It’s been the argument between gun lovers and pacifists for decades; does allowing guns to be carried by those with a licence increase or decrease gun violence? The liberal/anti-gun stance is a pretty simple one, they believe that less guns=less gun abuse. Conservatives, on the other hand, believe that law-breakers will be law-breakers no matter what and the only chance we have of slowing them down will be the possibility of swift and lethal retribution for their actions.
Missouri has a unique way of dealing with the problem, they’ve decided to challenge business owners true dedication to the no-gun policy and ask them to put their money where their mouth is.
The bill is a provision where the “no gun” business would be held financially responsible for any injuries sustained in a shooting on their premises.
This is such a fascinating experiment because it has the possibility to solidify either perspective. If those that feel the need to enact their gun free zones truly believe that it will cut down on gun violence, then they should be thrilled to double down.
However, if it’s just a politically correct statement and they’re really putting us a little more at risk to seem liberal friendly, they might want to take further precautions such as hiring security or actually search to ensure everyone is coming in gun free, not just those that observe posted signs.
Here’s a golden opportunity for liberals to put their money where their mouth is and prove whether they really believe in no guns. If so, then this should be no problem for them, but if they’re just willing to risk their patron’s security for the sake of looking like they’re against these crazy gun owners then they might have a few nightmares if this bill gets passed.
(H/T: The Blaze)