|
Post by 950nancy on Jul 2, 2016 22:05:38 GMT
Just a thought. If the establishment has to put a sign up stating that no weapons are allowed, wouldn't that be the place someone with a grudge or whatever might go to shoot someone? To me, you are putting the establishment more at risk by doing this. That doesn't seem right.
|
|
|
Post by leftturnonly on Jul 2, 2016 22:05:52 GMT
Taking a bit of a time-out here to share some thoughts. I hope you'll receive them in the way I'm intending.
One time in a previous thread, you alluded to some time spent in combat. If that's the case, I can see where your feelings of concern might be affected by your prior experience. I'm just speculating here, but if you've been in that sort of a situation and have PTSD or other lasting affects, it might help us better understand where you're coming from.
Our personal history plays a very big part in shaping our fears and concerns. Sometimes that is the known, sometimes it's the unknown. Two examples for myself:
1. I have a phobia of tornadoes. I'd always had a healthy fear of them, but when I was in college out of state, my hometown took a direct hit, and I didn't know if my immediate and extended family members were alive until the following day. Since then, I've had recurring nightmares about being hit by a tornado in a public place. My emotional response to severe weather is not always rational, and it's only been in the past several years that I've been able to help myself by becoming a storm spotter and helping with communication between local spotters and the NWS. My "phobia" is not gone, but by helping to eliminate the unknown and non-control part of the situation, it makes it easier to handle.
2. My son is going to college in Virginia in the fall. I'm terrified. I'm terrified because he'll be within driving distance of Washington D.C. and will have to fly into/out of the airport there. I'm scared to death of a terrorist attack or bombing or whatever. Ironically, a few months ago there was a workplace shooting in the quiet, peaceful, small Mennonite community where he attended college last year, and where my family lives. He was safe, but statistically much more likely to have been injured in that event, than he will be in Virginia. While I know that in my head, in my heart I have absolutely no concerns about sending my daughter to the same college he just graduated from, but I'm still a mess about Virginia.
My point here is, perhaps if Rainbow could share some of the reasons behind her fears and concerns, we might be more tolerant/understanding of them.
Of course, I could be way completely off base and she's just trying to yank our chains, in which case I've made a fool of myself, but I think it's at least worth considering.
And now back to the thread (which, incidentally, has turned into a pretty good discussion topic)
I don't really know how much I want to share. I don't think anyone will change their minds even if I do. Unless you've been in my position you probably wouldn't understand it, and that's OK. Non-military people will never have the understanding of what it's like. Hearing a story is a lot different than being there. You never think that someone is going to actually come at you and try to kill you until it happens. I get that because I was the same way. These days I think it is very foolish to think that nothing bad will ever happen. Clearly we are living in a volatile time. I don't see that going away any time soon, unfortunately. Thank you, Rainbow. I actually consider that a pretty good answer.
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Jul 2, 2016 22:07:20 GMT
Not having a gun does not equal defenseless. Those with military experience have had self-defense training that does not include using firearms - it is called hand-to-hand combat. For me, it is a false argument to say the only way to defend oneself is with a gun. For me, it is also a false argument to say more guns in more hands in more settings makes us all safer. For me, more guns in the hands of more people with little training and or experience makes me feel less safe. Your mileage may vary, this is my reality. It's actually not really up for debate. We as a society are demonstrably not safer with more guns. Our murder rate is many times higher than other, similar countries. Individuals who choose to own guns are many times more likely to be killed by their gun or have a family member killed by it than to successfully defend themselves from a criminal with it. I don't mean this to be derogatory, but anyone who thinks their gun actually makes them safer is either not aware of the statistical realities or is willfully choosing to ignore them. I think many people think that they are the exception, but personally, I can't imagine taking that kind of risk.
|
|
|
Post by secondlife on Jul 2, 2016 22:12:44 GMT
I was curious if this could actually have passed. It appears that we have been arguing something that did not pass.
