NC Restaurant Posts “No Guns” Sign and Then Gets Robbed at Gunpoint
May 21, 2014 by Guns 'n' Freedom 128 Comments
(Source: ABC11) Surveillance footage of “gun free zone” being robbed at gunpoint. Video below.
Follow Guns 'n' Freedom on Twitter and stay informed!
Even while Michale Bloomberg’s anti-gun groups celebrate their “victory” in getting Chipotle to ban guns from their stores, a story out of Durham, NC reminds us why these so called “gun free zones” are actually doing more harm than good.
At 9pm on Sunday night the “The Pit Authentic Barbecue” in Durham was robbed at gunpoint when 3 masked men entered the restaurant through the back door.
From abc11.com,
DURHAM, N.C. (WTVD) –Police are searching for three suspects involved in an armed robbery at Durham’s newly-opened barbecue restaurant, The Pit, at 321 W. Geer Street.
Authorities said just before 9 p.m. Sunday, three men wearing hoodies entered the restaurant through the back doors with pistols, and forced several staff members to lie on the floor.
The bandits assaulted two employees during the crime, but they were not seriously injured.
Thankfully, no one was seriously hurt or injured in this incident, but it’s no thanks to a sign on the window of the restaurant that clearly states no guns are allowed. .
Knowing it was gun free for customers and employees allowed the perps the freedom to not have to shoot any potentially armed customers and employees. It made it a kinder and gentler armed robbery. Had the perps been all nervous about potentially facing armed opposition they would have been more likely to shoot folks. It also prevented poor peace loving BBQ eating customers from accidentally being capped when the Gun Nut customer pulled out his fully automatic assault revolver and shot innocents in the attempt to be Rambo.
Durham NC has a problem right now with race and gentrification. It is being aggressively gentrified by hipsters and house prices are skyrocketing and displacing minorities. They also had a recent issue where a handcuffed latino youth was shot in the back while in police custody and the police 'claimed' he had a gun.
This particular location is a scooby doo ghost town of all abandon auto garages which was turned into really trendy high-priced restaurants, bars and clubs with food trucks outside. In an area of high minorities, there isn't a single one to be seen anywhere in this area.
So I know in this area there is a culture war and two isolated societies and race relations are very tense there, because in 2-3 years a majority of those run down houses will have new occupants and be high-end flipped trendy houses.
Durham NC has a problem right now with race and gentrification. It is being aggressively gentrified by hipsters and house prices are skyrocketing and displacing minorities. They also had a recent issue where a handcuffed latino youth was shot in the back while in police custody and the police 'claimed' he had a gun.
This particular location is a scooby doo ghost town of all abandon auto garages which was turned into really trendy high-priced restaurants, bars and clubs with food trucks outside. In an area of high minorities, there isn't a single one to be seen anywhere in this area.
So I know in this area there is a culture war and two isolated societies and race relations are very tense there, because in 2-3 years a majority of those run down houses will have new occupants and be high-end flipped trendy houses.
Frazzled wrote: Trying to figure out what your post has to do with this thread. Did you just excuse the robbers or the stupidity of the barbeque owner?
Trying to figure out why you can't figure out why a first hand account of the situation on the ground about the place listed in thread you started is relevant. Also trying to figure out how you got from "situation is not good there" to "you are making excuses for their actions".
Seems to be a lot of back slapping over blaming the victim going on in this thread.
I look forward to someone posting a link to an article suggesting a rape victim was "totally asking for it" because they were not open carrying a firearm...
Frazzled wrote: Trying to figure out what your post has to do with this thread. Did you just excuse the robbers or the stupidity of the barbeque owner?
Trying to figure out why you can't figure out why a first hand account of the situation on the ground about the place listed in thread you started is relevant. Also trying to figure out how you got from "situation is not good there" to "you are making excuses for their actions".
It's Frazzled...
Anyways, Nkelsch is correct.
Durham right now is having a lot of issues, and as mentioned in the initial article there have been a string of robberies targeting restaurants. The most visible one was "The Pit" barbeque. What is interesting is that whoever these robbers are, when they robbed "The Pit" they allowed the employees to ask the customers who were present to leave.
Right now "The Pit" has a $2000 reward for any information that leads to their arrest and conviction.
Frazzled wrote: Trying to figure out what your post has to do with this thread. Did you just excuse the robbers or the stupidity of the barbeque owner?
Trying to figure out why you can't figure out why a first hand account of the situation on the ground about the place listed in thread you started is relevant. Also trying to figure out how you got from "situation is not good there" to "you are making excuses for their actions".
SilverMK2 wrote: Seems to be a lot of back slapping over blaming the victim going on in this thread.
I look forward to someone posting a link to an article suggesting a rape victim was "totally asking for it" because they were not open carrying a firearm...
No, in this case it would be like someone who says rape victims deserve it, and then gets rapped.
SilverMK2 wrote: Seems to be a lot of back slapping over blaming the victim going on in this thread.
I look forward to someone posting a link to an article suggesting a rape victim was "totally asking for it" because they were not open carrying a firearm...
Obviously victim blaming is wrong, but in America there are voices of opposition to concealed carry and anti-gun rules. The reason this is ironic, is that the anti gun people proclaim that these laws and rules they make. For example they feel safer about putting a sign up, telling good semeritans that have a legal right to carry concealed weapons that they aren't allowed to bring their legal firearms to their restaurant. The owner is implying in his liberal thought that, this sign will prevent gun crimes, when in fact, it advertises to criminals that the establishment is a gun free zone and most likey an easy score.
I would never blame a rape victim for being raped, but it's still probably not a good idea for a women to walk down a dark alley drunk and naked.
However, it seems that going by the situation the area is going through that this robbery is the result of tension between the middle/upper class and the lower class. It's just that Pro-Gun groups made this a gun control issue.
TheCustomLime wrote: However, it seems that going by the situation the area is going through that this robbery is the result of tension between the middle/upper class and the lower class. It's just that Pro-Gun groups made this a gun control issue.
You could equally argue the guy who put up the No Guns sign made it a gun control issue. In fact, if that was not an issue important to him, the Pro-Gun groups would not be involved at all.
Johnnytorrance wrote: The reason this is ironic, is that the anti gun people proclaim that these laws and rules they make. For example they feel safer about putting a sign up, telling good semeritans that have a legal right to carry concealed weapons that they aren't allowed to bring their legal firearms to their restaurant. The owner is implying in his liberal thought that, this sign will prevent gun crimes, when in fact, it advertises to criminals that the establishment is a gun free zone and most likey an easy score.
Ooor you are making gak up and the owner put up a sign to say that patrons can dine in a gun free environment. You know, without the insane belief that a sign somehow magically protects you from all harm... you know, like a gun does...
I would never blame a rape victim for being raped, but it's still probably not a good idea for a women to walk down a dark alley drunk and naked.
So... you would blame a rape victim if they did that and were subsequently raped?... so you would blame a rape victim. I see.
SilverMK2 wrote: Seems to be a lot of back slapping over blaming the victim going on in this thread..
Where did this notion that a victim can do no wrong come from? If someone tries to cross a street at 1am with all dark clothing on without looking both ways and gets hit is it really bad to look at that and say "Maybe he shouldn't have done those things that resulted in the accident he was a victim of"
TheCustomLime wrote: However, it seems that going by the situation the area is going through that this robbery is the result of tension between the middle/upper class and the lower class. It's just that Pro-Gun groups made this a gun control issue.
You could equally argue the guy who put up the No Guns sign made it a gun control issue. In fact, if that was not an issue important to him, the Pro-Gun groups would not be involved at all.
That is true. A common argument for pro-gun legislation is that when you take the guns away from the people the criminals thrive. It would be only natural for pro-gun groups to spin an incident like this to add weight to their assertions.
This isn't a knock on these groups, though. I believe Anti-gun groups are guilty of putting a spin on their reports of incidents to further their aims as well.
There are in excess of 350,000 robberies per year in this country. As private no-guns-allowed signs are fairly uncommon, I posit to you that statistically, a great majority of these robberies occurred in locations where firearms were allowed on the premises. As such, the thrust of this post is sort of flawed on it's face.
I hold that business owners have the right to decide whether or not they allow firearms on their property, and that allowing guns isn't some kind of magic goddamn charm that prevents all crime, and that forbidding them doesn't magically invite crime, either. Should we have a thread for every robbery that occurs when firearms are allowed? 958 posts a day with the same title: "Good guys with guns fail to stop bad guys with guns"?
There was a picture of some guys at Chipotle that were having burritos with their AR-15s at the table, which prompted the Chipotle firearm ban (mealy mouthed as it was). Seeing this picture made me sort of groan, and think - what attention-whoring a-holes.
Ahtman wrote: What is important to remember is that no violent crime has ever happened in a place where there are firearms.
I can honsetly say I've never heard of a robbery at an M1 Tank firing range.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: Amazingly this happens several times a day in Europe yet our tyrannical overlords refuse to allow us means of defending our lunch. VOTE UKIP.
I've seen British food. I can understand. Really good barbeque, however, is worth killing over.
Funny, but anti gun people think whenever someone flagrantly ignores gun laws and commits crimes with guns, despite gun free zones
that should be ignored.
The only idea ever proffered up is that OBS its not that the laws were uslesss, its that we didnt have ENOUGH of them...
The answer to crooks breaking existing gun laws, is always more gun laws.
holy cow i see the light! its so obvious now!
the "gun free zone" signs need to have an additional sign, in picto language for the illiterate, that says "gun free zone, REALLY WE MEAN IT!! THIS MEANS YOU!!!"
Ouze wrote: There was a picture of some guys at Chipotle that were having burritos with their AR-15s at the table, which prompted the Chipotle firearm ban (mealy mouthed as it was). Seeing this picture made me sort of groan, and think - what attention-whoring a-holes.
But I thought 20,000 people were required to die every time more than one non-government operated firearm converges? It's impossible to have that many guns in one area without someone going on a spree
I carry wherever I go. Just this past week where I live a robbery was stopped because one of the customers had a gun. (military vet, too!)
I know in England they have a hard time understanding this because of a cultural difference that's larger than what is apparent.
Ouze wrote: There are in excess of 350,000 robberies per year in this country. As private no-guns-allowed signs are fairly uncommon, I posit to you that statistically, a great majority of these robberies occurred in locations where firearms were allowed on the premises. As such, the thrust of this post is sort of flawed on it's face.
