Reasonable Gun Policy in Businesses

[TNT]

I'm aware that there is a gun control thread, but I think this specific topic can be on its own, because I'm looking for different opinions on how gun policies should be implemented in businesses. If it needs to be in a gun control thread, then lock away!

With that out of the way, a friend of mine on Facebook shared a petition that wants Target to "create gun sense policies to protect customers in its stores". In this link, they state that Target has little to no gun policies, which means that people can carry their weapons inside unconcealed. I think this would make an interesting discussion on what policies you would adopt regarding guns in your business (rather you own a business or not).

https://act.everytown.org/act/target-petition?source=fbns_share&utm_source=fb_n_&utm_medium=_s&utm_campaign=share

If I was the CEO of Target, I wouldn't allow unconcealed weapons in any of my stores. Quite frankly, this has nothing to do with my stance on gun safety, but on how it effects potential customers from entering the store. Since making a profit is one of the biggest, if not the biggest goal in any business, guns being carried by random civilians could make other customers uncomfortable. Because of this, they will most likely choose to shop elsewhere, which means a lost of potential profit. How much of a lost profit is uncertain, but I wouldn't be surprised that if Target openly allows open carry of rifles and shotguns, a good percentage of people wouldn't shop there anymore (that of course depends on the State, and what gun laws are in affect as well).

However, if licensed, gun owners may carry their concealed handgun inside the store. This would satisfy both sides of the party. The gun owners can have their gun inside a store, while those who are uncomfortable with guns wouldn't know they are carrying one. In the end, there's more money.

How would you implement gun policy in your business?

[Korriken]

Criminals don't follow gun laws. placing up a big sign that says, "No guns allowed in here!" is basically a sign that read, "We're defenseless! Kill us!"

[TNT]

At 7/2/14 12:50 AM, Korriken wrote: Criminals don't follow gun laws. placing up a big sign that says, "No guns allowed in here!" is basically a sign that read, "We're defenseless! Kill us!"

So you'll allow customers to carry their guns unconcealed, concealed, or both? I'm asking this because in Texas, some businesses have signs that say "the unlicensed possession of a weapon on these premises is a felony..." We don't have an open carry license as far as I know, but that message obviously does not restrict conceal carry holders.

[Tony-DarkGrave]

At 7/2/14 12:38 AM, TNT wrote: With that out of the way, a friend of mine on Facebook shared a petition that wants Target to "create gun sense policies to protect customers in its stores". In this link, they state that Target has little to no gun policies, which means that people can carry their weapons inside unconcealed.

because they don't give a damn and dont want to be part of this conversation.

https://act.everytown.org/act/target-petition?source=fbns_share&utm_source=fb_n_&utm_medium=_s&utm_campaign=share

and add a link to a petition for gun control yeah I see no potential for a bias.

If I was the CEO of Target, I wouldn't allow unconcealed weapons in any of my stores. Quite frankly, this has nothing to do with my stance on gun safety, but on how it effects potential customers from entering the store. Since making a profit is one of the biggest, if not the biggest goal in any business, guns being carried by random civilians could make other customers uncomfortable. Because of this, they will most likely choose to shop elsewhere, which means a lost of potential profit.

lol these are just a bunch of butthurt mid twenty to middle aged woman. a fraction of a fraction of the demographic that Target target (lol pun!) and won't even hurt their bottom line financially go to walmart? they allow open and concealed and many other stores allow concealed because their licesnesd.
1

However, if licensed, gun owners may carry their concealed handgun inside the store. This would satisfy both sides of the party. The gun owners can have their gun inside a store, while those who are uncomfortable with guns wouldn't know they are carrying one. In the end, there's more money.

no it wouldn't the Cunts Demand Action want retarded reform that only inhibit or make it difficult for law abiding citizens which has little to no effect on crime. dont believe me? go to the east side of LA or southside of Chicago. and the Gun rights wont let that happen because it violates court rulings and the 2A.