What I found was that it was significantly altered by the state senate and it finally read:
SECTION 1. Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 39, Chapter 17, Part 13, is amended by adding the following as a new section: (a) A person, business, or other entity that owns, controls, or manages property and has the authority to prohibit weapons on that property by posting, pursuant to § 39-17-1359, shall be immune from civil liability with respect to any claim based on such person's, business's, or other entity's failure to adopt a policy that prohibits weapons on the property by posting pursuant to § 39-17-1359. (b) Immunity under this subsection (a) does not apply to a person, business, or other entity whose conduct or failure to act is the result of gross negligence or willful or wanton misconduct.
|
|
|
Post by leftturnonly on Jul 2, 2016 22:13:50 GMT
Not really. If that were true Kosher Jews and Muslim cashiers could refuse to scan people's pork chops at the grocery store. A Muslim clerk at the DMV could refuse to issue a driver's license to a woman. Freedom of religion doesn't mean that you (general) get to impose your beliefs on others. But if an action is legal then why should the business owner have the right to allow a legal activity? There is no difference brown the two situations. Acceptance of one and not the other is based solely on whether one Agrees with the position of the business owner and that's just hypocritical. Either the business owner had a right to preclude legal activities in his establishment or he doesn't. His right to do so shouldn't spend on whether people like or agree with what he's precluding It is my sincere belief that there are some businesses that are middle-men that do not share this privilege. If you want to be a pharmacist, part of the job is dispensing medication to individuals prescribed by physicians. Don't like that part of the job for any reason? Then the job isn't for you. I felt the same way about not issuing marriage licenses to gay couples in a state where it was legal. If you can't do the job the way it needs to be done, then that job isn't for you.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 2, 2024 0:52:44 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 2, 2016 22:15:05 GMT
Just a thought. If the establishment has to put a sign up stating that no weapons are allowed, wouldn't that be the place someone with a grudge or whatever might go to shoot someone? To me, you are putting the establishment more at risk by doing this. That doesn't seem right. That's what people have been saying for years. People have been putting up those signs before this law.
|
|
flute4peace
Drama Llama
Posts: 6,757
Jul 3, 2014 14:38:35 GMT
|
Post by flute4peace on Jul 2, 2016 22:22:13 GMT
Because she's saying that she, a lot of others don't go to places fearful of what might happen. They go about their daily activities leaving their home not worried that they are going to go to the grocery store or local cafe and get shot up by a bad guy. And their thinking does not include that some other civilian who is carrying is going to save the day. To those people, being comfortable they are not fearful and thinking that they have to strap on a gun to feel safe. It's just a matter of perspective. Just as much as you (may) see it as being defenseless, many, many others feel safe without having to worry about it. And they are not wrong either. To those people, who are comfortable how they feel about it, it seems paranoid (foreign) or over the top excessive to them. To you it might not. It's just a matter of perspective. I really don't see that you answered the question. You keep on about how people feel and if they are comfortable. That doesn't equal safety. Just because you feel safe doesn't mean you are. I don't see how being defenseless is safer. To me preparedness is better, because there is no problem if you don't need to use it.Likewise, just because you DON'T feel safe, doesn't mean you AREN'T. As has been mentioned several times, definition and perception of safety are going to vary widely amongst the population. There are things people do every day that I would never do, because I wouldn't feel safe. I'm sure there are things I do that others wouldn't (right now I'm storm spotting), because it would make them feel unsafe. It doesn't make one right or wrong, just different.
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Jul 2, 2016 22:23:13 GMT
I was curious if this could actually have passed. It appears that we have been arguing something that did not pass. What I found was that it was significantly altered by the state senate and it finally read: SECTION 1. Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 39, Chapter 17, Part 13, is amended by adding the following as a new section:(a) A person, business, or other entity that owns, controls, or manages property and has the authority to prohibit weapons on that property by posting, pursuant to § 39-17-1359, shall be immune from civil liability with respect to any claim based on such person's, business's, or other entity's failure to adopt a policy that prohibits weapons on the property by posting pursuant to § 39-17-1359. (b) Immunity under this subsection (a) does not apply to a person, business, or other entity whose conduct or failure to act is the result of gross negligence or willful or wanton misconduct. I looked at that too, but what you have posted is actually an amendment to the original bill, which passed along with the amendment. The amendment goes one step further and says that not only can the business owner be sued if a CHL holder is hurt on the premises, but also that a business cannot be sued if they allow guns and someone comes in and shoots people. So it's all a lot of political maneuvering to try to get stores to take down their 'no weapons allowed' signs. I honestly hope it bites them in the butt, and those establishments start posting 'no CHL holders allowed' signs along with their 'no weapons allowed' signs. What a crock of shit.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 2, 2024 0:52:44 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 2, 2016 22:27:34 GMT
I was curious if this could actually have passed. It appears that we have been arguing something that did not pass. What I found was that it was significantly altered by the state senate and it finally read: SECTION 1. Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 39, Chapter 17, Part 13, is amended by adding the following as a new section: (a) A person, business, or other entity that owns, controls, or manages property and has the authority to prohibit weapons on that property by posting, pursuant to § 39-17-1359, shall be immune from civil liability with respect to any claim based on such person's, business's, or other entity's failure to adopt a policy that prohibits weapons on the property by posting pursuant to § 39-17-1359. (b) Immunity under this subsection (a) does not apply to a person, business, or other entity whose conduct or failure to act is the result of gross negligence or willful or wanton misconduct. well nevermind. Not sure what actually passed.