I hold that business owners have the right to decide whether or not they allow firearms on their property, and that allowing guns isn't some kind of magic goddamn charm that prevents all crime, and that forbidding them doesn't magically invite crime, either. Should we have a thread for every robbery that occurs when firearms are allowed? 958 posts a day with the same title: "Good guys with guns fail to stop bad guys with guns"?
I'm not picking on you... but, genuinely curious.
But I'm not sure if that's an apt comparison.
How would you feel having that same sign at your home?
I know you wouldn't do it... but, think about it. What's your instinctual/gut response?
Conversely, how do you think a buglar would feel about targeting a home, that has the home security sign on it's lawn? What's his likely response?
whembly wrote: I'm not picking on you... but, genuinely curious.
But I'm not sure if that's an apt comparison.
How would you feel having that same sign at your home?
I know you wouldn't do it... but, think about it. What's your instinctual/gut response?
Conversely, how do you think a buglar would feel about targeting a home, that has the home security sign on it's lawn? What's his likely response?
Well, posting signs like that is a business decision. Based on what we've heard about the neighborhood and the business owners, that sign isn't about guns. Well it is, but it's mostly saying "no right wing rednecks."
Gun free zones aren't there to make owners feel safer. They are there to make customers feel safer.
whembly wrote: I'm not picking on you... but, genuinely curious.
But I'm not sure if that's an apt comparison.
How would you feel having that same sign at your home?
I know you wouldn't do it... but, think about it. What's your instinctual/gut response?
Conversely, how do you think a buglar would feel about targeting a home, that has the home security sign on it's lawn? What's his likely response?
Well, posting signs like that is a business decision. Based on what we've heard about the neighborhood and the business owners, that sign isn't about guns. Well it is, but it's mostly saying "no right wing rednecks."
Gun free zones aren't there to make owners feel safer. They are there to make customers feel safer.
That's a fair point... but, that wasn't my question.
Ahtman wrote: What is important to remember is that no violent crime has ever happened in a place where there are firearms.
I can honsetly say I've never heard of a robbery at an M1 Tank firing range.
I've SEEN robberies on live/hot M1 firing ranges.
At Ft Hood there were some dudes in hopped up 4X4s that would cruise out onto a range and steal the generators that are used to power the target lift devices. The generators are only there when the ranges are in use. Crazy fethers would come zooming out of the impact area a couple of KMs down range, load up as you watched, then haul ass away. Range Control would shut down the range/declare a cease fire when they came zooming out. You were not allowed to engage them (yes, I asked for permission. I figured a 120mm SABOT through an engine block would put an end to that silliness, and a few hundred rounds of COAX zipping through the area would ensure no one tried to get away on foot.)
whembly wrote: That's a fair point... but, that wasn't my question.
You're question was sophistry and you know it.
Of course you wouldn't post that at your home. Homes are different from businesses. I wouldn't install a commerical grade deep fat frier in my home either.
whembly wrote: [I'm not picking on you... but, genuinely curious.
But I'm not sure if that's an apt comparison.
How would you feel having that same sign at your home?
I know you wouldn't do it... but, think about it. What's your instinctual/gut response?
Conversely, how do you think a buglar would feel about targeting a home, that has the home security sign on it's lawn? What's his likely response?
Polonius beat me to it, but a home is not akin to a business. In a business, I'd be concerned with some moron having a negligent discharge (happens constantly in walmart, which probably doesn't surprise you). I'd probably rather lose the register cash then face the liability of the wild west breaking out over what's probably less cash than the value of an iphone, in this day of debit cards. I don't generally agree with lethal force to protect property.
In my house, it's different. I have to presume that it's a home invasion rather than a simple robbery, my family would be in mortal danger, and I would respond accordingly as my state's castle doctrine allows.
CptJake wrote: [You were not allowed to engage them (yes, I asked for permission. I figured a 120mm SABOT through an engine block would put an end to that silliness, and a few hundred rounds of COAX zipping through the area would ensure no one tried to get away on foot.)
Thanks, Obama.
In a just world, we would universally would accept the legal defense of "Well, looks like they brought a 4x4 to a tank fight".
whembly wrote: That's a fair point... but, that wasn't my question.
You're question was sophistry and you know it.
I disagree.
Of course you wouldn't post that at your home. Homes are different from businesses.
Well... you spend roughly a 1/3 of your life at work. Point being... if you feel strongly about a sign having the sort impact you want, then why not post it at your home?
I wouldn't install a commerical grade deep fat frier in my home either.
Irrelevant. But, I so would fething love to have that at my home.
Then, I'd post pics here on dakka to make d-usa jealous of my culinary skills.
CptJake wrote: Knowing it was gun free for customers and employees allowed the perps the freedom to not have to shoot any potentially armed customers and employees. It made it a kinder and gentler armed robbery. Had the perps been all nervous about potentially facing armed opposition they would have been more likely to shoot folks. It also prevented poor peace loving BBQ eating customers from accidentally being capped when the Gun Nut customer pulled out his fully automatic assault revolver and shot innocents in the attempt to be Rambo.
(am I doing it right?)
That felt just like a post from DemocratUnderground, so yes you did it perfectly.
I also wouldn't have a no guns allowed sign on my private business, if I ran one - but I respect the right of business owners to decide for themselves. So, I'm arguing for a point that's not even my personal preference.
CptJake wrote: Knowing it was gun free for customers and employees allowed the perps the freedom to not have to shoot any potentially armed customers and employees. It made it a kinder and gentler armed robbery. Had the perps been all nervous about potentially facing armed opposition they would have been more likely to shoot folks. It also prevented poor peace loving BBQ eating customers from accidentally being capped when the Gun Nut customer pulled out his fully automatic assault revolver and shot innocents in the attempt to be Rambo.
whembly wrote: That's a fair point... but, that wasn't my question.
You're question was sophistry and you know it.
I disagree.
So you were genuinely curious as to his response? I find that hard to believe, as you seemed confident in his reply.
Of course you wouldn't post that at your home. Homes are different from businesses.
Well... you spend roughly a 1/3 of your life at work. Point being... if you feel strongly about a sign having the sort impact you want, then why not post it at your home?
Because, as I pointed out, the sign isn't about personal beliefs. Or, while it might be, all ideology stops at the water's edge.
The sign is about marketing. You don't market your home.
I wouldn't install a commerical grade deep fat frier in my home either.
Irrelevant.
I guess people treat virtually all aspects of their business differently than they treat their home. For example, when I ran a business, I felt very strongly in favor of taking Mastercard. I don't have a sign like that at my apartment. I also don't post my hours.
whembly wrote: [I'm not picking on you... but, genuinely curious.
But I'm not sure if that's an apt comparison.
How would you feel having that same sign at your home?
I know you wouldn't do it... but, think about it. What's your instinctual/gut response?
Conversely, how do you think a buglar would feel about targeting a home, that has the home security sign on it's lawn? What's his likely response?
Polonius beat me to it, but a home is not akin to a business. In a business, I'd be concerned with some moron having a negligent discharge (happens constantly in walmart, which probably doesn't surprise you). I'd probably rather lose the register cash then face the liability of the wild west breaking out over what's probably less cash than the value of an iphone, in this day of debit cards. I don't generally agree with lethal force to protect property.
In my house, it's different. I have to presume that it's a home invasion rather than a simple robbery, my family would be in mortal danger, and I would respond accordingly as my state's castle doctrine allows.
Good response.
I just don't think it's that cut & dry.
It stands to reason that this restaurant owner is targeting certain clientel... rather expecting the sign to work to truly preventguns from entering their establishment.
This segues into the whole "gun-free zones" at schools. On the one hand, it's there to give the school workers and parents some peace of mind that weapons are minimized as much as it can be (ie, lower chance for accidental dischcarges, etc...).
On the other hand, and this what the pro-gun control crowd continually tries to discount, that "gun-free zones" is a target to any criminals.
I wonder if liability insurance at those business requires such a sign as well.
Ouze wrote: I also wouldn't have a no guns allowed sign on my private business, if I ran one - but I respect the right of business owners to decide for themselves. So, I'm arguing for a point that's not even my personal preference.
If I felt such a sign would bring in business, hell yeah I'd put up a sign like that!
If there are enough yuppie transplants in Durham that feel uncomfortable around armed hillfolk, then by all means, create a safe space for them.
It stands to reason that this restaurant owner is targeting certain clientel... rather expecting the sign to work to truly preventguns from entering their establishment.
This segues into the whole "gun-free zones" at schools. On the one hand, it's there to give the school workers and parents some peace of mind that weapons are minimized as much as it can be (ie, lower chance for accidental dischcarges, etc...).
On the other hand, and this what the pro-gun control crowd continually tries to discount, that "gun-free zones" is a target to any criminals.
I wonder if liability insurance at those business requires such a sign as well.
Or, the business really doesn't care about the guns. they just might be chasing the business of people that don't like them.
Polonius wrote: If there are enough yuppie transplants in Durham that feel uncomfortable around armed hillfolk, then by all means, create a safe space for them.
The fact that they find that place safer though is the boggling part to me
Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote: When did people who CC become the bad guys? Have there been a surge of shootings carried out by people who were open or concealed carrying?
To be fair, the perps in this case seem to have been open carry types.
Polonius wrote: Because, as I pointed out, the sign isn't about personal beliefs. Or, while it might be, all ideology stops at the water's edge.
What does this expression mean? I've not heard it before.
It's actually both a paraphrase and a slight misuse of an old saw, "politics stops at the water's edge." It's the idea that while partisan politics is the norm for domestic affaris, when it comes to foriegn policy, beyond our shores, the US should (and generally is) united.
Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote: When did people who CC become the bad guys? Have there been a surge of shootings carried out by people who were open or concealed carrying?
To be fair, the perps in this case seem to have been open carry types.
Little bit more twist and you can be a news anchor
whembly wrote: That's a fair point... but, that wasn't my question.
You're question was sophistry and you know it.
I disagree.
So you were genuinely curious as to his response? I find that hard to believe, as you seemed confident in his reply.
Well... yeah. But, I also want to know why.
Of course you wouldn't post that at your home. Homes are different from businesses.
Well... you spend roughly a 1/3 of your life at work. Point being... if you feel strongly about a sign having the sort impact you want, then why not post it at your home?