How would you implement gun policy in your business?

follow state laws and adopt the policy to those if there's no open carry in that state no open carry.

this restaurant made its self "gunfree" and got robbed. same thing with this Jack in the Boxsince it declared itself Gun Free got robbed 3 times in less than 2 weeks. all they do is say COME ROB ME! at least if you allow concealed you keep the idiot criminals guessing!

[TNT]

At 7/2/14 02:13 AM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote:

lol these are just a bunch of butthurt mid twenty to middle aged woman. a fraction of a fraction of the demographic that Target target (lol pun!) and won't even hurt their bottom line financially go to walmart? they allow open and concealed and many other stores allow concealed because their licesnesd.

Not many people carry their guns unconcealed in those stores though, or at least I haven't seen one person carry a gun(s) inside a Target or Walmart to this day. And I think you're underestimating the number of people sensitive to guns; some more sensitive than others. Maybe not so much in Texas and other red States, but get enough pro-gun people motivated to carry their guns openly inside a Target, I'm sure it will stir away some business.

no it wouldn't the Cunts Demand Action want retarded reform that only inhibit or make it difficult for law abiding citizens which has little to no effect on crime. dont believe me? go to the east side of LA or southside of Chicago. and the Gun rights wont let that happen because it violates court rulings and the 2A.

Well you can't please everyone. It seems like the best scenario for business in the long run though.

follow state laws and adopt the policy to those if there's no open carry in that state no open carry.

this restaurant made its self "gunfree" and got robbed. same thing with this Jack in the Boxsince it declared itself Gun Free got robbed 3 times in less than 2 weeks. all they do is say COME ROB ME! at least if you allow concealed you keep the idiot criminals guessing!

I don't disagree that announcing a gun free zone doesn't deter gun wielding criminals.

[Tony-DarkGrave]

At 7/2/14 02:26 AM, TNT wrote: Not many people carry their guns unconcealed in those stores though, or at least I haven't seen one person carry a gun(s) inside a Target or Walmart to this day. And I think you're underestimating the number of people sensitive to guns; some more sensitive than others. Maybe not so much in Texas and other red States, but get enough pro-gun people motivated to carry their guns openly inside a Target, I'm sure it will stir away some business.

because alot of states don't allow open/unconcealed carry most do if your out in public but thats mostly pertains to handguns states like Texas, Idaho and Kentucky allow that. here in Minnesota/North Dakota (live in a border cities) its wierd in Minnesota to open carry you have to get concealed carry and in North Dakota the same, and these are heavy hunting states we're talking I see open/concealed kinda in between (like a detective in law n order with a jacket concealing)

Well you can't please everyone. It seems like the best scenario for business in the long run though.

lol what? some butthurt middle aged houswives swearing off Target? please like thats going to hurt Target in the slightest and it will probably increase business because all of a sudden it got popular to the 2A people and the NRA.

I don't disagree that announcing a gun free zone doesn't deter gun wielding criminals.

good you aren't one of thosefeel good idiots. otherwise I would have to go on a looooong rant.

[TNT]

At 7/2/14 02:35 AM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote:

because alot of states don't allow open/unconcealed carry most do if your out in public but thats mostly pertains to handguns states like Texas, Idaho and Kentucky allow that. here in Minnesota/North Dakota (live in a border cities) its wierd in Minnesota to open carry you have to get concealed carry and in North Dakota the same, and these are heavy hunting states we're talking I see open/concealed kinda in between (like a detective in law n order with a jacket concealing)

Ok. Then lets strictly speak for those States that do allow open carry. Or we could be hypothetical and say that "all states allow open carry of weapons, and it's up to private owners to dictate what people can and can't do with guns on their premises".

lol what? some butthurt middle aged houswives swearing off Target? please like thats going to hurt Target in the slightest and it will probably increase business because all of a sudden it got popular to the 2A people and the NRA.

Back in 2009 I think, I attended a Hunting and Gun Safety Course to get a special permit that allows me to hunt without adult supervision (I was 17 at the time). I recall something where about 10% of people support hunting, 10% who doesn't, and the other 80% simply doesn't care. I'm willing to bet that the same 10% that doesn't support hunting are also for gun control, if not banning guns outright. 10% might not seem like a big deal, but for businesses like Target, we're talking about potentially millions of dollars in losses to the competition. You did say that there could be an increase in sales due to gun supporters and NRA members, but I think that's only short term at best. In the long run, I think it will still be a loss in profit.

good you aren't one of thosefeel good idiots. otherwise I would have to go on a looooong rant.

