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.

 Ouze wrote:

 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.

http://www.barrypopik.com/index.php/new_york_city/entry/politics_stops_at_the_waters_edge/

 CptJake wrote:

 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

 CptJake wrote:
To be fair, the perps in this case seem to have been open carry types.

I find that crowd to nearly always be the textbook example of "Just because you can do something, doesn't mean that you should".

 Polonius wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Polonius wrote:

 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?

 Polonius wrote:
http://www.barrypopik.com/index.php/new_york_city/entry/politics_stops_at_the_waters_edge/

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.

 Polonius wrote:

 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...

 Desubot wrote:
You forgot the 30 magazine clip.

You can only fit 30 magazines in there if you load them just right.

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:

 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.

 MWHistorian wrote:

 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.

 Orlanth wrote:


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.

By your logic we should take the guns away from cops too. They tend to shoot the wrong person quite a bit while trying to shoot a bad guy. http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/LAPD-Rogue-Ex-Officer-Christopher-Dorner-Deadly-Force-Newspaper-Women-Delivery-Torrance-Shooting-243564431.html Wouldn't a bad guy getting away be better than people getting shot?

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?

 CptJake wrote:

 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.

 CptJake wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:


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.

By your logic we should take the guns away from cops too. They tend to shoot the wrong person quite a bit while trying to shoot a bad guy. http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/LAPD-Rogue-Ex-Officer-Christopher-Dorner-Deadly-Force-Newspaper-Women-Delivery-Torrance-Shooting-243564431.html Wouldn't a bad guy getting away be better than people getting shot?

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?

They can't even hit a 250 pound man
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/05/nyregion/unarmed-man-is-charged-with-wounding-bystanders-shot-by-police-near-times-square.html?_r=0

And here's 9 more people wounded by police going after one man (Although 6 of those are from bullet shrapnel, 3 hit with bullets)
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/08/27/us-usa-shooting-empirestate-police-idUSBRE87Q04X20120827

There's no reason to trust a cop to handle a firearm any better than a CC owner, even if one has required training time.

On the subject of Cops, yeah......

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:

 CptJake wrote:

 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

 Frazzled wrote:

nkelsch wrote:
I have been to that restaurant.

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.

Edit:
Here is the article:
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/handcuffed-teen-shot-custody-police-article-1.1576324

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'.

http://www.thepit-raleigh.com/

This is a local town upper/lower class issue with a slight tinge of racism issue, has nothing to do with guns or the gun debate.

A barbeque joint is a hipster joint there? I must say, I'm intrigued.

You ight be a redneck when the hipsters go to barbeque joints...

Hipster are fun. When they apply "book" knowledge to real life experience

Like Muslim women are allowed to wear Burqa here in the US. They mixed up France and USA

 Frazzled wrote:
A barbeque joint is a hipster joint there? I must say, I'm intrigued.

You ight be a redneck when the hipsters go to barbeque joints...

The street is a bunch of abandon auto repair garages...

This is the abandon gas station:
http://geerstreetgarden.com/

This is the abandon auto bays:
http://www.fullsteam.ag/

This is the abandon tire place:
http://motorcomusic.com/

This is the coffee shop:
http://www.cocoacinnamon.com/

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.

 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.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nkelsch wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
A barbeque joint is a hipster joint there? I must say, I'm intrigued.

You ight be a redneck when the hipsters go to barbeque joints...

The street is a bunch of abandon auto repair garages...

This is the abandon gas station:
http://geerstreetgarden.com/

This is the abandon auto bays:
http://www.fullsteam.ag/

This is the abandon tire place:
http://motorcomusic.com/

This is the coffee shop:
http://www.cocoacinnamon.com/

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.

nkelsch wrote:
I have been to that restaurant.

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.

Edit:
Here is the article:
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/handcuffed-teen-shot-custody-police-article-1.1576324

They almost had 'burn down the city' riots over this.

North Carolina has hipsters?

Can you take all of new york's hipsters?

I don't fahkin want 'em.

nkelsch wrote:



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.

Pointing out examples of racial inequality and conflict isn't a racist statement, but nice try though.

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


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Slarg232 wrote:
You know how we solve this problem?

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


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Slarg232 wrote:
You know how we solve this problem?

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.

Here's an argument against it by Spike Lee:

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2014/02/spike-lee-amazing-rant-against-gentrification.html

This is sounding more and more like a Bundy variation to me.

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.