Because, as I pointed out, the sign isn't about personal beliefs. Or, while it might be, all ideology stops at the water's edge.
The sign is about marketing. You don't market your home.
In this case, that's probably true.
But, do you truly think that's the case at every business? Don't you think it's possible that some proprietors post these signs hoping to ward away potential robbers?
I see. I'm familiar with the idea politicians try not to criticize the sitting President while they're overseas, but was unfamiliar with the shorthand. Thanks, TIL.
whembly wrote: That's a fair point... but, that wasn't my question.
You're question was sophistry and you know it.
Of course you wouldn't post that at your home. Homes are different from businesses. I wouldn't install a commerical grade deep fat frier in my home either.
I've been tempted to install a commercial grade deep frier...
Polonius wrote: If there are enough yuppie transplants in Durham that feel uncomfortable around armed hillfolk, then by all means, create a safe space for them.
The fact that they find that place safer though is the boggling part to me
Everybody reacts to the unknown differently. I've lived in and around the big scary city for long enough to not really fear violent crime. I know enough people that carry guns, I know their respective levels of judgment, and I'm not 100% comfortable around them.
there are a lot of reasons for that, but for me, it's just odd that people are so terrified of crime. Crime rates are falling, and nearly all gun homicides are highly personal or drug/gang related. I'm about as worried about being a random murder victim as I am about a natural disaster.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: Don't you think it's possible that some proprietors post these signs hoping to ward away potential robbers?
No, because nobody that dumb would stay in business anyway.
Sometimes these signs may also have an insurance impact.
Therefore, can we blame the Insurance companies for infringing on our natural and inalienable rights to carry guns? What should be the proper response?
Easy E wrote: Sometimes these signs may also have an insurance impact.
Therefore, can we blame the Insurance companies for infringing on our natural and inalienable rights to carry guns? What should be the proper response?
That's what I asked earlier and I wouldn't be surprised if true.
The response would be... "meh" they're adjusting their risk pools, not doing it out of spite.
Polonius wrote: Everybody reacts to the unknown differently. I've lived in and around the big scary city for long enough to not really fear violent crime. I know enough people that carry guns, I know their respective levels of judgment, and I'm not 100% comfortable around them.
Speaking only for myself, I was born and raised in the Bronx, I lived there for 25 years, most of which encompassed the 80's crack epidemic, and never even considered owning a firearm. It wasn't until I moved to Iowa and found out that it will take the county sheriff 20 to 30 minutes to arrive that I reconsidered.
My beliefs were also shaped by my growing awareness of some specific court decisions along the way, too; I've only known about Warren vs DC for about 10 years. It was further reinforced by the Joseph Lozito case.
Easy E wrote: Sometimes these signs may also have an insurance impact.
Therefore, can we blame the Insurance companies for infringing on our natural and inalienable rights to carry guns? What should be the proper response?
I'm honestly curious about this. How would a sign like this affect liability at all? In GA for example, a business owner can put up a sign like that, and it means a CC permitted guy bringing in a gun can be asked to leave (assuming somehow the proprietor knew he had a weapon) and if the gun owner refuses he can be charged with trespassing (not with a gun offense). From an insurance perspective, what benefit/affect to the risk pool do you think an insurance company sees?
Can you give a real example of how putting up a sign like this affects a businesses rates or insurability?
EDIT: I can see where not allowing employees to carry can affect liability, not sure how it could work for a customer base.
SilverMK2 wrote: Seems to be a lot of back slapping over blaming the victim going on in this thread.
I look forward to someone posting a link to an article suggesting a rape victim was "totally asking for it" because they were not open carrying a firearm...
No, in this case it would be like someone who says rape victims deserve it, and then gets rapped.
Totally untrue.
If your analogy were to hold then a shop with no guns allowed would have to be manned by people who think gun crime victims deserve it.
To fix your quote:
No, in this case it would be like someone who says rape is wrong, and then gets raped.
Besides which would be preferred:
a. The shop staff putting their hands up and getting robbed.
b. Occupants and armed thieves having a shoot out with customers in the middle.
Besides which would be preferred:
a. The shop staff putting their hands up and getting robbed.
b. Occupants and armed thieves having a shoot out with customers in the middle.
In fact, we can apply your logic to the armed forces too. Think how many less civilians would get capped in a war zone if the soldiers did not have guns and missiles. Wouldn't it be preferable to let the bad guys get away rather than have innocent civilians and property be destroyed and killed?
Easy E wrote: Sometimes these signs may also have an insurance impact.
Therefore, can we blame the Insurance companies for infringing on our natural and inalienable rights to carry guns? What should be the proper response?
I'm honestly curious about this. How would a sign like this affect liability at all? In GA for example, a business owner can put up a sign like that, and it means a CC permitted guy bringing in a gun can be asked to leave (assuming somehow the proprietor knew he had a weapon) and if the gun owner refuses he can be charged with trespassing (not with a gun offense). From an insurance perspective, what benefit/affect to the risk pool do you think an insurance company sees?
Can you give a real example of how putting up a sign like this affects a businesses rates or insurability?
EDIT: I can see where not allowing employees to carry can affect liability, not sure how it could work for a customer base.
A gun accidentally discharges and cause property damage or harm while on the business premises. This could lead to liability for the business (as well as the gun carrier) that the insurance company would need to pay for. Kind of like how if you post a Danger: Dog sign you are more liable since you knew you had a dog that could bite someone. That kind of wierd logic.
Granted, I'm not an expert on insurance laws and guidelines.
Besides which would be preferred:
a. The shop staff putting their hands up and getting robbed.
b. Occupants and armed thieves having a shoot out with customers in the middle.
In fact, we can apply your logic to the armed forces too. Think how many less civilians would get capped in a war zone if the soldiers did not have guns and missiles. Wouldn't it be preferable to let the bad guys get away rather than have innocent civilians and property be destroyed and killed?
Back in my hometown, it took a cop 2 HOURS to get from their station to wherever. When I was working at a gas station we got a call from a trucking company that a man driving one of their trucks hadn't been answering their calls, and that he had a history of physical problems. We call the cops, two hours later here the cop comes.
If he had been having a seizure or stroke or anything, he would have been dead. This is the same police force that came to the gas station, started making fun of a 20 year old gal he caught drunk driving (While in Uniform), The same police force that pulls someone over and wants the civilian to get out of the car and come to THEIR window.....
And this was in a town of 1000 people......
Yeah, trust the cops all you want, but I surely won't.
Easy E wrote: Sometimes these signs may also have an insurance impact.
Therefore, can we blame the Insurance companies for infringing on our natural and inalienable rights to carry guns? What should be the proper response?
I'm honestly curious about this. How would a sign like this affect liability at all? In GA for example, a business owner can put up a sign like that, and it means a CC permitted guy bringing in a gun can be asked to leave (assuming somehow the proprietor knew he had a weapon) and if the gun owner refuses he can be charged with trespassing (not with a gun offense). From an insurance perspective, what benefit/affect to the risk pool do you think an insurance company sees?
Can you give a real example of how putting up a sign like this affects a businesses rates or insurability?
EDIT: I can see where not allowing employees to carry can affect liability, not sure how it could work for a customer base.
A gun accidentally discharges and cause property damage or harm while on the business premises. This could lead to liability for the business (as well as the gun carrier) that the insurance company would need to pay for. Kind of like how if you post a Danger: Dog sign you are more liable since you knew you had a dog that could bite someone. That kind of wierd logic.
Granted, I'm not an expert on insurance laws and guidelines.
I think many gun laws are written to clearly lay out the weapon carrier as liable. And regardless of the post above in the topic stating accidental discharges 'constantly' occur at WalMart, I can think of no accidental discharges not at a weapons range, during a hunting trip, done while cleaning a weapon, or in a war zone any place I've ever been. A holstered gun does not fire.
Need to seperate a war zone from this topic being;
1 Its a war zone so there's all kinds of weapons
2 Muzzle awareness
3 Negligent discharge will result in Non Judicial UCMJ
4 Level of training concerning weapons.
5 The amount of "ass chewing" resulting in Negligent discharge along with UCMJ
6 Fear of SMAJ
7 Fear of type punishment of a negligent discharge
8 MUZZLE AWARENESS
9 Clearing weapons
10 UCMJ and the wrath of NCO's
Durham NC has a problem right now with race and gentrification. It is being aggressively gentrified by hipsters and house prices are skyrocketing and displacing minorities. They also had a recent issue where a handcuffed latino youth was shot in the back while in police custody and the police 'claimed' he had a gun.
This particular location is a scooby doo ghost town of all abandon auto garages which was turned into really trendy high-priced restaurants, bars and clubs with food trucks outside. In an area of high minorities, there isn't a single one to be seen anywhere in this area.
So I know in this area there is a culture war and two isolated societies and race relations are very tense there, because in 2-3 years a majority of those run down houses will have new occupants and be high-end flipped trendy houses.
They almost had 'burn down the city' riots over this.
Trying to figure out what your post has to do with this thread. Did you just excuse the robbers or the stupidity of the barbeque owner?
EDIT: for the record Texas barbeque rules, NC barbeque drools!
The issue is the city has a large influx of affluent white hipsters with leftist attitudes and are displacing and marginalizing poor minorities in the process. There is a one-sided culture war as these neighborhoods gentrify and displace poor minorities. There have a been a lot of crimes against these establishments which are seen as 'getting back at the white people displacing and discriminating against against minorities'. This particular area is a prime example of a location. There is a lot of dissatisfaction and violence occurring because of it in that area... And it is only 'one sided' because one of the sides has money to throw around and an affluent college which is helping to support it. Arbitrary selectively enforced dress codes are the name of the game in all of these places down there.
The whole 'sign' is a non-story and the crimes themselves touch on a much larger issue of that areas racial issues currently going on in that town. They were not robbed for being a gun-free location, they were robbed for being a gentrification hipster white social area in a high minority/low income part of town. The only reason this is even national news was because this was a hoity toity place. It is the robbery equivalent of a 'white girl gone missing'.
It is a really nice urban renewal... They did a really nice job... They turned a scooby doo ghost town into something nice. The problem is it is driving prices up, and people 'out'. And these places have sometimes have selective dress codes which keep 'specific' people out. "no baggie clothes, flat brimmed hats, untucked teeshirts or colored bananas"
Duke is super close too.