Why thank you then. :)

[Camarohusky]

This is a pretty good idea, but I would still ban all guns seen by the store.

Guns have no place in a store (save for a store that sells them, and then the only ones that do are either on the shelf or on the way from the shelf to checkout). They drive away business, if they do not expressly drive away business they create an uncomfortable atmoshpere which has a downward effect on how much people will buy at any given trip.

Even if a store was better protected from robbery with civilian guns present, the cost benefit weight heavily against allowing them. In a robbery you may lose a few thousand dollars of merchandise with a possible x2 of damage. On the worst case scenario, it may reach 6 figures. 1 person gets injured because you allowed guns in your store and you'll be easily liable for a mutli-million dollar lawsuit. It would take a significant amount of robberies to equal the cost of one bothced incident involving a civilian with a gun. Add that the the downward pressure open cary guns put on number of shopping trips and the amount purchased during those tirps and you have a very expensive deterrent for a quite rare and relatively inexpensive nuisance.

As far as it comes to feeling protected, y'all are pretty trusting of strangers for being entirely xenophobic of strangers. Who's to tell you whether the man carrying that AR15 in Target is a good guy or is merely loitering around for the best time to shoot up the place? Are you going to walk up to the guy with a gun (who already has strong personal issues, hence the dire need to bring a gun into a store) and ask him if he's a criminal or not? Aside from asking an off kilter person such a question, how are you to believe anything that person says? Wouldn't it be pretty easy for a criminal to lie and say he's the good guy, then shoot your child as you walk away?

Perhaps the massive quagmire that is involved would make a company simply decide to put their foot down and keep all the issues outside of their property.

[TNT]

At 7/2/14 12:46 PM, Camarohusky wrote: This is a pretty good idea, but I would still ban all guns seen by the store.

Ok. Let's hear them!

Guns have no place in a store (save for a store that sells them, and then the only ones that do are either on the shelf or on the way from the shelf to checkout). They drive away business, if they do not expressly drive away business they create an uncomfortable atmoshpere which has a downward effect on how much people will buy at any given trip.

We seem to be on the same level regarding open carrying of guns.

Even if a store was better protected from robbery with civilian guns present, the cost benefit weight heavily against allowing them. In a robbery you may lose a few thousand dollars of merchandise with a possible x2 of damage. On the worst case scenario, it may reach 6 figures. 1 person gets injured because you allowed guns in your store and you'll be easily liable for a mutli-million dollar lawsuit. It would take a significant amount of robberies to equal the cost of one bothced incident involving a civilian with a gun. Add that the the downward pressure open cary guns put on number of shopping trips and the amount purchased during those tirps and you have a very expensive deterrent for a quite rare and relatively inexpensive nuisance.

We would have to compare the number of accidental shootings in a public place to robberies inside a store like Target. The lawsuit would be more expensive than a robbery inside a store, so that's a fair point. But what we should factor in is how common robberies are in these chains compared to accidental shootings in general. In a small business, it would be a major blow for someone to accidentally discharge their weapon and potentially kill someone inside. They would go out of business. However, for big chains like Target, they probably get a robbery quite a few times a year in different locations across the US; more than an accidental shooting at their business. That in combination may equal, or exceed the amount a lawsuit would entail unlike one Target Store down the street from where I live for instance.

This is only mere speculation though. I would have to look into the number of robberies and amount lost for Target and other stores.

As far as it comes to feeling protected, y'all are pretty trusting of strangers for being entirely xenophobic of strangers. Who's to tell you whether the man carrying that AR15 in Target is a good guy or is merely loitering around for the best time to shoot up the place? Are you going to walk up to the guy with a gun (who already has strong personal issues, hence the dire need to bring a gun into a store) and ask him if he's a criminal or not? Aside from asking an off kilter person such a question, how are you to believe anything that person says? Wouldn't it be pretty easy for a criminal to lie and say he's the good guy, then shoot your child as you walk away?

