or injury in a crime of violence, but that in allowing you to protect yourself within the purview of the Constitution they would have blanket indemnity over any legal actions, i.e. if you had the option of defending yourself and didn’t utilize it, they are covered...
Penn State administrators did what they perceived to be the best course of action at the time and so did the Va Tech, administrators .
The problem was it was not the best course of action for the victims, young boys is one instance and shooting victims in the other. Instead they performed cautious and selfish responses in the interest of the respective schools and not the victims, potential or actual.
Yes but the key point is that people choose which university they go to. I’m sure there are universities that allow concealed carry. While I don’t support gun restrictions for non criminal gun owners I can not blame a university which has not been found negligent in a court of law for the acts of a crazy person and I don’t think that strategy is a wise one. We are served best when individuals are held responsible for their decisions criminal or otherwise. Expanding blame beyond that does not serve anyone but to make lawyers richer and make the citizens fit the bill. We have too much fuzzy law already and it doesn’t benefit us at all. What it does is screw us and redistribute liability in ways that is overreaching and ridiculous. A person being murdered by a crazy person in a college should be treated no different than a person being murdered by a crazy person on the street at a bus stop. Should a city be held liable for bus stop shootings in gun free zones?
We have gotten to the place where political expediency is all the rage in this country. If suing someone promises to produce a payout then the game is on and it is always produces the same conclusion that the citizens are the ones who lose.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.