Race relations are strained. The triangle of Durham/Raleigh is basically going through what is described as some as an 'ethnic cleansing', so ti is not a good thing when people feel that way and there has been a lot of what has been called 'payback' crimes because of it. My friends got thrown out of a cab because one of them made a comment about 'These houses are so nice, for what I make in DC I could probably buy 3 of them and renovate them and then live off the rent!' The cabbie got mad and threw them out of the cab.
Johnnytorrance wrote: The reason this is ironic, is that the anti gun people proclaim that these laws and rules they make. For example they feel safer about putting a sign up, telling good semeritans that have a legal right to carry concealed weapons that they aren't allowed to bring their legal firearms to their restaurant. The owner is implying in his liberal thought that, this sign will prevent gun crimes, when in fact, it advertises to criminals that the establishment is a gun free zone and most likey an easy score.
Ooor you are making gak up and the owner put up a sign to say that patrons can dine in a gun free environment. You know, without the insane belief that a sign somehow magically protects you from all harm... you know, like a gun does...
I would never blame a rape victim for being raped, but it's still probably not a good idea for a women to walk down a dark alley drunk and naked.
So... you would blame a rape victim if they did that and were subsequently raped?... so you would blame a rape victim. I see.
I would blame the rape victim for being as stupid as someone who stuffed chunks of raw meat in their pockets and strolled into a cage with freshly caught Lions for what ensued.
If you go willingly alone and vulnerable into areas where people of ill will are known to frequent, gak is gonna happen, so don't act hurt and surprised when it does.
It is a really nice urban renewal... They did a really nice job... They turned a scooby doo ghost town into something nice. The problem is it is driving prices up, and people 'out'. And these places have sometimes have selective dress codes which keep 'specific' people out. "no baggie clothes, flat brimmed hats, untucked teeshirts or colored bananas"
Duke is super close too.
Race relations are strained. The triangle of Durham/Raleigh is basically going through what is described as some as an 'ethnic cleansing', so ti is not a good thing when people feel that way and there has been a lot of what has been called 'payback' crimes because of it. My friends got thrown out of a cab because one of them made a comment about 'These houses are so nice, for what I make in DC I could probably buy 3 of them and renovate them and then live off the rent!' The cabbie got mad and threw them out of the cab.
This is not a gun control issue.
Sounds to me, going by your friends experience and the way you describe things, as an eastern style variation of the Bundy Ranch issue.People are pissed that their "land" is being taken over by outsiders and are going to take measures.
Durham NC has a problem right now with race and gentrification. It is being aggressively gentrified by hipsters and house prices are skyrocketing and displacing minorities. They also had a recent issue where a handcuffed latino youth was shot in the back while in police custody and the police 'claimed' he had a gun.
This particular location is a scooby doo ghost town of all abandon auto garages which was turned into really trendy high-priced restaurants, bars and clubs with food trucks outside. In an area of high minorities, there isn't a single one to be seen anywhere in this area.
So I know in this area there is a culture war and two isolated societies and race relations are very tense there, because in 2-3 years a majority of those run down houses will have new occupants and be high-end flipped trendy houses.
The issue is the city has a large influx of affluent white hipsters with leftist attitudes and are displacing and marginalizing poor minorities in the process. There is a one-sided culture war as these neighborhoods gentrify and displace poor minorities. There have a been a lot of crimes against these establishments which are seen as 'getting back at the white people displacing and discriminating against against minorities'. This particular area is a prime example of a location. There is a lot of dissatisfaction and violence occurring because of it in that area... And it is only 'one sided' because one of the sides has money to throw around and an affluent college which is helping to support it. Arbitrary selectively enforced dress codes are the name of the game in all of these places down there.
The whole 'sign' is a non-story and the crimes themselves touch on a much larger issue of that areas racial issues currently going on in that town. They were not robbed for being a gun-free location, they were robbed for being a gentrification hipster white social area in a high minority/low income part of town. The only reason this is even national news was because this was a hoity toity place. It is the robbery equivalent of a 'white girl gone missing'.
.
Wow, nice little racist rant you got there. Hope you don't happen to own a basketball team.
Gentrification is a good thing, I dont get why people hate it.
Also, I like hipsters. Who else can I gawk at for wearing a scarf and fedora and a trench coat
Crossbows. Crossbows aren't guns, can be pre-loaded, and can pierce through a quite a bit of (Non-Military) armor.
And they are intimidating as feth.
YEAH but unless you have the right feats they take a full round action to reload and then you cant do a full attack action. Guns only take a free action to load.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Gentrification is a good thing, I dont get why people hate it.
Also, I like hipsters. Who else can I gawk at for wearing a scarf and fedora and a trench coat
Crossbows. Crossbows aren't guns, can be pre-loaded, and can pierce through a quite a bit of (Non-Military) armor.
And they are intimidating as feth.
YEAH but unless you have the right feats they take a full round action to reload and then you cant do a full attack action. Guns only take a free action to load.
Huh? So his argument is he doesnt like it because they come in and change culture. Interesting fact Spike Lee, Culture changes. America isnt the same place it was 30 years ago. We dont all have Afros and Bell bottom pants
I personally think gentrification is a good thing. It is a slow process that allows people to adapt to it. Yes people will get moved out, but the economic rehabilitation is more then worth it. And by mixing classes you end up with a more viable and better neighborhood.
I would blame the rape victim for being as stupid smeone who stuffed chunks of raw meat in their pockets and strolled into a cage with freshly caught Lions for what ensued.
If you go willingly alone and vulnerable into areas where people of ill will are known to frequent, gak is gonna happen, so don't act hurt and surprised when it does.
His reply and my reply to that were deleted, however my point was he said "i would never blame the victim" then detailing a situation in which he would.
Ahtman wrote: What is important to remember is that no violent crime has ever happened in a place where there are firearms.
I can honsetly say I've never heard of a robbery at an M1 Tank firing range.
I've SEEN robberies on live/hot M1 firing ranges.
At Ft Hood there were some dudes in hopped up 4X4s that would cruise out onto a range and steal the generators that are used to power the target lift devices. The generators are only there when the ranges are in use. Crazy fethers would come zooming out of the impact area a couple of KMs down range, load up as you watched, then haul ass away. Range Control would shut down the range/declare a cease fire when they came zooming out. You were not allowed to engage them (yes, I asked for permission. I figured a 120mm SABOT through an engine block would put an end to that silliness, and a few hundred rounds of COAX zipping through the area would ensure no one tried to get away on foot.)
.....Andy Raymond, a shop owner in Maryland recently announced he intended to sell what he believed to be the nation's first smart gun. However, he has since been forced to back down after receiving death threats from gun rights activists....
Shop owners, gunsmiths, restaurants.....damned if you do.....
I never make a fuss over a place that does not welcome CCWs, I just choose to not shop at those places. As an armed responder for private security, I know the risks that are involved. Out of work, my first action is to avoid a confrontation. An establishment that does not allow me to carry poses a potential threat because it does not allow me to defend myself, so I avoid it. I am not a police officer, I will not draw my weapon to stop a robbery, and I will not go out of my way to put myself into danger. My first reaction is to access the situation and determine if I and people near me can get out of the situation safely. In this situation, they let the patrons leave, so I would have left. Even if the place allowed me to carry my weapon, I will not put my life in danger to make a situation worse.
I have a CCW for my own protection. You too are allowed to carry a weapon to protect yourself. If you choose not to protect yourself, you do not become my problem. The risks of me drawing my weapon are too high for me to defend someone who failed to protect themselves.
When seconds count the police are just minutes away. You can wait for them.
Another European here with no horse in the race, but I just genuinely wondered about one thing: If carrying guns for protection is a more or less common thing in some regions of the US (which is totally fine by me), that more or less means that people are aware and willing to defend their lives in a potential gunfight, right? That's what they carry the gun for. - My question is now: If there are lots of people who go about their daily lives with the possibility in mind that they might to fight for their lives in a gun battle at any given time, how high is the amount of people wearing body armor everyday?
It's just that it seems to me, if you carry a gun as "active" protection it would make a lot of sense to wear passive armor, too, right? Because you can't guarantee to be the first one to get a good shot off.
Really just wondering how common wearing body armor is and what the stance on wearing some is in the US. It seems like a logical follow-up to carrying a gun to me?
NC Restaurant Posts “No Guns” Sign and Then Gets Robbed at Gunpoint
May 21, 2014 by Guns 'n' Freedom 128 Comments
(Source: ABC11) Surveillance footage of “gun free zone” being robbed at gunpoint. Video below.
Follow Guns 'n' Freedom on Twitter and stay informed!
Even while Michale Bloomberg’s anti-gun groups celebrate their “victory” in getting Chipotle to ban guns from their stores, a story out of Durham, NC reminds us why these so called “gun free zones” are actually doing more harm than good.
At 9pm on Sunday night the “The Pit Authentic Barbecue” in Durham was robbed at gunpoint when 3 masked men entered the restaurant through the back door.
From abc11.com,
DURHAM, N.C. (WTVD) –Police are searching for three suspects involved in an armed robbery at Durham’s newly-opened barbecue restaurant, The Pit, at 321 W. Geer Street.
Authorities said just before 9 p.m. Sunday, three men wearing hoodies entered the restaurant through the back doors with pistols, and forced several staff members to lie on the floor.
The bandits assaulted two employees during the crime, but they were not seriously injured.
Thankfully, no one was seriously hurt or injured in this incident, but it’s no thanks to a sign on the window of the restaurant that clearly states no guns are allowed. .
Noone as ever committed armed robbery Before "sarcasm"
Witzkatz wrote: Really just wondering how common wearing body armor is and what the stance on wearing some is in the US. It seems like a logical follow-up to carrying a gun to me?
I don't know anyone that wears body armor normally. In at least one state, body armor is unlawful to possess by the general public.
SilverMK2 wrote: Seems to be a lot of back slapping over blaming the victim going on in this thread..
Where did this notion that a victim can do no wrong come from? If someone tries to cross a street at 1am with all dark clothing on without looking both ways and gets hit is it really bad to look at that and say "Maybe he shouldn't have done those things that resulted in the accident he was a victim of"
That's a disingenuous argument. The victim of an accident is not the same as the victim of a crime. An accident, by definition, is not intentional and thus the victim might be partially responsible. Only the perpetrator is guilty of a crime, as by definition a crime can only occur through evil intention or perverse negligence. Comparing a person who gets hit by a car because they jay-walked in dark clothing late at night to a woman getting raped ignores that the driver does not intend to hurt anyone, while the rapist clearly does.
