Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 whembly wrote:

 Alex C wrote:

 sing your life wrote:
Why would you want bring guns into a restaurant?

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.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Alex C wrote:

 sing your life wrote:
Why would you want bring guns into a restaurant?

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.

Relapse wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:

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.

 whembly wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Alex C wrote:

 sing your life wrote:
Why would you want bring guns into a restaurant?

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.


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.

 Polonius wrote:
I wouldn't install a commerical grade deep fat frier in my home either.

I would.

 Kanluwen wrote:

Just stepping away from the front for a quick chicken burrito, are we?

 Kanluwen wrote:

Spoiler:

 whembly wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Alex C wrote:

 sing your life wrote:
Why would you want bring guns into a restaurant?

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.

Gotcha.

 Kanluwen wrote:

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?

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.

 timetowaste85 wrote:
I don't own a gun, so I'm not a gun-toting wackadoodle.

Good to know that, because I DO own a gun I'm a "gun-toting wackadoodle"

 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?

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.

No, what you said was:

 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?

Since they were clearly not 'sport shooting' at an eating establishment, your actual quote was interpreted the way it was, and answered appropriately.

 CptJake wrote:

 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.

No, what you said was:

 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?

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.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 timetowaste85 wrote:
I don't own a gun, so I'm not a gun-toting wackadoodle.

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.

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

 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

One suspects that the gravitational pull exerted by the larger fellow could quite possibly make a him a literal bullet magnet.


I guess these two are the modern equivalent of the " Don't worry I'm from the internet" guy(s)... ?

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

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.

Mt in a maybe not in a resturant, but bank or other big place? Maybe.

Wouldn't most armed robbers already have their gun out?

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

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

 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.

I see bullet resistant windows being put up Subway style

edit
spilling

 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.

Unless you are born a gun, this might be the most out there comparison in this thread yet.

 d-usa wrote:
Unless you are born a gun, this might be the most out there comparison in this thread yet.

Im a gun, but I was born in the body of a sexy sexy man.

Just counting down the days till surgery can rectify Zod's mistake.

 easysauce wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Unless you are born a gun, this might be the most out there comparison in this thread yet.

Im a gun, but I was born in the body of a sexy sexy man.

Can't disprove it