I would say that he's the stupidest criminal on the planet, or he's mentally unstable (for lack of a better word). Cameras everywhere will know exactly what he looks like, and what gun he is carrying. Had he decided to commit a mass shooting exposed like that, he can be easily identifiable and charged with very little effort. Most, if not all criminals would have their weapons concealed, or they would barged to the nearest person immediately for money or to hold him/her hostage.

But as I said before, for business reasons, I wouldn't allow anyone to open carry a weapon inside unless they happen to be law enforcement.

Perhaps the massive quagmire that is involved would make a company simply decide to put their foot down and keep all the issues outside of their property.

Thanks for posting a different take on how businesses should imply gun policies.

[LazyDrunk]

At 7/2/14 12:46 PM, Camarohusky wrote: This is a pretty good idea, but I would still ban all guns seen by the store.

Guns have no place in a store (save for a store that sells them, and then the only ones that do are either on the shelf or on the way from the shelf to checkout).

Guns belong anywhere someone may need them, day cares and grocery stores included :)

Guns also need to be respected and understood for what they are; implement tools as force equalizers. Given the existence and continued need for such an implement, I believe my opinion is vastly superior to yours.

They drive away business, if they do not expressly drive away business they create an uncomfortable atmoshpere which has a downward effect on how much people will buy at any given trip.

Source(s)?

Even if a store was better protected from robbery with civilian guns present, the cost benefit weight heavily against allowing them. In a robbery you may lose a few thousand dollars of merchandise with a possible x2 of damage. On the worst case scenario, it may reach 6 figures. 1 person gets injured because you allowed guns in your store and you'll be easily liable for a mutli-million dollar lawsuit.

Nice argument. Can you name its fallacy?

As far as it comes to feeling protected, y'all are pretty trusting of strangers for being entirely xenophobic of strangers.

It isn't so much as feeling protected, but feeling empowered to control your own fate in a circumstance where you otherwise would be at the mercy of someone who really doesn't give a hoot about you, your baby or your monthly medical bills.

Perhaps the massive quagmire that is involved would make a company simply decide to put their foot down and keep all the issues outside of their property.

What do you mean?

[Warforger]

At 7/2/14 09:38 PM, LazyDrunk wrote: Guns belong anywhere someone may need them, day cares and grocery stores included :)

Guns also need to be respected and understood for what they are; implement tools as force equalizers. Given the existence and continued need for such an implement, I believe my opinion is vastly superior to yours.

Hey guys be honest, when you clicked on this thread, did the average one of you gun rights posters think that it was about banning guns entirely in stores? Because that's the way you guys are posting. This thread is about unconcealed weapons vs. concealed weapons. So yes you just have to have common sense to see why having unconcealed weapons can drive away business. It has nothing to do with banning guns in stores.

[TNT]

At 7/2/14 11:40 PM, Warforger wrote:

Hey guys be honest, when you clicked on this thread, did the average one of you gun rights posters think that it was about banning guns entirely in stores? Because that's the way you guys are posting. This thread is about unconcealed weapons vs. concealed weapons. So yes you just have to have common sense to see why having unconcealed weapons can drive away business. It has nothing to do with banning guns in stores.

Actually, banning guns outright is an option a store owner can make. I've only addressed that I would allow concealed carry inside as opposed of open carry. Sorry if I wasn't clear in the beginning.

[Warforger]

At 7/2/14 11:57 PM, TNT wrote: Actually, banning guns outright is an option a store owner can make. I've only addressed that I would allow concealed carry inside as opposed of open carry. Sorry if I wasn't clear in the beginning.

My point was more or less the knee jerk reaction the gun rights people have when any regulation of guns is discussed. LazyDrunk didn't read the thread and thought we were discussing banning guns in stores, which we were not. Open carry is a whole other issue which has brought together the most insane elements of the gun rights side to the point where they're bullying people who don't agree (and these people are carrying around weapons.....) and have brought down the NRA's firm disapproval upon them. Open carry is just stupid.