Sounds to me, going by your friends experience and the way you describe things, as an eastern style variation of the Bundy Ranch issue.People are pissed that their "land" is being taken over by outsiders and are going to take measures.
But unlike the 'Bundy' situation, these people are being called the 'common criminals' that they are, will be arrested for illegally using a gun and will go to jail. Apparently you can only commit crimes, illegally use firearms in violent crimes if you are white. And also like the Bundy issue, there are legitimate and documented civil rights being infringed upon in the local community in regards to the police. It is 'the south' after all. There is still plenty of 'issues' with racism still going strong down there. But none of that excuses armed robbery, and these people will be caught, probably abused, get a crappy trial while being under represented and go to jail. Also, the Bundy 'lifestyle' of stealing from the american taxpayer, stealing public land and 'county supremacy' should be destroyed the same way any group of people who feel like it is 'ok' to rob businesses at gunpoint as a way of social/economic payback. Poisonous communities deserve to be done away with... but ideally society would have addressed the issue before it got bad opposed to letting things get bad. If you address the causes before the group becomes 'broken' and resorts to criminal action.
And Gentrification is an issue because they say 'we are making things nice, you don't have to leave... you are welcome to join us!' but then turn the area into 10$ beer, 30$ hamburgers and quadruple the rent.
This went down in DC fairly recently when 200k brownstones were being bought up in packs of 3, had walls knocked down and turned whole neighborhoods of low income city rentals into 3 million dollar houses. It literally turned a run-down 200k dump into a 1.1 million dollar house over night. And since a majority of the low-income people rent, the landlord is like 'oh, rent went from 800 a month to 2600 a month.' Then you get to the businesses. Now established owners can't afford to keep up and are forced out on that front as well. Landlords want whole blocks of night clubs or foodie gastropubs, that laundromat and bodega have got to go. But they don't evict them, rent goes up and the people are welcome to stay if they pay the obscene rent.
The little town (which is nothing but a train station) is currently going through this. It basically became a high latino population because it was cheap. They tore down 100% of the apartment buildings on main street and built condos which went from 500$ a month for a 1 bedroom to 1700$ a month for a 1 bedroom. My breakfast place is a divey little diner attached to a pharmacy. The landlord is trying to drive them out so he can turn the corner prime real estate into something else. Sure it is urban renewal, but it is jacking up prices simply because they can and 'who cares' what the residents think because they will be displaced before they can vote. Politicians love it because all the new people who move in are votes too. If you can win over a population, import a voter base.
Yeah, they are 'fixing it up' but also make it obscenely expensive to live there. and they say 'we have low income housing! you can get a 1 bedroom for 1800! you should be happy!' The issues now is, the people who have the lowest income now have to commute farther and have higher commuting expenses than the ones who don't. so someone making 6 figures can walk to work, but now that minimum wage worker has to move outside the city and drive in or take mass transit and triples his commuting time.
All it does is displace the poor and doesn't address core issues. There are ways to renew an urban setting without making it so expensive it has close to a 100% turn over rate. I don't call 3-5 years 'slow' at all, especially when they evict whole neighborhoods and rebuild. It doesn't mix classes, doesn't cause integration and it doesn't address issues for the population it displaces.
Besides which would be preferred:
a. The shop staff putting their hands up and getting robbed.
b. Occupants and armed thieves having a shoot out with customers in the middle.
In fact, we can apply your logic to the armed forces too. Think how many less civilians would get capped in a war zone if the soldiers did not have guns and missiles. Wouldn't it be preferable to let the bad guys get away rather than have innocent civilians and property be destroyed and killed?
My logic states that cops and soldiers have different levels of training, and are accountable to a chain of command.
There are general consequences when a cop pulls a gun, the average hick doesn't except for the individual bullets.
Also a less armed police force is generally a good thing. For a start when the UK police uses guns they bypass small arms and go straight for assault rifles. Any level of gun threat has the immediate result in calling in the equaivalent of SWAT. The delimiter between no guns and lots of guns works better frankly.
Because there are those of us who would prefer not to to sit in "gun free zones" and be a victim when this crap happens, but would much prefer to dine in establishments that recognize our rights and allow us to take appropriate measures to defend ourselves and our families from criminals.
But how common is it for British to police to open fire?
In short – very rare. Police officers in England and Wales opened fire just five times for the year 2011/12. Out of these incidents, two people were killed, including Duggan.
In the four years to 2012, armed officers officers opened fire 18 times - nine fatally. No-one was shot dead by police in 2012/13.
The two fatalities in 2011/12 emerged from 12,550 operations during the same period, in which firearms officers were on the scene and had been given authorisation to open fire, even though they did not, according to the latest Home Office stats.
The authorisation factor is important, because this is where British police differ to most of the rest of the world. Aside from Ireland, all major police forces in Europe routinely carry firearms, along with the US, Canada and Australia. New Zealand is another exception.
That does not mean that firearms officers are not called out onto the streets frequently – just that authorised firearms officers (AFOs) are specially trained and that the decision made to deploy them is made by an inspector or someone even more senior. Since 2004, the use of tasers has been preferred in official policy – again, only by trained officers.
When an officer does open fire, there’s an immediate investigation, with the IPCC involved. Some families of victims of police shootings, including the Duggan family, have claimed that the police officers involved are in fact treated with a lighter touch by investigators, including the IPCC – and the law. Something that the accused passionately dispute.
"The officers are subject to immense scrutiny and pressure is placed on them and their colleagues on how they explain it,” said Mark Williams, chairman of the PFOA. “The bottom line is, everything they did has to be justified by law.”
And to highlight how rare it is for a British police officer to actually open fire, Mr Williams told Channel 4 News: "I carried a firearm for five years in London, and I never had to fire it. Actually firing a weapon is very rare. The vast majority of them have never fired a weapon.
"No firearms officer wants to shoot someone. It’s a last resort."
He argues that British police officers have the best firearms training in Europe, precisely because the force is unarmed as a matter of course.
The wider picture
It is difficult to separate the number of police shootings from the use of firearms in the society that they're operating in: in a country where gun crime is rife and gun ownership laws more relaxed, police are more likely to be called to use their own firearms.
In the US for example, 410 people were killed by police officers in 2012: that's about 0.00013 per cent of the US population, compared to 0.0000035 per cent in the UK.
But the US has over four times as many homicides as the UK, according to the latest UN statistics, and there is a far stronger culture of gun ownership across the Atlantic.
Another country where police have been criticised for fatal shootings is South Africa, which is notorious for high rates of murder, assault and murder. Just last year, over 30 people died when police opened fire on miners who were on strike – an incident now known as the Marikana massacre.
A much-cited report from the Institute for Security Studies in Pretoria found that police had shot dead 556 people in 2008/2009, the highest number in 12 years, and double the numbers four years ago.
That is 0.001 per cent of the population – far higher than the UK and the US.
To put this in context, the homicide rate in South Africa is also startling: 30.9 per 100,000 of population, compared to one, for the same number of people in England, and 4.7 in the US.
For a perhaps fairer comparison with the UK, Sweden has a more similar rate of homicide to the UK – 0.9 per 100,000 of the population. And its rate of police shooting is around the same: in the 18 years to July 2013, 18 people were shot dead by Swedish police.
The verdict
Police use of firearms – fatal or otherwise - is just one measure of police behaviour out of many. The increasing use of tasers, for example, comes with its own issues and the IPCC is investigating 12 taser-related incidents, including three fatalities.
Death in police custody is another factor measured by the IPCC – there were 15 fatalities in the year 2012/13. And Channel 4 News has reported on the use of restraining belts on detainees’ faces, by three police forces.
It is also worth noting that Home Office figures are for England and Wales only. In Northern Ireland, 30 civilian deaths at the hands of the Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC) were recorded during the period known as "the Troubles" alone – a significant number for an area with a population of just 1.8 million.
But in terms of using firearms - and using them fatally - the figures suggest that British police are reluctant to open fire.
Besides which would be preferred:
a. The shop staff putting their hands up and getting robbed.
b. Occupants and armed thieves having a shoot out with customers in the middle.
In fact, we can apply your logic to the armed forces too. Think how many less civilians would get capped in a war zone if the soldiers did not have guns and missiles. Wouldn't it be preferable to let the bad guys get away rather than have innocent civilians and property be destroyed and killed?
My logic states that cops and soldiers have different levels of training, and are accountable to a chain of command.
There are general consequences when a cop pulls a gun, the average hick doesn't except for the individual bullets.
Also a less armed police force is generally a good thing. For a start when the UK police uses guns they bypass small arms and go straight for assault rifles. Any level of gun threat has the immediate result in calling in the equaivalent of SWAT. The delimiter between no guns and lots of guns works better frankly.
Most US cops are not well trained. Training has not prevented any of the civilian casualties from occurring. The 'average hick' with a conceal carry permit is probably at least as well trained as his LEO counterparts, and is more legally liable for any shooting he is involved in. Instead of paid suspension while his cop buddies investigate and a union provided lawyer to make sure he is legally represented, the 'average hick' loses his freedom while awaiting trial and or puts his family in financial danger posting bond and hiring lawyers.
Because there are those of us who would prefer not to to sit in "gun free zones" and be a victim when this crap happens, but would much prefer to dine in establishments that recognize our rights and allow us to take appropriate measures to defend ourselves and our families from criminals.
The only victim was the store owner, and he could have still be armed since it is his store.
How many of his customers were victimized? How many of his customers should have pulled out their guns and started to shoot if it wasn't a gun free zone?
"Money is replaceable, I don't want a shoot out between thieves and customers" is not exactly a stupid argument. But hey, piss on the guy exercising his right to determine what is allowed on his own property.
Because there are those of us who would prefer not to to sit in "gun free zones" and be a victim when this crap happens, but would much prefer to dine in establishments that recognize our rights and allow us to take appropriate measures to defend ourselves and our families from criminals.
The only victim was the store owner, and he could have still be armed since it is his store.
How many of his customers were victimized? How many of his customers should have pulled out their guns and started to shoot if it wasn't a gun free zone?
