Archived Target Waffles on Guns in Stores

[Red Master]

This whole discussion is stupid. It's as simple as this, a criminal doesn't care if a business has a no gun policy, if he wants to he will just walk right in and proceed to rob the store and/or murder the un-armed and defensless people inside. All a no gun policy does is prevent law abiding citizens from being able to defend themselves.

Horrible argument for reasons cited before. By putting people into the wrong for open carry everyone knows the second they see a person with an assault rifle slung over their shoulder to call 911 and get the hell out of there. In addition if someone were to rob Target the last thing I would want as the GSA that's going to be handing the money over is for some wannabe hero to attempt to save the day. Chances are that person is just going to get themselves or another innocent bystander killed by turning it from a robbery to a murder spree. Look at the example from the Walmart when the concealed carry guy attempted to fight back he was killed. Now compare that to the recent situation posted in this forum about a Target being robbed in the Philadelphia area, the GSA calmly emptied the registers and gave the robbers the money. No one pulled out a gun to fight back and as a result no one was injured.

If the person you see with an assault rifle is truly a bad guy he would have several minutes to go on a killing spree before the cops get there, and if you had your way nobody would be able to stop him. Also, people carry weapons for self defense, not to stop robberies. And at least the guy at wal-mart tried to stop the killers, and he only got himself killed as a result nobody else.

 

[kingpin003]

It's a common pro-gun argument that "only a good guy with a gun can stop a bad guy with a gun". It's not true. At the recent shooting at Seattle University, the shooter was taken down by an unarmed man while he reloaded. When Senator Giffords was shot in Arizona, the shooter was tackled by a man who a holstered gun. Instead of shooting irresponsibly, the man made a judgement that his body would be more effective. You do not need a gun to be the hero. Having a gun doesn't make a person more heroic. It just increases that person's potential to accidentally shoot someone.

If I see a random civilian carrying a gun, I have no way of knowing if they are with the shooter or what qualifies them to use that gun. The last thing I want is to add another lethal weapon to a crisis.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2013/11/nypd-police-shootings-numbers-2012.html

Looking solely at information from the NYPD in 2012, 14 of the 30 people that were shot by the police were accidentally hit. Even our trained officers have roughly a 50% rating, and we are trying to put our trust in Joe Schmo who has no qualifications or training. Joe might be a world-class competitive shooter, or he might have just bought his first gun last week because the NRA told him Obama was going to ban them if he did rush out at buy one. Since I don't know where on the spectrum Joe Schmo is, I'll take my chances at diffusing the situation. A second gun will only escalate it.

 

[Signkitty]

By the way, I am a gun owner and enjoy shooting sports, but I feel no need to carry guns around in public, intimidating others.

The OP does not want to ban all guns, they even like shooting sports.


A good guy with a gun is just as dangerous as a bad guy with a gun if they do not have the right training. Lets be honest most people do not, even a few hours at the range won't really prepare you for a real confrontation.

Mace or a taser would be a much better self defense weapon in most cases.

I am not trying to take anyones gun away, I am asking that we as a society be smart about guns.

 

[commiecorvus]

Please leave Ed Norton and Fight Club out of this. I am still waiting for some celebrity or hippie to demand a knife ban and sword ban.

There are bans on knives and swords in many cities and states.
In fact it's easier to ban them then it is guns because there isn't a major lobby trying to make sure everyone has one in their house.
If I walked into a store wearing a sword you can beat there would be some phone calls made.

 

[Red Master]

It's a common pro-gun argument that "only a good guy with a gun can stop a bad guy with a gun". It's not true. At the recent shooting at Seattle University, the shooter was taken down by an unarmed man while he reloaded. When Senator Giffords was shot in Arizona, the shooter was tackled by a man who a holstered gun. Instead of shooting irresponsibly, the man made a judgement that his body would be more effective. You do not need a gun to be the hero. Having a gun doesn't make a person more heroic. It just increases that person's potential to accidentally shoot someone.