[wildfire4461]

Well it looks like it worked:
http://www.cbsnews.com/videos/moneywatch-june-jobs-report-target-asks-customers-to-leave-guns-at-home/

But... It's not an actual ban. They're just asking people to not bring them.

And proof anti gun soccer cunts are behind the petition: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/should-target-allow-large-guns-in-its-stores/

[TNT]

At 7/3/14 09:49 AM, wildfire4461 wrote: Well it looks like it worked:
http://www.cbsnews.com/videos/moneywatch-june-jobs-report-target-asks-customers-to-leave-guns-at-home/

But... It's not an actual ban. They're just asking people to not bring them.

And proof anti gun soccer cunts are behind the petition: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/should-target-allow-large-guns-in-its-stores/

There's now a counter-petition to have Target take back what they said: http://nagr.org/2014/Stop_Target_anti-gunners.aspx?pid=fb1a

I wouldn't be surprised if the NRA gets involved as well.

[Camarohusky]

Here's a quetion: why should Target allow guns in their stores?

[TheKlown]

These liberals are ruining our stores. Out of protest for Target being a liberal cock sucking parasite of a store, I think we should stop buying from them. People should have the right to defend themselves.

[TNT]

At 7/3/14 06:06 PM, Camarohusky wrote: Here's a quetion: why should Target allow guns in their stores?

I feel that people should have a right to carry a gun for self defense in the worst case scenario. It doesn't mean that anytime a robbery were to happen that they immediately pull out their pistol and become vigilantes, but if I were to be stuck in a corner with no other option to escape from some maniac with a deadly weapon, then you bet I would pull out my concealed weapon if I feel that my life is in danger. But I know, and every other gun owner should know that they should only use it for that reason alone. The absolute last resort.

I just don't think Target, or any other business (with special exceptions, like bars where 51% or more of their sales are alcohol related) should be able to ban reasonable personal protection.

At 7/3/14 08:39 PM, TheKlown wrote: These liberals are ruining our stores. Out of protest for Target being a liberal cock sucking parasite of a store, I think we should stop buying from them. People should have the right to defend themselves.

They haven't banned open carry or concealed carry at their stores yet...

[LazyDrunk]

At 7/3/14 06:06 PM, Camarohusky wrote: Here's a quetion: why should Target allow guns in their stores?

Some people find comfort in patronizing businesses that actively support firearms rights. Much like how businesses may proclaim a support stance on homosexual marriage rights, endorsing a pro-carry model attracts a segment of the population who feels that this particular right is important enough to support with shopping $$.

People could be turned off by such a position, but such is the scenario when taking a position on anything.

At 7/2/14 11:40 PM, Warforger wrote:

At 7/2/14 09:38 PM, LazyDrunk wrote: Guns belong anywhere someone may need them, day cares and grocery stores included :)

Guns also need to be respected and understood for what they are; implement tools as force equalizers. Given the existence and continued need for such an implement, I believe my opinion is vastly superior to yours.

Hey guys be honest, when you clicked on this thread, did the average one of you gun rights posters think that it was about banning guns entirely in stores?

That's an aspect of gun policy that a reasonable person can posit as a solution to the problem of potentially lethal confrontation in your place of business.

If you think for a minute we're being dishonest, it's because of something you lack, not us.

Because that's the way you guys are posting. This thread is about unconcealed weapons vs. concealed weapons. So yes you just have to have common sense to see why having unconcealed weapons can drive away business. It has nothing to do with banning guns in stores.

Please don't be as ignorant as you usually are. I usually don't respond to you because you usually aren't worth responding to. I can be the same way. You are not alone. It is going to be O.K.

At 7/3/14 06:27 AM, Warforger wrote: My point was more or less the knee jerk reaction the gun rights people have when any regulation of guns is discussed. LazyDrunk didn't read the thread and thought we were discussing banning guns in stores, which we were not.

You don't have the slightest inkling to what I was thinking, but Camaro does if you'd like to PM him for further clarification.

I won't defend my post against your lip-flapping blather; it stands on it's own without your snivelling drivel mucking it up.