"Money is replaceable, I don't want a shoot out between thieves and customers" is not exactly a stupid argument. But hey, piss on the guy exercising his right to determine what is allowed on his own property.
Sure, in this instance the store owner may have been the only victim, but the criminals could easily have started robbing (or worse) the patrons.
As to armed customers intervening, that's an individual choice. I likely wouldn't, but others might. Their call.
His right to post his ineffective signage, just as it's my right to carry a gun and take my business elsewhere.
I don't own a gun, so I'm not a gun-toting wackadoodle. But in my eyes, putting up a sign that says "we don't allow guns here" is a bright pink fething neon sign to any robber that he won't meet any opposition inside. If a guy wants to feel safe about robbing a place and getting out alive (robbers don't exactly WANT to die 90% of the time), he's going to peg the place that openly promotes that he's the only one carrying. I hate to pull a Dakka bingo card here...but seriously, I can't figure out who to blame besides the victim (the restaurant). There is a giant pink target on you. You should probably wipe it off. I wish there were no criminals and that guns were only needed to kill food or for target practice as a sport. But that's a pipe dream. Criminals will exist. They will find a way to adapt to whatever means we use to modify their abilities to get weapons. Taking away a person's right to protect themselves and those around them makes them a target. But God forbid sensibility and rationality exist, and somebody will say I'm the loon for suggesting this. I bet if you were one of the customers, you'd have wished somebody had a gun-sure, this group didnt waste any hostages, but why won't the next one? They were lucky, that's all. I open the floor back up to hippies and fools who think putting up signs against guns will make them go away-those people are making EXCELLENT points.
Because there are those of us who would prefer not to to sit in "gun free zones" and be a victim when this crap happens, but would much prefer to dine in establishments that recognize our rights and allow us to take appropriate measures to defend ourselves and our families from criminals.
The only victim was the store owner, and he could have still be armed since it is his store.
How many of his customers were victimized? How many of his customers should have pulled out their guns and started to shoot if it wasn't a gun free zone?
"Money is replaceable, I don't want a shoot out between thieves and customers" is not exactly a stupid argument. But hey, piss on the guy exercising his right to determine what is allowed on his own property.
Sure, in this instance the store owner may have been the only victim, but the criminals could easily have started robbing (or worse) the patrons.
Except if you paid attention to the pattern of these robberies you would know that's not the case.
The robberies have used the back doors of these establishments and have allowed the employees to get the customers out.
Sounds to me, going by your friends experience and the way you describe things, as an eastern style variation of the Bundy Ranch issue.People are pissed that their "land" is being taken over by outsiders and are going to take measures.
But unlike the 'Bundy' situation, these people are being called the 'common criminals' that they are, will be arrested for illegally using a gun and will go to jail. Apparently you can only commit crimes, illegally use firearms in violent crimes if you are white. And also like the Bundy issue, there are legitimate and documented civil rights being infringed upon in the local community in regards to the police. It is 'the south' after all. There is still plenty of 'issues' with racism still going strong down there. But none of that excuses armed robbery, and these people will be caught, probably abused, get a crappy trial while being under represented and go to jail. Also, the Bundy 'lifestyle' of stealing from the american taxpayer, stealing public land and 'county supremacy' should be destroyed the same way any group of people who feel like it is 'ok' to rob businesses at gunpoint as a way of social/economic payback. Poisonous communities deserve to be done away with... but ideally society would have addressed the issue before it got bad opposed to letting things get bad. If you address the causes before the group becomes 'broken' and resorts to criminal action.
And Gentrification is an issue because they say 'we are making things nice, you don't have to leave... you are welcome to join us!' but then turn the area into 10$ beer, 30$ hamburgers and quadruple the rent.
This went down in DC fairly recently when 200k brownstones were being bought up in packs of 3, had walls knocked down and turned whole neighborhoods of low income city rentals into 3 million dollar houses. It literally turned a run-down 200k dump into a 1.1 million dollar house over night. And since a majority of the low-income people rent, the landlord is like 'oh, rent went from 800 a month to 2600 a month.' Then you get to the businesses. Now established owners can't afford to keep up and are forced out on that front as well. Landlords want whole blocks of night clubs or foodie gastropubs, that laundromat and bodega have got to go. But they don't evict them, rent goes up and the people are welcome to stay if they pay the obscene rent.
The little town (which is nothing but a train station) is currently going through this. It basically became a high latino population because it was cheap. They tore down 100% of the apartment buildings on main street and built condos which went from 500$ a month for a 1 bedroom to 1700$ a month for a 1 bedroom. My breakfast place is a divey little diner attached to a pharmacy. The landlord is trying to drive them out so he can turn the corner prime real estate into something else. Sure it is urban renewal, but it is jacking up prices simply because they can and 'who cares' what the residents think because they will be displaced before they can vote. Politicians love it because all the new people who move in are votes too. If you can win over a population, import a voter base.
Yeah, they are 'fixing it up' but also make it obscenely expensive to live there. and they say 'we have low income housing! you can get a 1 bedroom for 1800! you should be happy!' The issues now is, the people who have the lowest income now have to commute farther and have higher commuting expenses than the ones who don't. so someone making 6 figures can walk to work, but now that minimum wage worker has to move outside the city and drive in or take mass transit and triples his commuting time.
All it does is displace the poor and doesn't address core issues. There are ways to renew an urban setting without making it so expensive it has close to a 100% turn over rate. I don't call 3-5 years 'slow' at all, especially when they evict whole neighborhoods and rebuild. It doesn't mix classes, doesn't cause integration and it doesn't address issues for the population it displaces.
Yep, it's pretty bad, like the Bundy issue, there appear to be a lot of raw emotions on the part of the people having their lives and possibly livlihoods turned upside down by outsiders who seemingly overnight decide an area needs to be different, for what ever reason.
Here's an interesting article from a link in the Spike Lee rant against gentrification that I posted on the previous page:
Just out of curiousity, how bad was the section of town your friends got thrown out of the cab into? That is actually fairly chilling to me as I think about it. The wrong area and they could have disappeared.
Because there are those of us who would prefer not to to sit in "gun free zones" and be a victim when this crap happens, but would much prefer to dine in establishments that recognize our rights and allow us to take appropriate measures to defend ourselves and our families from criminals.
The only victim was the store owner, and he could have still be armed since it is his store.
How many of his customers were victimized? How many of his customers should have pulled out their guns and started to shoot if it wasn't a gun free zone?
"Money is replaceable, I don't want a shoot out between thieves and customers" is not exactly a stupid argument. But hey, piss on the guy exercising his right to determine what is allowed on his own property.
Sure, in this instance the store owner may have been the only victim, but the criminals could easily have started robbing (or worse) the patrons.
Except if you paid attention to the pattern of these robberies you would know that's not the case.
The robberies have used the back doors of these establishments and have allowed the employees to get the customers out.
So what, man? What's to stop a copycat group springing up and wasting the patrons instead? Nothing. While this group may have not had any dangerous plans towards the patrons, that doesn't mean anyone walking in for a robbery would.
Because there are those of us who would prefer not to to sit in "gun free zones" and be a victim when this crap happens, but would much prefer to dine in establishments that recognize our rights and allow us to take appropriate measures to defend ourselves and our families from criminals.
The only victim was the store owner, and he could have still be armed since it is his store.
How many of his customers were victimized? How many of his customers should have pulled out their guns and started to shoot if it wasn't a gun free zone?
"Money is replaceable, I don't want a shoot out between thieves and customers" is not exactly a stupid argument. But hey, piss on the guy exercising his right to determine what is allowed on his own property.
Sure, in this instance the store owner may have been the only victim, but the criminals could easily have started robbing (or worse) the patrons.
Except if you paid attention to the pattern of these robberies you would know that's not the case.
The robberies have used the back doors of these establishments and have allowed the employees to get the customers out.
Ok, these guys might be "nice" armed robbers, but many aren't. I was addressing the question of why people want to carry guns in a restaurant, not why would I want to carry a gun into a restaurant being robbed by these specific people.
So what, man? What's to stop a copycat group springing up and wasting the patrons instead? Nothing. While this group may have not had any dangerous plans towards the patrons, that doesn't mean anyone walking in for a robbery would.
We're not talking about hypothetical situations though, are we?
In the meantime, since this thread was posted and now, statistically another 96 armed robberies have occurred across the country, despite the fact the overwhelming majority of them did not have an anti-gun sticker present.
It's almost like the fact a firearm was theoretically available didn't act as some... magical charm that prevents all crime, or something. I guess I should make, like, 50 or 60 thread a day in the OT every time a good guy with a gun fails to deter criminality.
Ouze wrote: In the meantime, since this thread was posted and now, statistically another 96 armed robberies have occurred across the country, despite the fact the overwhelming majority of them did not have an anti-gun sticker present.
It's almost like the fact a firearm was theoretically available didn't act as some... magical charm that prevents all crime, or something. I guess I should make, like, 50 or 60 thread a day in the OT every time a good guy with a gun fails to deter criminality.
I was thinking slight tangentially about this as well. what about all the robberies committed where the victims were not armed AND there were no restrictions on carrying firearms.
Is it time for big government to impose law making it a legal requirement for everyone to carry these magical charms?
Because there are those of us who would prefer not to to sit in "gun free zones" and be a victim when this crap happens, but would much prefer to dine in establishments that recognize our rights and allow us to take appropriate measures to defend ourselves and our families from criminals.
That's somewhat the point Polonius was trying to make earlier... as, in this case the owner didn't want CCW holders to patron his business.
Because there are those of us who would prefer not to to sit in "gun free zones" and be a victim when this crap happens, but would much prefer to dine in establishments that recognize our rights and allow us to take appropriate measures to defend ourselves and our families from criminals.
That's somewhat the point Polonius was trying to make earlier... as, in this case the owner didn't want CCW holders to patron his business.
Because there are those of us who would prefer not to to sit in "gun free zones" and be a victim when this crap happens, but would much prefer to dine in establishments that recognize our rights and allow us to take appropriate measures to defend ourselves and our families from criminals.
That's somewhat the point Polonius was trying to make earlier... as, in this case the owner didn't want CCW holders to patron his business.