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Jul 2, 2016 22:28:00 GMT
Just a thought. If the establishment has to put a sign up stating that no weapons are allowed, wouldn't that be the place someone with a grudge or whatever might go to shoot someone? To me, you are putting the establishment more at risk by doing this. That doesn't seem right. We're told over and over again that if someone wants to find a way to kill, they will. That's the main argument when we talk about any kind of gun control. I think that applies here as well. If someone wants to kill you, the fact that you may or may not be carrying is not going to be a deterrent. We're also frequently reminded that we have no idea who is carrying and who isn't, which leads me to consider that even in a so-called "gun-free zone," people are carrying concealed, with or without a CHL. If I'm smart enough to figure that out, the person who wants to kill is, too.
|
|
|
Post by 950nancy on Jul 2, 2016 22:28:21 GMT
Just a thought. If the establishment has to put a sign up stating that no weapons are allowed, wouldn't that be the place someone with a grudge or whatever might go to shoot someone? To me, you are putting the establishment more at risk by doing this. That doesn't seem right. That's what people have been saying for years. People have been putting up those signs before this law. If everyone has to do, it may change.
|
|
Rainbow
Pearl Clutcher
Where salt is in the air and sand is at my feet...
Posts: 4,103
Jun 26, 2014 5:57:41 GMT
|
Post by Rainbow on Jul 2, 2016 22:28:24 GMT
I really don't see that you answered the question. You keep on about how people feel and if they are comfortable. That doesn't equal safety. Just because you feel safe doesn't mean you are. I don't see how being defenseless is safer. To me preparedness is better, because there is no problem if you don't need to use it. Rainbow, perhaps you could consider that your definition of safety could be very different than others. Feeling safe is such a subjective thing. You can acknowledge that, can't you? It seems like you're expecting others to agree with your interpretation/idea of "safe." Feeling are subjective. I just don't get how other people feel better if I'm defenseless. Why should I care about their feelings when clearly they don't care about mine?
|
|
flute4peace
Drama Llama
Posts: 6,757
Jul 3, 2014 14:38:35 GMT
|
Post by flute4peace on Jul 2, 2016 22:30:30 GMT
I don't really know how much I want to share. I don't think anyone will change their minds even if I do. Unless you've been in my position you probably wouldn't understand it, and that's OK. Non-military people will never have the understanding of what it's like. Hearing a story is a lot different than being there. You never think that someone is going to actually come at you and try to kill you until it happens. I get that because I was the same way. These days I think it is very foolish to think that nothing bad will ever happen. Clearly we are living in a volatile time. I don't see that going away any time soon, unfortunately. Thank you, Rainbow. I actually consider that a pretty good answer. Me too! Thanks Rainbow for giving us some insight.
|
|
|
Post by gar on Jul 2, 2016 22:31:16 GMT
However, not all office staplings are self inflicted. A whopping 3 percent of personal staplings involve other parties. As of today, February 11, 2003, there have been two cases of non-accidental stapling reported in the UK and with more people reporting job-dissatisfaction that number is expected to double over the next two decades. (Journal of Occupational Health Vol.32 Is.2 1996)<\cite> Dear peas in the UK... This is your warning. Within 20 years, there may be four (4) cases of non-accidental personal staplings. IN A SINGLE YEAR! Please. Do what you can to protect yourselves. This has been a UK Pea public service announcement. Non accidental staplings!!! I'm going to buy myself some armour, because you have to be sure to safeguard against these things that really can happen anytime, anyplace!!