Open carry is a whole other issue which has brought together the most insane elements of the gun rights side to the point where they're bullying people who don't agree (and these people are carrying around weapons.....) and have brought down the NRA's firm disapproval upon them. Open carry is just stupid.

The fact you think a gun on the hip is somewhere tangibly different from CC makes me think you're stupider than you come off as.

[Kel-chan]

Why do people always think that words on pieces of paper can some how protect them from hot lead at 1300fps?

[Camarohusky]

At 7/5/14 08:22 AM, Kel-chan wrote: Why do people always think that words on pieces of paper can some how protect them from hot lead at 1300fps?

Why do people think that having more tools of violence will lower violence?

[Kel-chan]

At 7/5/14 10:09 AM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 7/5/14 08:22 AM, Kel-chan wrote: Why do people always think that words on pieces of paper can some how protect them from hot lead at 1300fps?

Why do people think that having more tools of violence will lower violence?

Because words on pieces of paper do not protect you from hot lead at 1300fps.

And also... criminals tend to not obey laws.

Why do people think that making more laws is the solution to criminals not obeying laws?

I just don't know where you go from there...Because you write it down on a law book somewhere you expect people to follow it? If that's the case then the world should be a frickin paradise because we have 10s of 1000s of laws for everything

[Warforger]

At 7/4/14 09:23 AM, LazyDrunk wrote: That's an aspect of gun policy that a reasonable person can posit as a solution to the problem of potentially lethal confrontation in your place of business.

If you think for a minute we're being dishonest, it's because of something you lack, not us.

Because that's the way you guys are posting. This thread is about unconcealed weapons vs. concealed weapons. So yes you just have to have common sense to see why having unconcealed weapons can drive away business. It has nothing to do with banning guns in stores.

Please don't be as ignorant as you usually are. I usually don't respond to you because you usually aren't worth responding to. I can be the same way. You are not alone. It is going to be O.K.

Mmm yah your posts usually don't have good content to begin with, usually you claim some logical fallacy when there is none or critique an argument with things like "poorly sourced" when it's just an abstract example. You're basically like one of those people who are really stupid but think they're being intelligent because they use big words. On top of that you don't know the meaning of them so you're doubly dumb.

Open carry is a whole other issue which has brought together the most insane elements of the gun rights side to the point where they're bullying people who don't agree (and these people are carrying around weapons.....) and have brought down the NRA's firm disapproval upon them. Open carry is just stupid.

The fact you think a gun on the hip is somewhere tangibly different from CC makes me think you're stupider than you come off as.

Yes it is very different. An open carry gun can be seen by everyone and is a show of intimidation, it can make anyone uncomfortable when they're in a store. Especially considering the way Gun rights activists act. Concealed carry is there just in case, the gun is there but it's not outside to alert people to its existence. If you don't understand the difference then you lack common sense.

And go on, I enjoy being called an idiot by a guy whose response to arguments which make him think or corner his own is "logical fallacy! it's poorly sourced!". Makes me feel REALLY intelligent because if my logical arguments are responded to in that way then it just means that you cannot construe a rebuttal. Oh sorry I should make way for your "superior opinion".

[LazyDrunk]

At 7/5/14 11:41 AM, Warforger wrote: Mmm yah your posts usually don't have good content to begin with, usually you claim some logical fallacy when there is none or critique an argument with things like "poorly sourced" when it's just an abstract example.

Okay Sherlock. Going back in this thread, I can see you're just butthurt I called you out on being a dipshit.

Now you're sore and want to regain some composure. Good job.

You're basically like one of those people who are really stupid but think they're being intelligent because they use big words. On top of that you don't know the meaning of them so you're doubly dumb.

LOL

The fact you think a gun on the hip is somewhere tangibly different from CC makes me think you're stupider than you come off as.

Yes it is very different. An open carry gun can be seen by everyone and is a show of intimidation, it can make anyone uncomfortable when they're in a store.

A show of intimidation is being black in a white neighborhood, by that logic, because if someone feels intimidated, then it's a show of intimidation.

So, on that same token, I suppose you adhere to the policy that a concealed gun is only used by sneaky people and hides the fact they are exercising a right.
You leiberals say you're all about rights, but you really aren't. You really just a bunch of idiots with pseudo-educations.

