Cowardly Gun Nuts

Post Reply New Topic

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i5pJpWZzINc[/youtube]

For Those Who Didn't Watch the Video: A store isn't letting people bring guns into the store and gun nuts are saying that the store embodies everything wrong with America.

If you need a gun with you to feel safe when you are in a store then you are a coward.

Tell that to the survivors of VT....or any other "gun free zone" that became a killing ground because none of the victims could defend themselves.

Some banks announce this benevolent policy -

On pain of expulsion from the bank, customers are required before entering the premises to remove hoods, dark glasses, and face obscurig masks or scarves.

Cold midwinter day? Tough.

My papa with light sensitive eyes or that blind guy? Tough.

You need a respirator or an airfiltering mask because of the epidemic? Tough.

Batman will have to keep his money in the safe.

The reason:

"Bank robbers like to disguise themselves so as not to be caught"

If sunglasses are illegal, only criminals will have sunglasses.

I have a CCW permit for a good reason sincer C-Bus is one of the worst in regards to time. I some lowlife try to break into my house, I damn sure going to give the intruder a lesson in the 2nd admendment. Same goes if one tries to rob me.

Overreacting maybe, but "cowardly" is stretching a bit far. I might even push back that relying on other people to do the dirty work of keeping your person safe, i.e. relying on the police, is the real cowardly option, but I'm not interested in pursuing that argument. For me, such policies are at most an inconvenience because I carry a gun whenever I go out and it isn't always possible or responsible to leave it in the car. For the most part, if a no guns allowed sign isn't backed up with a metal detector, I simply ignore it. I carry concealed, and even if through some fluke occurrence my pistol were to become exposed the most that could happen would be the store owner asking me to leave, which is a risk I can live with. A business owner is of course within his rights to forbid guns on his property, and gun owners are within theirs to deride said foolish policy and take their business elsewhere if it's that important to them. Or they can do like I do and carry discreetly while cultivating a distinct ignorance of local signage. "Oh, that sign? I didn't see it there..."

Here's a question I'd like to pose to those conservatives on this thread-
As I recall, that flaming idiot Rand Paul says he opposes the aspect of the Civil Rights Act that forced privately owned businesses to serve black customers. In that same vein of reasoning, shouldn't private business, such a this particular store, have the right to turn away armed customers?

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

Sure they do, but if they get to turn away people who carry, I want the right to smoke in my own business back. If you really want to carry the analogy to the civil rights act a step further, a discrete carrier such as myself who isn't noticed to be carrying might be considered analogous to a light skinned person "passing" in an otherwise segregated establishment. Like I said before, the worst that can happen is that I'm asked to leave, and if a businessman wants to turn away money, far be it from me to stop them. Incidentally, I've never been asked to leave an establishment, even when I have been open carrying. I honestly don't think most people even notice, especially if you maintain eye contact.

Cowardly?

No; that's utter nonesense.

I agree that the it's the right of the business owner to disallow guns to be carried in his store.
However, displaying a sign banning guns is an open invitation to would be armed robbers looking for a quick score since that location is now a soft target.

How someone is a coward for not wanting to be a soft target themselves is beyond me but I'm getting used to the cluelessness that runs rampant on this forum.......

By that same logic I'm a coward for wearing my seatbelts on the road or having a fire extinguisher in the house.

On one hand it'd be really unusual to hear on the news about a doll store getting robbed but, on the other, if a parent is armed it means they're inconvenienced to either put the gun back in the car (possibly separate the gun from the ammo), stay outside, or go home to bring their daughter back later. If its an area of the US where its customary to carry and not be inconvenienced that's probably what its about, not so much the rationalizations that were being thrown out here.

As for most gun owners in major urban/suburban areas, its really nonevent. I guess it just depends what you're used to right?

The store is private property.

The gun nuts who think they are entitled to be able to bring their guns to other people's property represent what's currently wrong with America.

Which would a criminal rather stage a hold up in?

1. A business where any or all customers, employees, etc. might be packing a loaded firearm and know how to use it.

2. A business where no one is armed with a firearm.


Unless the criminal has a serious deathwish they would opt for choice number 2.

How is that relevant? The store owner decides who enters with guns to his property. Not Inuyasha, no matter how safer Inuyasha believes he will be, it is not his property, he does not decide about that.

Next time you bash Obama for being a commie I'll keep in mind how it turns out you don't respect private property since you think you can decided better what to do with it.

And why do you assume that just because the store owner does not let people enter with guns it doesn't mean (s)he will have a gun ready him/herself in case of a robbery attempt?

Depending on the state, a private residence is private property and a store is a "common area" open to the public. Depending on how a state's laws are written, someone legally carrying a gun may be entitled to carry it into just about anywhere.

Either way, if you put a "no guns" sign up on the door of your place of bushiness and end up being the victim of an armed robbery I'm not going to have much sympathy.
It's really no different than hanging a "kick me" sign on your back.

Vex is actually right on this one, it doesn't matter that the policy is stupid and may make the store more attractive to robbery, it's still private property and the owner gets to make the rules. Now if you want to make an argument about making the owner of an establishment with such a policy liable for injury caused in the commission of a violent crime where self defense was prevented by said policy, then we can talk. Same goes for if his insurer wants to charge him a greater rate for robbery protection due to his policy increasing the risk. He gets to make the call, and he gets to live with the consequences either way.