If I see a random civilian carrying a gun, I have no way of knowing if they are with the shooter or what qualifies them to use that gun. The last thing I want is to add another lethal weapon to a crisis.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2013/11/nypd-police-shootings-numbers-2012.html

Looking solely at information from the NYPD in 2012, 14 of the 30 people that were shot by the police were accidentally hit. Even our trained officers have roughly a 50% rating, and we are trying to put our trust in Joe Schmo who has no qualifications or training. Joe might be a world-class competitive shooter, or he might have just bought his first gun last week because the NRA told him Obama was going to ban them if he did rush out at buy one. Since I don't know where on the spectrum Joe Schmo is, I'll take my chances at diffusing the situation. A second gun will only escalate it.

At The Seattle University shooting, the guy that stopped the shooter had to wait until the shooter reloaded to get close enough to pepper spray him, had he had a gun it's very possible that he could have stopped the shooter sooner. Where were these unarmed heroes at Newtown, sandy hook, or aurora. All of those places are gun-free zones by the way. As for untrained joe schmo using guns in self defense, he did it 235,700 times from 2007-2010.
http://m.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/04/charts-debunking-myth-guns-self-defense

However, I do agree with you that those that carry weapons need to train as much as they can.

 

[Red Master]

By the way, I am a gun owner and enjoy shooting sports, but I feel no need to carry guns around in public, intimidating others.

The OP does not want to ban all guns, they even like shooting sports.


A good guy with a gun is just as dangerous as a bad guy with a gun if they do not have the right training. Lets be honest most people do not, even a few hours at the range won't really prepare you for a real confrontation.

Mace or a taser would be a much better self defense weapon in most cases.

I am not trying to take anyones gun away, I am asking that we as a society be smart about guns.

This thread has never been about banning guns completely, its about whether or not people should be allowed to carry them in places like Target, which the OP said he is against.

Anybody even half-way decent with a handgun has an effective range of at least 30 yards, probably more, and a magazine capacity of 7-15 rounds, that's up to 15 people dead before you could even hope to get close enough to use mace or a tazer. And thats if he just has a handgun. I am the first to admit that guns are weapons, and very dangerous if used improperly, however, guns are what criminals are using, so thats also the best choice for law-abiding citizens to protect themselves, because in most cases mace or a tazer just isn't going to cut it. I do agree with you though that due to the dangerous nature of guns we as a society need to be smart about them. We need more education on the the proper handling and usage of firearms.

 

[Guest]

Can you name a celebrity that is demanding a ban on swords and knives?

 

[The Dude Abides]

Can you name a celebrity that is demanding a ban on swords and knives?

It's not even an issue. In my state carrying any knife in public longer than 3.5 inches that is not being used for hunting is a felony. Many other US states have similar laws.

 

[Red Master]

Can you name a celebrity that is demanding a ban on swords and knives?

It's not even an issue. In my state carrying any knife in public longer than 3.5 inches that is not being used for hunting is a felony. Many other US states have similar laws.

As stated above, knives are used to kill more people every year than "assault weapons" and many people, including many celebrities think that "assault weapons" should be banned. So if "assault weapons" are an issue, than so are knives.

 

[The Dude Abides]

Except that carrying knives in public is banned in many states. Most incidents of knives or blunt objects killing people is domestic. It's very rare someone goes into public with a knife and stabs 40 people to death.

 

[Red Master]

Except that carrying knives in public is banned in many states. Most incidents of knives or blunt objects killing people is domestic. It's very rare someone goes into public with a knife and stabs 40 people to death.

No, carrying knives with blades with blades over 3.5" is banned, you don't need a blade that long to kill someone. What difference does it make if all 40 murders are at once, or at different times? in the end its still 40 innocent people dead. The fact remains that knives are used to kill 3 times as many people as "assault weapons" are. Im not saying we need to ban knives, but if this debate is truly about saving human lives, than you cant call for a ban on "assault weapons" without calling for a ban on knives as well.

 

[The Dude Abides]

Knives have multiple uses it would be like asking to ban scissors or hammers. Guns have one use and that is to kill. The fact is if you are openly carrying a knife in public you can be arrested for it. If you are openly carrying assault rifles in several states then nothing can be done. That is ridiculous.

 

[Red Master]

Knives have multiple uses it would be like asking to ban scissors or hammers. Guns have one use and that is to kill. The fact is if you are openly carrying a knife in public you can be arrested for it. If you are openly carrying assault rifles in several states then nothing can be done. That is ridiculous.