Johnnytorrance wrote: The reason this is ironic, is that the anti gun people proclaim that these laws and rules they make. For example they feel safer about putting a sign up, telling good semeritans that have a legal right to carry concealed weapons that they aren't allowed to bring their legal firearms to their restaurant. The owner is implying in his liberal thought that, this sign will prevent gun crimes, when in fact, it advertises to criminals that the establishment is a gun free zone and most likey an easy score.
Ooor you are making gak up and the owner put up a sign to say that patrons can dine in a gun free environment. You know, without the insane belief that a sign somehow magically protects you from all harm... you know, like a gun does...
I would never blame a rape victim for being raped, but it's still probably not a good idea for a women to walk down a dark alley drunk and naked.
So... you would blame a rape victim if they did that and were subsequently raped?... so you would blame a rape victim. I see.
I would blame the rape victim for being as stupid as someone who stuffed chunks of raw meat in their pockets and strolled into a cage with freshly caught Lions for what ensued.
If you go willingly alone and vulnerable into areas where people of ill will are known to frequent, gak is gonna happen, so don't act hurt and surprised when it does.
Except that people are not lions, nor are rapes accidental. They are thinking, rational beings capable of thinking and reason, and they can realise that rape is wrong whether or not a woman is naked or "asking for it". So no, a rape victim is NEVER asking for it, no matter what he/she does, unless they literally ask for it. Supreme culpability is NEVER taken from the perpetrator, no matter what the victim did to contribute to the situation.
Perhaps you could say to the woman wandering in an alley at night "well, you shouldn't have done that..." and in hindsight, no she shouldn't have, but who decided to rape her? Who bears the fault for her rape? The rapist, of course.
Because there are those of us who would prefer not to to sit in "gun free zones" and be a victim when this crap happens, but would much prefer to dine in establishments that recognize our rights and allow us to take appropriate measures to defend ourselves and our families from criminals.
That's somewhat the point Polonius was trying to make earlier... as, in this case the owner didn't want CCW holders to patron his business.
Which owner?
"The Pit" is privately owned; "Chipotle" is not.
I believe "The Pit".
I'm not in tune with what's going at Chipotle.
Chipotle, the most recent robbery in Durham committed with the same general profile as that of "The Pit" robbery, issued this statement:
We are respectfully asking that customers not bring guns into our restaurants, unless they are authorized law enforcement personnel.
It was because of things like this happening at "Open Carry Texas" demonstrations.
Spoiler:
But of course, people picked up on the fact that it was a chain(Chipotle) that recently asked for "no guns please" and then they lumped it in with a restaurant where the actual owner(The Pit) refuses service to people carrying on the property.
Never mind that y'know, property laws are not superseded by gun laws.
Because there are those of us who would prefer not to to sit in "gun free zones" and be a victim when this crap happens, but would much prefer to dine in establishments that recognize our rights and allow us to take appropriate measures to defend ourselves and our families from criminals.
That's somewhat the point Polonius was trying to make earlier... as, in this case the owner didn't want CCW holders to patron his business.
Which owner?
"The Pit" is privately owned; "Chipotle" is not.
I believe "The Pit".
I'm not in tune with what's going at Chipotle.
Chipotle, the most recent robbery in Durham committed with the same general profile as that of "The Pit" robbery, issued this statement:
We are respectfully asking that customers not bring guns into our restaurants, unless they are authorized law enforcement personnel.
Oh I see... k.
It was because of things like this happening at "Open Carry Texas" demonstrations.
Spoiler:
Now that just plain silly.
If you want to Open Carry... you just do it. Don't make it a spectacle. o.O
But of course, people picked up on the fact that it was a chain(Chipotle) that recently asked for "no guns please" and then they lumped it in with a restaurant where the actual owner(The Pit) refuses service to people carrying on the property.
Never mind that y'know, property laws are not superseded by gun laws.
Why does 'need' matter at all? No one 'needs' cars capable of 100+ MPH speeds. No one needs thousands of dollars worth of miniatures and games. No one needs a $10k watch. No one needs a 50+ inch flat screen.
Again, can someone explain to me, other then fore sport shooting, why they need those guns? Surely a handgun is enough for protection?
And owning an "AR" is something that I would do, simply because I can... do I really need a reason to own something, when there are alternatives? Do you own a mechanical pencil? Why own one of those, when a regular pencil is enough for writing things down or doing schoolwork? Why should I own an Audi, when a Ford does the same thing? Why should someone own a 12" frying pan, when a 10" frying pan works just as well?
There doesn't need to be a "reason" to own anything, provided it is legal to own in your local jurisdiction.
I never said owning. I asked why, when those would make other patrons uncomfortable, do you need those weapons in that establishment? When a hand gun is just enough to suffice for protection.
hotsauceman1 wrote: I never said owning. I asked why, when those would make other patrons uncomfortable, do you need those weapons in that establishment? When a hand gun is just enough to suffice for protection.
hotsauceman1 wrote: I never said owning. I asked why, when those would make other patrons uncomfortable, do you need those weapons in that establishment? When a hand gun is just enough to suffice for protection.
Again, can someone explain to me, other then fore sport shooting, why they need those guns? Surely a handgun is enough for protection?
Since they were clearly not 'sport shooting' at an eating establishment, your actual quote was interpreted the way it was, and answered appropriately.
This.....
But in response to your clarification... Ya don't... and I sure as gak wouldn't open carry anything larger than a pistol in a restaurant.... Especially since, it would appear that the smaller dude has what would be commonly called "little man syndrome" where if you comment on his stature, he's liable to get offended.
Good to know that, because I DO own a gun I'm a "gun-toting wackadoodle"
Well, there are only 2 camps in the argument; if you like you can mosey over to the "hippies and fools" one. Just follow the scent of patchouli/sound of hacky-sacking.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Also, with guns those big, they would be my first target if i entered anyplace attempting to rob it. Those look like they are inviting trouble
Well, the guy on the left probably needs a REALLY big caliber (I'm thinking our local Dakka Gunsmith's project .460 "elephant gun" would do nicely) to put him down
Chipotle, the most recent robbery in Durham committed with the same general profile as that of "The Pit" robbery, issued this statement:
We are respectfully asking that customers not bring guns into our restaurants, unless they are authorized law enforcement personnel.
It was because of things like this happening at "Open Carry Texas" demonstrations.
Spoiler:
Again, can someone explain to me, other then fore sport shooting, why they need those guns? Surely a handgun is enough for protection?
Ahhh... the old "need" question. That never gets old.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
hotsauceman1 wrote: Also, with guns those big, they would be my first target if i entered anyplace attempting to rob it. Those look like they are inviting trouble
Do you honestly mean to tell me if you walked into a place, and saw a bunch of guys strapping guns like that, you'd proceed to pull a gun out, just for a few hundred bucks from the register?
The very real risk of death is not worth that much.
One 'valid' reason to bring weapons like that into someplace I can think of would be you're on the way home from the range (or going to the range) and stop in for chow. I can see not wanting to leave those sitting in the back of your vehicle where they would be tempting items for theft, and they are a bit too big to lock in the glove compartment.
Not really a smart thing in my opinion (to have to stop when you are transporting anything valuable you can't secure out of sight) but if it is legal and allowed at the place you are going, I guess it is a choice you can make.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Co'tor Shas wrote: Wouldn't most armed robbers already have their gun out?
It really depends. Many times they want to do a last minute casing/security check and then reveal the weapon when they know they are in position and relatively safe. It allows them to back out gracefully if, for example, there happens to be a cop buying donuts at the counter or something.
CptJake wrote: One 'valid' reason to bring weapons like that into someplace I can think of would be you're on the way home from the range (or going to the range) and stop in for chow. I can see not wanting to leave those sitting in the back of your vehicle where they would be tempting items for theft, and they are a bit too big to lock in the glove compartment.
Not really a smart thing in my opinion (to have to stop when you are transporting anything valuable you can't secure out of sight) but if it is legal and allowed at the place you are going, I guess it is a choice you can make.
Really? My old proff who was a gun enthusuaist and a Cop said you should have those in a secure case in your trunk when not at the range or cleaning them. He said the stupidest thing to do was to take them into a crowded place.
Woodland Floppy, 400lbs plus, no socks, and a bit goofy looking. By a short, skinny guy. Floopy hat guy looks quite capable of eating all the chickens in the place
CptJake wrote: One 'valid' reason to bring weapons like that into someplace I can think of would be you're on the way home from the range (or going to the range) and stop in for chow. I can see not wanting to leave those sitting in the back of your vehicle where they would be tempting items for theft, and they are a bit too big to lock in the glove compartment.
Not really a smart thing in my opinion (to have to stop when you are transporting anything valuable you can't secure out of sight) but if it is legal and allowed at the place you are going, I guess it is a choice you can make.
Really? My old proff who was a gun enthusuaist and a Cop said you should have those in a secure case in your trunk when not at the range or cleaning them. He said the stupidest thing to do was to take them into a crowded place.
CptJake's example included the caveat that he couldn't secure the weapon out of sight... So if someone is driving a 2 seat truck and goes to the range, they don't really have the luxury of a trunk (unless they have a bed cover).... So yeah. IF you have no means of securing a firearm out of sight in your vehicle, to me, the lesser of "two evils" is to carry it into a restaurant.
In that situation, I would not be doing like the idiots in Chipotle, and have a (presumably) full magazine in the well while doing so.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Again, can someone explain to me, other then fore sport shooting, why they need those guns? Surely a handgun is enough for protection?
- hunting
- home defense (yes there are defensive gun uses where an AR15 has been used)
CptJake wrote: Why does 'need' matter at all? No one 'needs' cars capable of 100+ MPH speeds. No one needs thousands of dollars worth of miniatures and games. No one needs a $10k watch. No one needs a 50+ inch flat screen.
This is one thing that I love when it comes to the gun debate, the argument "You don't need [insert firearm]". The only needs that we have as humans are air, food, water, and shelter. Everything else is a want.
We are granted the right to bear arms. It is that simple. Need does not come into it.
hotsauceman1 wrote: I never said owning. I asked why, when those would make other patrons uncomfortable, do you need those weapons in that establishment? When a hand gun is just enough to suffice for protection.
why do people need to be gay? surely a vagina or a hand would suffice?
why do people need to be transgendered? surely their original parts will suffice?
the guns they have, AR's, are functionally IDENTICAL to every other semi auto there is...
and are far better tools for self defence then a handgun is.
hotsauceman1 wrote: I never said owning. I asked why, when those would make other patrons uncomfortable, do you need those weapons in that establishment? When a hand gun is just enough to suffice for protection.
why do people need to be gay? surely a vagina or a hand would suffice?
why do people need to be transgendered? surely their original parts will suffice?
the guns they have, AR's, are functionally IDENTICAL to every other semi auto there is...
and are far better tools for self defence then a handgun is.
