Everyone read and vote!

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • NWIeng

    Sharpshooter
    Rating - 100%
    28   0   0
    Jan 11, 2009
    468
    18
    Hammond
    Yes, and nobody can take away that right...My vote.

    My only question is this, from a liability side of things.

    Wouldn't the smarter route be to allow workers to be armed on their own?

    I'm just picturing that if the store owner purchases a gun for employee use/protection, and god forbid an employee that isn't the owner uses it and is involved in a shooting at the store that is somehow deemed over-use of force or something like that by a prosecutor...

    then couldn't the thug that got shot sue not only the employee, but the business owner for supplying the firearm?

    Let's be clear..my vote is above. I'm just wondering if my question has any validity.

    Thanks for anyone's input.
     

    1032JBT

    LEO and PROUD of it.......even if others aren't
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Feb 24, 2009
    1,641
    36
    Noblesville
    Yes, and nobody can take away that right...My vote.

    My only question is this, from a liability side of things.

    Wouldn't the smarter route be to allow workers to be armed on their own?

    I'm just picturing that if the store owner purchases a gun for employee use/protection, and god forbid an employee that isn't the owner uses it and is involved in a shooting at the store that is somehow deemed over-use of force or something like that by a prosecutor...

    then couldn't the thug that got shot sue not only the employee, but the business owner for supplying the firearm?

    Let's be clear..my vote is above. I'm just wondering if my question has any validity.

    Thanks for anyone's input.


    If the gun, or even an employees gun for that matter, was used in a SD shooting on the shop property..........the employee AND the shop are going to be sued either way. The only way I can see that supplying the gun would make any difference is if the shop supplied the gun and then did not offer or mandate any training to go along with it. :twocents:
     
    Top Bottom