So the gummint of Orange County "warns" people that there are cactus, sharp stick and rocks and the occasional bear and cougar about in their wilderness areas.
In the same warning they notify people that they can't use a specific tool to defend themselves.
While the cyclist's family may be accused of being overly litigious, if the local government is not willing to let average citizens defend themselves with guns they should be at least partially responsible for injury or death resulting from the disarmed visitor.
Of course it can be argued that the cyclist could have chosen to ride his bike elsewhere.
But who would be responsible if the county claimed that bicycle helmets were banned, and the rider fell on his head and died?
Here in Arizona, most bar owners in the Phoenix metro area have stated their opposition to guns in bars - owing to the fact that people who drink cannot be held responsible for their own actions. Interestingly, there is now a lawsuit in Phoenix by plaintiff Deputy Douglas Matteson, who was seriously injured in an accident caused by an off-duty police officer who happened to be a drunken driver, against several Valley bars owners.
While this may seem to some to be a non-sequitur, the point I’m making is – folks can’t have it both ways. If you take the position that a person can’t defend themselves, it’s not totally out of line to assume some responsibility.
If bar owners object to letting folks into bars because people who drink are totally irresponsible, then they should be responsible for anyone who drives home.
If the county forbids helmets and guns, they should also accept some responsibility.
3/30/2005 12:10 AM
The family of a bicyclist slain by a cougar at Southern California's Whiting Wilderness Park is suing the state, that would be us private individuals who have taxes extorted from us.
"Because the county installs signs warning about mountain lions — and rattlesnakes — at the entrances to all its wilderness parks," The Los Angeles Times intones, "it's likely Reynolds knew there was some chance of a mountain lion encounter."
The Times actually argues for individual responsibility for one's own safety!
1 Comment
Close this window Jump to comment formSo the gummint of Orange County "warns" people that there are cactus, sharp stick and rocks and the occasional bear and cougar about in their wilderness areas.
In the same warning they notify people that they can't use a specific tool to defend themselves.
While the cyclist's family may be accused of being overly litigious, if the local government is not willing to let average citizens defend themselves with guns they should be at least partially responsible for injury or death resulting from the disarmed visitor.
Of course it can be argued that the cyclist could have chosen to ride his bike elsewhere.
But who would be responsible if the county claimed that bicycle helmets were banned, and the rider fell on his head and died?
Here in Arizona, most bar owners in the Phoenix metro area have stated their opposition to guns in bars - owing to the fact that people who drink cannot be held responsible for their own actions. Interestingly, there is now a lawsuit in Phoenix by plaintiff Deputy Douglas Matteson, who was seriously injured in an accident caused by an off-duty police officer who happened to be a drunken driver, against several Valley bars owners.
While this may seem to some to be a non-sequitur, the point I’m making is – folks can’t have it both ways. If you take the position that a person can’t defend themselves, it’s not totally out of line to assume some responsibility.
If bar owners object to letting folks into bars because people who drink are totally irresponsible, then they should be responsible for anyone who drives home.
If the county forbids helmets and guns, they should also accept some responsibility.
3/30/2005 12:10 AM