There are a lot of jokes to be made about sexual frustration in gun owners based on this post.
Johnnytorrance wrote: The reason this is ironic, is that the anti gun people proclaim that these laws and rules they make. For example they feel safer about putting a sign up, telling good semeritans that have a legal right to carry concealed weapons that they aren't allowed to bring their legal firearms to their restaurant. The owner is implying in his liberal thought that, this sign will prevent gun crimes, when in fact, it advertises to criminals that the establishment is a gun free zone and most likey an easy score.
Ooor you are making gak up and the owner put up a sign to say that patrons can dine in a gun free environment. You know, without the insane belief that a sign somehow magically protects you from all harm... you know, like a gun does...
I would never blame a rape victim for being raped, but it's still probably not a good idea for a women to walk down a dark alley drunk and naked.
So... you would blame a rape victim if they did that and were subsequently raped?... so you would blame a rape victim. I see.
I would blame the rape victim for being as stupid as someone who stuffed chunks of raw meat in their pockets and strolled into a cage with freshly caught Lions for what ensued.
If you go willingly alone and vulnerable into areas where people of ill will are known to frequent, gak is gonna happen, so don't act hurt and surprised when it does.
Except that people are not lions, nor are rapes accidental. They are thinking, rational beings capable of thinking and reason, and they can realise that rape is wrong whether or not a woman is naked or "asking for it". So no, a rape victim is NEVER asking for it, no matter what he/she does, unless they literally ask for it. Supreme culpability is NEVER taken from the perpetrator, no matter what the victim did to contribute to the situation.
Perhaps you could say to the woman wandering in an alley at night "well, you shouldn't have done that..." and in hindsight, no she shouldn't have, but who decided to rape her? Who bears the fault for her rape? The rapist, of course.
Never said rape was accidental or the rapist blameless. P
hotsauceman1 wrote: I never said owning. I asked why, when those would make other patrons uncomfortable, do you need those weapons in that establishment? When a hand gun is just enough to suffice for protection.
why do people need to be gay? surely a vagina or a hand would suffice?
why do people need to be transgendered? surely their original parts will suffice?
the guns they have, AR's, are functionally IDENTICAL to every other semi auto there is...
and are far better tools for self defence then a handgun is.
There are a lot of jokes to be made about sexual frustration in gun owners based on this post.
THEN MAKE THEM! I could use a laugh! Even if its a cheap one on the ol "gun owners have small pee pee's trope" that anti gunners love to stereotype away on.
at least follow d-usa's lead above, geese.. I would have thought this was the quote to make jokes about
THEN MAKE THEM! I could use a laugh! Even if its a cheap one on the ol "gun owners have small pee pee's trope" that anti gunners love to stereotype away on.
Naw, nothing like that. Just the choice to compare wanting a specific gun to a person's preference for the gender of their partner, or even their own gender, is interesting. It was clearly meant to trivialize those, by comparing wanting a toy to a sexual orientation, but in many ways it speaks instead to the profound longing and unhappiness rooted in so many gun enthusiasts.
I'm not saying they're all gay (though I'm sure there's more than zero deeply closeted gun guys), but rather I wonder what sublimated fears or desires are expressed through the gun?
Polonius wrote: but rather I wonder what sublimated fears or desires are expressed through the gun?
Or more likely they just like a sweet toy which also doubles as home defense.
I mean, if your gonna protect yourself, might as well do it in style. Gotta have swag man Don't want to just shoot that burglar, you want him to piss his pants in fear when he stares down that jet black barrel you've got leveled at him or hears you rack your 12 guage.
Polonius wrote: but rather I wonder what sublimated fears or desires are expressed through the gun?
Or more likely they just like a sweet toy which also doubles as home defense.
I mean, if your gonna protect yourself, might as well do it in style. Gotta have swag man Don't want to just shoot that burglar, you want him to piss his pants in fear when he stares down that jet black barrel you've got leveled at him or hears you rack your 12 guage.
Oh, I'm a firm believer in the "barbie's dreamhouse" theory of gun ownership. Boys and their toys, and all that. My buddy has six guns (but a barely running car) for the same reason I have well over 200 paints: because they are cool.
Still, I don't feel passionate about my paints, or openly carry them, or anything like that. I guess it's not the desire, but the profound level of desire. Gun guys feel about guns how teenage characters on CW dramas feel about each other.
Polonius wrote: Still, I don't feel passionate about my paints, or openly carry them, or anything like that. I guess it's not the desire, but the profound level of desire. Gun guys feel about guns how teenage characters on CW dramas feel about each other.
I wish some people had this same idea when it came to their political opinions. The type of guy that would carry an AR in to a restaurant just to make a statement is the same kind of person that will lock themselves naked in a cage on the sidewalk for PETA.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Again, can someone explain to me, other then fore sport shooting, why they need those guns? Surely a handgun is enough for protection?
Because they have very small penises.
I'm sure other people own very similar guns for entirely sound reasons, but for those two guys need those guns to compensate for small penises.its definitely compensation.
My first comment made it look like I only have two schools of thoughts: hippies or if you own a gun, you're a psycho. That wasn't the message I intended to convey. Apologies. I still think the signs are an invite to rob. And not much is gonna change my mind on that.
THEN MAKE THEM! I could use a laugh! Even if its a cheap one on the ol "gun owners have small pee pee's trope" that anti gunners love to stereotype away on.
Naw, nothing like that. Just the choice to compare wanting a specific gun to a person's preference for the gender of their partner, or even their own gender, is interesting. It was clearly meant to trivialize those, by comparing wanting a toy to a sexual orientation, but in many ways it speaks instead to the profound longing and unhappiness rooted in so many gun enthusiasts.
I'm not saying they're all gay (though I'm sure there's more than zero deeply closeted gun guys), but rather I wonder what sublimated fears or desires are expressed through the gun?
Tell that to my cross dressing/trans range buddy...
he thought it was hilarious.
FYI, it was not meant to "clearly trivialize" anything... people can think they are whatever they want, believe they are a man/woman, believe in god, simply because they feel like it, no proof required, nor proof of "need".
also, that you attach so many emotional ... irregularities/conditions to people simply because of a tool they own, is a stereotype, and a false one. Most gun owners I know are successful happy people, who at the very least, tolerate every kind of person. That you paint "so many" as having huge holes in their lives that need a gun to fill them is just as much a wrong stereotype as sports cars owners having small pee pees, or gay people being effeminate perverts.
Anyways, lets just give each other the benifit of the doubt, IM sure you dont actually believe the majority of gun owners are actually the stereotypes you seem to be saying they are, and Im not trivializing peoples sexuality.
By comparing the two, I am in fact, saying its just as important to be able to express/be/ect whatever sexual identity you want, despite some people finding it distasteful or not understanding why, as it is to be able to own whatever firearms despite the same.
FYI, it was not meant to "clearly trivialize" anything... people can think they are whatever they want, believe they are a man/woman, believe in god, simply because they feel like it, no proof required, nor proof of "need".
Sure, if they're sitting alone in a room. But once said person starts interacting with others in a manner which involves their belief reasons, and proof of those reasons, are required.
also, that you attach so many emotional ... irregularities/conditions to people simply because of a tool they own, is a stereotype, and a false one. Most gun owners I know are successful happy people, who at the very least, tolerate every kind of person. That you paint "so many" as having huge holes in their lives that need a gun to fill them is just as much a wrong stereotype as sports cars owners having small pee pees, or gay people being effeminate perverts.
Just wanted to repost this, for anyone who may have missed it.
Yes. Whembly is being pushed into the theory of justification.
No, I was asking for your source. Since it's Editor in Chief came there from Time Magazine, and the only real claims of bias I've seen from them is that they lean only slightly left, I'm curious how you'd equate them to rabidly biased sources such as Media Matters and The Blaze.
No, I was asking for your source. Since it's Editor in Chief came there from Time Magazine, and the only real claims of bias I've seen from them is that they lean only slightly left, I'm curious how you'd equate them to rabidly biased sources such as Media Matters and The Blaze.
FYI, it was not meant to "clearly trivialize" anything... people can think they are whatever they want, believe they are a man/woman, believe in god, simply because they feel like it, no proof required, nor proof of "need".
Sure, if they're sitting alone in a room. But once said person starts interacting with others in a manner which involves their belief reasons, and proof of those reasons, are required.
So, you are asking all trans people to prove that they are in fact, the gender they claim to be, as opposed to the gender their genes/naughty bits say they are?
So more of "they are crazy, and their identities are just insanities" then.
Same thing can be applied to god, or the lack of god, have fun presenting me with proof of either....
easysauce wrote: Most gun owners I know are successful happy people, who at the very least, tolerate every kind of person.
That's been my experience in real life as well. On every range I have ever been on, generally, there has been an air of friendliness and camaraderie. Unfortunately, there is a very vocal cadre of gun owners on them there interwebs that really, really warp that template. This is the general, public facing view of gun culture the average non-gun owner is likely to encounter, probably.
I love guns, I like shooting, but I am really turned off by gun culture. I wish it was possible to divorce the shooting hobby from the, in my opinion, fairly extreme political views that seem inextricably entwined with them.
H.B.M.C. wrote: The fact that a store even has to put up a sign saying "No guns!" speaks to a far more ingrained problem.
You spelled imagined wrong.
Yeah, seriously...
I think HBMC had a reasonable supposition, truthfully. I mean, that sign got there for a reason. I know what assuming makes me, but I have to presume there was some kind of incident(s) that led to it going up, and that incident was not an armed robbery, as no reasonable person would expect such a sign to fix that issue....
So, you are asking all trans people to prove that they are in fact, the gender they claim to be, as opposed to the gender their genes/naughty bits say they are?
No? Sex and gender are different things, and my comment indicates nothing to the contrary. A person can provide reasons for believing they are a woman despite having a penis, or vice versa; but if they cannot do so most people would say they are (understandably) confused and need to do more thinking.
Now that just plain silly. 
