[quote="...
It would be great if we could find a way to flip the liability issue around 180 degrees. Corporations that limit an individual's ability to protect themselves and others should be liable for the results of that limitation, whether the limitation is effected (affected?) by policy against employees, or 30.06 signage against customers. If your actions increase the likelihood of injury and / or death, then you should be civilly liable for the results of those actions, IMHO, even if the actions are perfectly legal.
Pass legislation to this effect and insurance companies will start charging increased rates to companies that restrict gun possession. That would be a huge help to our cause.[/quote]
Companies lik Taco Bell should be glad to have employees not just protecting others but also keep the success of criminals reduced. Discouraging thugs isn't a crime either.
If the white colar thugs think they have to mess with courgeous employees we all will know what they are up to. Lineral opinions do not justify a change in the legal system just because it sounds harsh to defend a business. What could have happened if they would notr have stopped the threat is a much more important aspect of the story. I just can imagibe what a bunch of drug fueled morons can cause in the press if they succeed with their crime, the anti gun lobby would be all over it and the criminals would be the victim of the circumstatnce. At least in the liberals mind.
And I would also agree if their insurance premium would go down by a few percent for having armed personell on site.
