Elusive Wapiti
brings the Hammer of Science® down on this foolishness:
2.5M : 168. That's the ratio of Florida CCW permit holders to firearms crimes committed by those permit holders
That's 0.007%. Seven thousandths of one percent. Gee, I wonder what might explain that?
Clearly, the law-abiding, by definition, obey the law. Zones where the
legitimate possession of firearms is prohibited are in fact a soft
target, ripe for the picking by the not law abiding.
If you can force a business owner to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple because "protection of rights" and "commercial association isn't like private association" then the above statistics are a
prima facie case to outlaw commercial businesses setting up these zones. At the bare minimum it justifies making business owners strictly liable for gun violence by unlawfully carrying persons, since they have intentionally disarmed the lawful.
9 comments:
But . . . but . . . we were SO sure.
That's one of the things WI got right when they got concealed carry. The 'no guns' signs are real easy, anything that is sufficiently clear and properly posted works, but in posting the business assumes full liability should anything occur.
Here's another fun fact: that 168 - number of permits revoked for crime with a firearm, hasn't changed since at least 2011 when I first started following it.
Not one Florida CWFL holder has committed a crime since this post in September of 2011 I'm going to try to find out how far back that trend goes.
Hammer of Science...like it. And thanks for the linkage my friend.
For extra fun, compare and contrast the rate of police criminality.
You know, the ones who are allowed (and in some jurisdictions required) to carry ANYWHERE.
Siege:
Exactly. That's all I want. You are "open to the public"? Then you may either allow me to defend myself, or accept extraordinary liability for my safety. I'm more than willing to give those places that are "open to the public" qualified immunity from the consequences of not discriminating against lawfully armed patrons and guests, for those negligent or criminal activities of those patrons or guests that are not encouraged or permitted by the business. (I.e., if you simply do not prohibit guns, and Cletus pops off a round while fingering his boomstick, you're in the clear, unless you or your policies told Cletus to finger his boomstick.)
I'd even be willing to allow business (and government) to avoid that extraordinary liability, and be subject to no more than normal liability for their negligent or criminal actions (the same that would apply for a wet floor, etc.) if they take "reasonable" (and "reasonable" is always a question for the jury to determine) steps to ensure physical safety. What would I define as "reasonable"?
1. There is a place for patrons to disarm and store weapons that provides reasonable safety and physical security. In other words, a clearing barrel, bus lockers (only need to be the size of a shoebox), and within a secure perimeter -- and YOU (the business owner or government) assume liability for the physical security or criminal misuse of guns in storage and out of the owner's immediate possession.
2. Armed security sufficient to provide "reasonable" (there's that word again) security of the persons within the secure perimeter against gate crashers bent on mayhem.
3. A secure perimeter that is "reasonably" sufficient to ensure that the only armed people with within the secure permeter are those authorized to be armed (LEOs and designated agents of the business owners). So, your bouncers will need to be able to at least wand anyone passing into the "clean" zone.
After all, an area cannot be reasonably considered a "sensitive" area if it's not important enough to be secured, and it cannot truly be considered "secured" if there isn't reasonable security, right?
Of course, if you are not "open to the public", no problem -- set whatever rules you like.
Here's a reasonable standard for 'reasonable' security.
Compute the CCW density in your state. In a lot of cases that's pushing 2%. If the typical number of people in your establishment is, say, 200, that would equate to typically 4 CCW holders, with a ton of variance. Thus 4 armed guards would be required for a legal safe harbor. Less than that, let the jury decide if your measures were 'reasonable'.
RE: the last paragraph:
The Law of Unintended Consequences is a cold, cruelly-neutral b!tch, ain't she?
Post a Comment