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 2, 2024 0:52:44 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 2, 2016 22:34:01 GMT
Rainbow, perhaps you could consider that your definition of safety could be very different than others. Feeling safe is such a subjective thing. You can acknowledge that, can't you? It seems like you're expecting others to agree with your interpretation/idea of "safe." Feeling are subjective. I just don't get how other people feel better if I'm defenseless. Why should I care about their feelings when clearly they don't care about mine?I agree-feelings are subjective. I don't feel better if you're defenseless. I fully support your right to legally and responsibly own a gun. Where we differ is in the details like what types of guns and/or ammunition should be legal, etc. The why should I care if you don't thing isn't going to get any of us anywhere. I don't think anyone truly doesn't care, just that we all have different limits on what we think is ok. Compromise is essential on issues like this. And everyone will have to some conceding in a compromise.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 2, 2024 0:52:44 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 2, 2016 22:37:40 GMT
Neither one of those was an active shooter situation. I don't believe and many, if not most people who carry don't believe that you shoot someone for simply robbing you. They believe it's a last resort when your life is in danger. You found 2 instances with dumbasses, one who seems to be a criminal himself. It's interesting to note that the guy that got shot in the first story, said this, “If somebody had a gun and they were trying to rob me I’d use it too.’’
|
|
flute4peace
Drama Llama
Posts: 6,757
Jul 3, 2014 14:38:35 GMT
|
Post by flute4peace on Jul 2, 2016 22:38:08 GMT
I was curious if this could actually have passed. It appears that we have been arguing something that did not pass. What I found was that it was significantly altered by the state senate and it finally read: SECTION 1. Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 39, Chapter 17, Part 13, is amended by adding the following as a new section:(a) A person, business, or other entity that owns, controls, or manages property and has the authority to prohibit weapons on that property by posting, pursuant to § 39-17-1359, shall be immune from civil liability with respect to any claim based on such person's, business's, or other entity's failure to adopt a policy that prohibits weapons on the property by posting pursuant to § 39-17-1359. (b) Immunity under this subsection (a) does not apply to a person, business, or other entity whose conduct or failure to act is the result of gross negligence or willful or wanton misconduct. I looked at that too, but what you have posted is actually an amendment to the original bill, which passed along with the amendment. The amendment goes one step further and says that not only can the business owner be sued if a CHL holder is hurt on the premises, but also that a business cannot be sued if they allow guns and someone comes in and shoots people. So it's all a lot of political maneuvering to try to get stores to take down their 'no weapons allowed' signs. I honestly hope it bites them in the butt, and those establishments start posting 'no CHL holders allowed' signs along with their 'no weapons allowed' signs. What a crock of shit. I am so confused. Why don't they write this stuff in a way that normal folks can actually understand?
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 2, 2024 0:52:44 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 2, 2016 22:41:11 GMT
Just a thought. If the establishment has to put a sign up stating that no weapons are allowed, wouldn't that be the place someone with a grudge or whatever might go to shoot someone? To me, you are putting the establishment more at risk by doing this. That doesn't seem right. We're told over and over again that if someone wants to find a way to kill, they will. That's the main argument when we talk about any kind of gun control. I think that applies here as well. If someone wants to kill you, the fact that you may or may not be carrying is not going to be a deterrent. We're also frequently reminded that we have no idea who is carrying and who isn't, which leads me to consider that even in a so-called "gun-free zone," people are carrying concealed, with or without a CHL. If I'm smart enough to figure that out, the person who wants to kill is, too. They are, they just go for the most LIKELY soft target.
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Jul 2, 2016 23:09:50 GMT
We're told over and over again that if someone wants to find a way to kill, they will. That's the main argument when we talk about any kind of gun control. I think that applies here as well. If someone wants to kill you, the fact that you may or may not be carrying is not going to be a deterrent. We're also frequently reminded that we have no idea who is carrying and who isn't, which leads me to consider that even in a so-called "gun-free zone," people are carrying concealed, with or without a CHL. If I'm smart enough to figure that out, the person who wants to kill is, too. They are, they just go for the most LIKELY soft target. You know, I haven't read anything to suggest that the majority of shooters (mass or otherwise) consider whether or not an area is gun-free as their first priority. The majority of mass shootings take place where the shooter has personal ties - the fact that it may be a gun-free zone seems incidental. Here's an alternate analysis of the oft-cited information that the majority of mass shootings take place in gun-free zones: Politifact rates it half-true.
|
|
|
Post by elaine on Jul 2, 2016 23:12:24 GMT
Not having a gun does not equal defenseless. Those with military experience have had self-defense training that does not include using firearms - it is called hand-to-hand combat. For me, it is a false argument to say the only way to defend oneself is with a gun. For me, it is also a false argument to say more guns in more hands in more settings makes us all safer. For me, more guns in the hands of more people with little training and or experience makes me feel less safe. Your mileage may vary, this is my reality. It's actually not really up for debate. We as a society are demonstrably not safer with more guns. Our murder rate is many times higher than other, similar countries. Individuals who choose to own guns are many times more likely to be killed by their gun or have a family member killed by it than to successfully defend themselves from a criminal with it. I don't mean this to be derogatory, but anyone who thinks their gun actually makes them safer is either not aware of the statistical realities or is willfully choosing to ignore them. I think many people think that they are the exception, but personally, I can't imagine taking that kind of risk. I'd feel safer if I was in a venue with Lauren and she was armed with a stapler rather than a gun.
