Umpqua Community College

[Xavier_Onassis]

If I am wounded by a kook that you have invited with promises of my helplessness You will face a Jury of Georgians to explain it.

If there is any validity to this at all, someone will sue and win.
But I am pretty sure that no court would rule in favor of unrestricted guns on campus.

There would be far more lawsuits if campuses were "free fire zones" and some nut harmed someone with his gun.

Legal cases like this are inevitable.

[Plane]

  Are there no Colleges that mind their own business?

[Xavier_Onassis]

Are there no Colleges that mind their own business?

There are no choices other than to ban guns or to allow them, so no.

[sirs]

Until the Constitution is amended, A) is not an choice either

[Plane]

Are there no Colleges that mind their own business?

There are no choices other than to ban guns or to allow them, so no.

I think they are on thin ice to ban them.

Especially since the scientific method known as "counting" finds this to increase the danger.

[Xavier_Onassis]

The assumption is that banning guns is likely to be safer than permitting them. No one disputes a bank or a store banning firearms. A large pawnshop in my neighborhood has a large "NO GUNS PERMITTED" sign on the door. I imagine that the owners are armed, though. Other pawnshops advertise that they deal in guns. But all of them have a system in which you have to ring a bell and they look at you before they let you in. Of course, I have never tried to enter with a gun, so I do not know what would happen if I had one with me.

[sirs]

Signs don't prevent anyone from entering illegally, which was likely the intent to begin with

[Xavier_Onassis]

This will be for some court to decide. Someone will get shot in a palce where guns are not banned,and if the jury awards a bunch of money, the insurance on all such places will increase.

Or perhaps someone will sue for banning guns and someone will sue for THAT being negligent. Then they will stop banning guns.

[sirs]

Sorry....you're again arguing a point that's moot.  In this country, we have the right to defend ourselves with a firearm.  Now you can continue to exercise your 1st Amendment right, to complain about my 2nd Amendment right, although ironically it's my 2nd Amendment right that ultimately defends your 1st Amendment.   You're welcome

[Plane]

This will be for some court to decide. Someone will get shot in a palce where guns are not banned,and if the jury awards a bunch of money, the insurance on all such places will increase.

Or perhaps someone will sue for banning guns and someone will sue for THAT being negligent. Then they will stop banning guns.

This really does not work .

Every shooting is one or the other of these, and there isn't a stampede into court.

If someone wanted to sue on the basis that there was no ban on guns and there should have been , there will be a burden of proof for them , that such a ban has a reasonable expectation of reducing the risk a reasonable amount.

So that a reasonable authority has a reasonable responsibility to ban.
Good luck on that.

Starbucks has tried this one way and then the other , no suits either way.

[Plane]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suzanna_Hupp


Suzana Hupp had about as good a grounds to sue as anyone ever , but rather than sue she got elected and helped write the better law.

[Plane]

The assumption is that banning guns is likely to be safer than permitting them.

Reasonable people are starting to question this assumption.


and ...

There is reason to suspect that gun restriction fans are unlikely to be reasonable.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/oregon-8th-grader-suspended-from-school-for-wearing-patriotic-shirt-showing-gun/ar-AAflijQ?li=AAa0dzB

[sirs]

The assumption is that banning guns is likely to be safer than permitting them.

Reasonable people are starting to question this assumption.

I do believe the only place this is "assumed" is with those who are already paranoid at even the thought of a gun, much less anyone actually owning one

[Xavier_Onassis]

This has nothing whatever to do with some kid wearing a shirt, or being banned for wearing a shirt.

We have not seen the shirt, nor have we heard what the kid had to say about his shirt.

But is it pretty clear that shirts and not lethal.

[Plane]

This has nothing whatever to do with some kid wearing a shirt, or being banned for wearing a shirt.

We have not seen the shirt, nor have we heard what the kid had to say about his shirt.

But is it pretty clear that shirts and not lethal.

   Be aware that the faction of our politically active population that favors increased gun control includes some who are unreasonable .
    This is bad for trust issues overall.

Consider this one.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/mo-cop-kicked-out-of-olive-garden-because-of-duty-gun/ar-AAflpTR?li=AAa0dzB

What part of "gun free" did you not understand officer?