Fill Yer Hands

you son of a

Faux Gun Control

To be honest, I originally entitled this post “Gun Control Masturbation,” but I didn’t want to deal with the search engine consequences of such a title.

Having said that, here is what I mean:

Recently, the anti-gun group Moms Demand Attention has made it its purpose in life to pressure retail companies that allow lawful carried weapons into their establishments. Some have inclined to acquiesce to their request, most notably Starbucks, Target, and most recently Panera.

In just about every instance, the companies involved have asked patrons not to bring guns into their stores. And Moms Demand Attention have raved and congratulated themselves on another victory against evil guns and their evil owners.

Note, though, that these companies have stopped at that action. None of them have gone so far as to post “No Guns” signs in their stores, or eject patrons who bring guns.

The reaction of some on the pro-gun side has been predictable, running from expressing their displeasure to vowing never to do business with them again.

I, on the other hand, see the truth: asking me not to bring my gun in to a store is the same as asking a robber not to rob you. It has zero legal force, and it does nothing to provide actual disincentive to me.

In fact, about all it does it placate the anti-gun factions, and infuriate some of the more extreme pro-gun factions, much to the delight of the same anti-gunners. Nothing they do has the force of law, or even of company policy, because they all express how the last thing they want is to make their employees have to confront armed customers and kick them out.

So, what we end up with is nothing, except for emotions. Nothing changes.

Are these places any safer or less safe? There is no way to know. I know the a lot of the foam at the mouth open carry gang vow never to return, which is probably not a bad thing even for the pro-gun cause.

The truth is that all this is, is smoke and mirrors. Marketing. Fluff.

It doesn’t change how I act. I still carry a gun concealed everywhere I can, even if it is posted not to allow guns.*  I don’t boycott anyone, unless their policies affect their customer service, because that is why I shop somewhere. I don’t shoot at Target or Taco Mac, so I don’t care what they think of my guns.

I let the Moms have their hoopla, because in the end it affects nothing. No one is going to change concealed carry laws based on whether Kroger allows me to carry a gun, and that is what I go by, not a corporate policy or a sign on the door.

In the end, it has the same effect as masturbation: someone is satisfied, for a while, but nothing real happens.

+++++

* DISCLAIMER – I live in the state of Georgia, and I am following Georgia law. You must follow the laws of the jurisdiction where you live. In Georgia, violating a carry prohibition on private property is not a crime, it is merely a violation of property rights, meaning the owner may ask you to leave, and if you refuse, charge you with trespassing. The only places where carry is prohibited are places like schools (and that is debatable), courthouses, post offices. BE SURE YOU KNOW THE LAWS OF THE JURISDICTION WHERE YOU LIVE.

Federal Judge Agrees – Gun Free Victim Zones Are Setups

In a landmark ruling today in the lawsuit against Cinemark by victims of the Aurora, Colorado theater shooting, US District Court Judge R. Brooke Jackson ruled that because they are Gun Free Victim Zones,

“the patrons of a movie theater are, perhaps even more than students in a school or shoppers in a mall, ‘sitting ducks.'”

This means that the owners of the Century Aurora 16  Theater should have known its patrons faced a risk, and taken steps to protect them, which they did not.

Undoubtedly this opens the door for more lawsuits by anyone hurt by an attacker in a Gun Free Victim Zone. It certainly reinforces the message of this blog over the last few years.

Of course, the simplest precaution any business owner can take, and which the movie theaters where I live in Kennesaw espouse, is not to prohibit the carrying of guns by its patrons. That’s because shooters are known to pick venues where they know they will not be challenged, and a theater that allows guns represents an unknown. They pass it by in favor of easier pickings.

 

Sometimes Teh Stoopid, it Hurts

I have to admit, I do not post on this blog as much I used to, and certainly nowhere near as much as I would like. Sometimes I see things, though, and I don’t post them, because . . . well . . .  they seem too stoopid.

Case in point:

Reilly Rubber Bullets tweet

This tweet was from a Huffington Post “reporter,” writing from the recent unpleasantness in Ferguson, MO. As anyone who reads this blog knows, those are tapered foam earplugs, not rubber bullets.

I saw it re-tweeted by someone not an hour after it was sent. Honestly, I thought it was a joke. But the fact that everyone but me has blogged about it since, has shown this was really what he thought.

Wow.

“Should Be Able” versus “Should Be Required”

I was watching a news show the other day, and there was a story about this video.

Please listen closely to the words that NRA commentator Dom Raso speaks. The first sentence tells it all.

He says

“Every law abiding blind individual should be able to have whatever guns they want.”

Emphasis is mine, because that’s what this post is about. I’m not going to talk about the blind and guns, but rather an observation my wife made during the news report.

She pointed out that the news commentators turned Raso’s observation into an assertion that the NRA was insisting that every blind person should be required to carry a gun. I have to admit, when I heard the commentators make that point, I wanted to agree with them, because forcing blind people to carry doesn’t make sense. But then my wife said “Wait, that’s not what he said,” and she rewound the DVR.

This led to a discussion, and the realization of the anti-gun faction’s penchant for turning the observation that someone should be able to do something into an assertion that everyone should be required to do that thing.

I hear it all the time . . . the anti’s claim the NRA insists

everyone should be required to openly carry machine guns at Target . . .

children should be required to shoot guns as part of school programs . . .

shoppers at gun shows should be required to buy guns . . .

and the list goes on. They make the assertion that the NRA or we Gun Nuts want everyone to be required to carry guns, when in truth we just want to be able to carry guns if we choose.

And I have to admit, they do it so much that I don’t notice it most of the time. I even hang out with some anti-gun friends who do it.

Why do they do this? Because it is in the form in which they think. Since “should not be allowed” is the same as “should be required not to,” in their minds the opposite holds – “should be allowed” is the same as “should be required.” Faulty reasoning begets faulty reasoning, and no one should be surprised.

But I guarantee the next time, I am going to make sure they understand, we just want to exercise our right to be able to, not require anyone to do anything.

Except quote me correctly.

 

 

Post Navigation

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 3,063 other followers