|
|
flute4peace
Drama Llama
Posts: 6,757
Jul 3, 2014 14:38:35 GMT
|
Post by flute4peace on Jul 2, 2016 23:32:17 GMT
It's actually not really up for debate. We as a society are demonstrably not safer with more guns. Our murder rate is many times higher than other, similar countries. Individuals who choose to own guns are many times more likely to be killed by their gun or have a family member killed by it than to successfully defend themselves from a criminal with it. I don't mean this to be derogatory, but anyone who thinks their gun actually makes them safer is either not aware of the statistical realities or is willfully choosing to ignore them. I think many people think that they are the exception, but personally, I can't imagine taking that kind of risk. I'd feel safer if I was in a venue with Lauren and she was armed with a stapler rather than a gun. I'll bring a deck of cards and a case of Diet Pepsi
|
|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Jul 2, 2016 23:53:51 GMT
Because she's saying that she, a lot of others don't go to places fearful of what might happen. They go about their daily activities leaving their home not worried that they are going to go to the grocery store or local cafe and get shot up by a bad guy. And their thinking does not include that some other civilian who is carrying is going to save the day. To those people, being comfortable they are not fearful and thinking that they have to strap on a gun to feel safe. It's just a matter of perspective. Just as much as you (may) see it as being defenseless, many, many others feel safe without having to worry about it. And they are not wrong either. To those people, who are comfortable how they feel about it, it seems paranoid (foreign) or over the top excessive to them. To you it might not. It's just a matter of perspective. I really don't see that you answered the question. You keep on about how people feel and if they are comfortable. That doesn't equal safety. Just because you feel safe doesn't mean you are. I don't see how being defenseless is safer. To me preparedness is better, because there is no problem if you don't need to use it.It's part of that being comfortable as they go about their day. To some, "being prepared" (read-armed) doesn't even cross their radar. To them, they ARE safe even without having to arm themselves with guns. I don't carry a weapon on me as I go about my day. I don't feel defenseless as I'm walking around, shopping, dining, doing errands. Your last sentence above--I'm not arguing that you're wrong--to you--you feel better for being armed at all times. That is YOUR reality. But for many others, it just isn't--they feel safe not having or being armed. A person can FEEL safe without having a weapon on their person. I realize that you don't feel that way, but there are many people who don't need or want to carry, yet still feel safe! There are people who if, in the face of danger are going to react in different ways, you might come out blazing your guns. Some will hide. Some will run. Some will dive on top of their loved ones. Some realize that if they just do what the bad guy asks (i.e. Give me your money & valuables) that they will likely go away and the only thing list is $$$. There ARE different outcomes in bad guy situations. If I didn't get the question, please ask again so that I can answer!
|
|
|
Post by leftturnonly on Jul 3, 2016 0:08:54 GMT
A person can FEEL safe without having a weapon on their person. I realize that you don't feel that way, but there are many people who don't need or want to carry, yet still feel safe Feeling safe doesn't make it true. I can feel like I don't smell when I haven't showered in a week. Doesn't make it true.