Especially considering the way Gun rights activists act. Concealed carry is there just in case, the gun is there but it's not outside to alert people to its existence. If you don't understand the difference then you lack common sense.

Perception is the only thing you've managed to assert, whereas function remains the same.

Dolt.

And go on, I enjoy being called an idiot

Apparently.

[Warforger]

At 7/6/14 10:36 AM, LazyDrunk wrote: Okay Sherlock. Going back in this thread, I can see you're just butthurt I called you out on being a dipshit.

Now you're sore and want to regain some composure. Good job.

I guess I'm more butthurt you didn't even attempt to address my argument before, which is what you post about 90% of the time, and just responded to me with insults. That's just ignorance.

A show of intimidation is being black in a white neighborhood, by that logic, because if someone feels intimidated, then it's a show of intimidation.

Aha here's a false analogy logical fallacy, you know one of those fancy words you throw around? Let's see, is carrying a gun a comparable situation to being black? No, not at all. Being black is a race, it's not something you can change. Nothing about being black is inherently threatening. Some stranger having a gun on the other hand is because a gun is designed to end life by launching pieces of metal through an explosion of gun powder and lodging those pieces of metal through a living things internal organs. You don't know anything about them other than that they have a gun, they could be a psychopath, they could be running a blog about how much they want to kill Liberals. Would you allow a 5 year old to hang out with a black 5 year old? I assume you would, so on the same token would you allow a 5 year old to hang out with a 5 year old with a gun?

I'm willing to bet that you're only basing it on ideology. Let's say a Neo-Black Panther or KKK klansmen was carrying a gun inside a store, is that the same thing as being discriminated against because of your skin color?

So, on that same token, I suppose you adhere to the policy that a concealed gun is only used by sneaky people and hides the fact they are exercising a right.

A concealed gun does not intimidate, it does not threaten anyone and doesn't cause any disturbance. Open carry on the other hand is the exact opposite. And again, I'm still waiting on how you think "Gun rights" function as a "Civil Right" when they can be denied when someone has not committed any crime.

You leiberals say you're all about rights, but you really aren't. You really just a bunch of idiots with pseudo-educations.

I could be a Liberal, I could be a Fascist, I could be a Communist, you'd never know because you just assume I'm a Liberal.

Perception is the only thing you've managed to assert, whereas function remains the same.

Dolt.

Seriously? You'd have to be really thick to think that showing off a gun in the open is the same as concealing it.

Apparently.

Ah i love when you cut my post out of context! It makes me feel like you're getting increasingly desperate to find a way to win the argument.

[aviewaskewed]

At 7/2/14 12:50 AM, Korriken wrote: Criminals don't follow gun laws. placing up a big sign that says, "No guns allowed in here!" is basically a sign that read, "We're defenseless! Kill us!"

Except for the fact that in other retail establishments (like say my local wal-mart) where there are strict gun control policies in the state (we're in Jersey), no one has ever been shot or put into a gun violence situation? Let's just ignore that so that way the alarmist, NRA sponsored, argument sounds reasonable.

[wildfire4461]

And once again the day is saved at a business, thanks to the 2nd ammendment:
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=719546098076742

[kazumazkan]

At 7/2/14 01:09 AM, TNT wrote:: At 7/2/14 12:50 AM, Korriken wrote:

"

So you'll allow customers to carry their guns unconcealed, concealed, or both? I'm asking this because in Texas, some businesses have signs that say "the unlicensed possession of a weapon on these premises is a felony..." We don't have an open carry license as far as I know, but that message obviously does not restrict conceal carry holders.

what that sign basically is saying is that if you have a gun and you don't have a license then its a felony.

[Freaki-boy92]

can i just point out that great britain and australia haven't had a mass shooting since the 1990s, when guns in both countries had heavy restrictions placed on them

[Wriggle]

From my cold dead hands.

Why argue anymore? The best advice I can offer is change the culture - You liberals LOVE to fix "Social Issues" so fix the ones that cause gun violence, but other than that-

From my cold dead hands.

Any questions?