|
|
|
Post by secondlife on Jul 3, 2016 0:27:00 GMT
I was curious if this could actually have passed. It appears that we have been arguing something that did not pass. What I found was that it was significantly altered by the state senate and it finally read: SECTION 1. Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 39, Chapter 17, Part 13, is amended by adding the following as a new section:(a) A person, business, or other entity that owns, controls, or manages property and has the authority to prohibit weapons on that property by posting, pursuant to § 39-17-1359, shall be immune from civil liability with respect to any claim based on such person's, business's, or other entity's failure to adopt a policy that prohibits weapons on the property by posting pursuant to § 39-17-1359. (b) Immunity under this subsection (a) does not apply to a person, business, or other entity whose conduct or failure to act is the result of gross negligence or willful or wanton misconduct. I looked at that too, but what you have posted is actually an amendment to the original bill, which passed along with the amendment. The amendment goes one step further and says that not only can the business owner be sued if a CHL holder is hurt on the premises, but also that a business cannot be sued if they allow guns and someone comes in and shoots people. So it's all a lot of political maneuvering to try to get stores to take down their 'no weapons allowed' signs. I honestly hope it bites them in the butt, and those establishments start posting 'no CHL holders allowed' signs along with their 'no weapons allowed' signs. What a crock of shit. You're right. Would you also believe the media has been misinterpreting this left and right? I'm in Tennessee today and reading different accounts of this law. I'm not even going to touch the rest of it. Y'all have done a good job with six pages of debate, I have nothing useful to add. Clearly. LOL
|
|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Jul 3, 2016 0:27:31 GMT
A person can FEEL safe without having a weapon on their person. I realize that you don't feel that way, but there are many people who don't need or want to carry, yet still feel safe Feeling safe doesn't make it true. I can feel like I don't smell when I haven't showered in a week. Doesn't make it true. I believe that I'm safe without having to carry a weapon, as do millions and millions of people. While incidents do happen, it is the exception and not the norm. I think that would and does make it true! Not all people have to carry a gun to feel or BE safe. I can't believe you are comparing body odor to carrying a weapon!
|
|
MsKnit
Pearl Clutcher
RefuPea #1406
Posts: 2,648
Jun 26, 2014 19:06:42 GMT
|
Post by MsKnit on Jul 3, 2016 0:30:48 GMT
The odds of you being killed in a mass shooting is that of being struck by lightning. You are much more likely to die from a car accident, falling while walking, cancer. You are allowing your fear mongering sources to control you.
|
|
|
Post by leftturnonly on Jul 3, 2016 0:41:01 GMT
Feeling safe doesn't make it true. I can feel like I don't smell when I haven't showered in a week. Doesn't make it true. I believe that I'm safe without having to carry a weapon, as do millions and millions of people. While incidents do happen, it is the exception and not the norm. I think that would and does make it true! Not all people have to carry a gun to feel or BE safe. I can't believe you are comparing body odor to carrying a weapon! You might be safe. The overwhelming majority of us actually are safe. That's different than just feeling safe, though. On the flip side, the overwhelming majority of us feel like we do not need to be armed at all times. Even those of us who realize that true safety is only an illusion don't feel we need to be armed at all times. Life is full of dangers. No matter how prepared we are. So yeah, I am comparing the illusion of thinking to the reality of what is. It doesn't matter what the exact concept is. That's the way my mind thinks.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 2, 2024 0:52:44 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 3, 2016 0:43:30 GMT
A person can FEEL safe without having a weapon on their person. I realize that you don't feel that way, but there are many people who don't need or want to carry, yet still feel safe Feeling safe doesn't make it true. I can feel like I don't smell when I haven't showered in a week. Doesn't make it true. I still maintain that having a gun on you does NOT automatically make you safer. I'm not looking to take away anyone's rights to legally and responsibly own a gun, but I have a huge problem with this law. I don't believe it will survive legal challenges.
|
|
flute4peace
Drama Llama
Posts: 6,757
Jul 3, 2014 14:38:35 GMT
|
Post by flute4peace on Jul 3, 2016 0:44:34 GMT
I looked at that too, but what you have posted is actually an amendment to the original bill, which passed along with the amendment. The amendment goes one step further and says that not only can the business owner be sued if a CHL holder is hurt on the premises, but also that a business cannot be sued if they allow guns and someone comes in and shoots people. So it's all a lot of political maneuvering to try to get stores to take down their 'no weapons allowed' signs. I honestly hope it bites them in the butt, and those establishments start posting 'no CHL holders allowed' signs along with their 'no weapons allowed' signs. What a crock of shit. You're right. Would you also believe the media has been misinterpreting this left and right? I'm in Tennessee today and reading different accounts of this law. I'm not even going to touch the rest of it. Y'all have done a good job with six pages of debate, I have nothing useful to add. Clearly. LOL This makes me feel better about not understanding it lol
|
|
|
Post by leftturnonly on Jul 3, 2016 0:50:04 GMT
Feeling safe doesn't make it true. I can feel like I don't smell when I haven't showered in a week. Doesn't make it true. I still maintain that having a gun on you does NOT automatically make you safer. I'm not looking to take away anyone's rights to legally and responsibly own a gun, but I have a huge problem with this law. I don't believe it will survive legal challenges. Just having a gun on me does not make me automatically safer. I haven't been training with a weapon. I have no desire to train with a weapon at this time. PolitFacts rates my statement as TRUE. (My prediction for the future.)
|
|