Again, knives are used to kill 3 times as many people as "assault weapons", so it would make sense if you could get arrested for open carrying a knife, but not for carrying an "assault weapon". Guns have multiple uses too such as hunting, recreation, and most importantly self-defense. While I agree that carrying rifles in public is not a good idea, a handgun would be better. But majority of guys doing where simply trying to make a statement. Yes, they went about it the wrong way, but the vast majority of the pro-gun community agree that carrying rifles in public is not a good idea. However it should not be illegal. The 2nd amendment guarantees that "the right to keep and BEAR arms, shall not be infringed"

 

[The Dude Abides]

The point of the second amendment is that the people of that era were opposed to a standing army so the second amendment was created for that states could have their own militias.

 

[oath2order]

Again, knives are used to kill 3 times as many people as "assault weapons", so it would make sense if you could get arrested for open carrying a knife, but not for carrying an "assault weapon". Guns have multiple uses too such as hunting, recreation, and most importantly self-defense. While I agree that carrying rifles in public is not a good idea, a handgun would be better. But majority of guys doing where simply trying to make a statement. Yes, they went about it the wrong way, but the vast majority of the pro-gun community agree that carrying rifles in public is not a good idea. However it should not be illegal. The 2nd amendment guarantees that "the right to keep and BEAR arms, shall not be infringed"

Shall not be infringed by the government. However, this entire argument has been about Target, and allowing guns in private companies. If I'm not mistaken, the 2nd Amendment does not allow the government to ban guns. Private companies, I'm pretty sure, have the right to deny you entrance if they don't want your gun on the premises.

And don't come here with the 2nd amendment argument. That was written in the day of muskets, way before the modern guns. Guns are much more powerful and effective at their job than they were back then.

 

[Red Master]

The point of the second amendment is that the people of that era were opposed to a standing army so the second amendment was created for that states could have their own militias.

No it wasn't. The main point is to give the people the ability to defend themselves from a tyrannical government. The right to keep and bear arms is the right which protects all the rest, including the right to life, which is why carrying guns for self-defense is a right.

 

[The Dude Abides]

The point of the second amendment is that the people of that era were opposed to a standing army so the second amendment was created for that states could have their own militias.

No it wasn't. The main point is to give the people the ability to defend themselves from a tyrannical government. The right to keep and bear arms is the right which protects all the rest, including the right to life, which is why carrying guns for self-defense is a right.

Once again, the people did not want the federal government to have a standing army. The second amendment's purpose was that the citizens should have guns so they could be part of their local militia forces to defend their land rather than having a European style standing army. It was later rulings by the Supreme Court that lead to the current legal status of guns.

 

[Red Master]

Again, knives are used to kill 3 times as many people as "assault weapons", so it would make sense if you could get arrested for open carrying a knife, but not for carrying an "assault weapon". Guns have multiple uses too such as hunting, recreation, and most importantly self-defense. While I agree that carrying rifles in public is not a good idea, a handgun would be better. But majority of guys doing where simply trying to make a statement. Yes, they went about it the wrong way, but the vast majority of the pro-gun community agree that carrying rifles in public is not a good idea. However it should not be illegal. The 2nd amendment guarantees that "the right to keep and BEAR arms, shall not be infringed"

Shall not be infringed by the government. However, this entire argument has been about Target, and allowing guns in private companies. If I'm not mistaken, the 2nd Amendment does not allow the government to ban guns. Private companies, I'm pretty sure, have the right to deny you entrance if they don't want your gun on the premises.

And don't come here with the 2nd amendment argument. That was written in the day of muskets, way before the modern guns. Guns are much more powerful and effective at their job than they were back then.

This started out as an argument about private companies allowing guns, but if you read the last few comments you would know that my statement about the 2nd amendment was referring to a government ban on "assault weapons".

Nobody has questioned Target's right not allow guns in their stores if they don't want to. This argument is about whether they should exercise that right or not, and for reasons stated above it would be stupid for them not to allow guns in their stores.

It's the fact that guns are so effective that makes the 2nd amendment more important now than ever. Those that seek to do harm to innocent people, such as criminals and potentially our government have these guns, so we need them too to defend ourselves.

 

[oath2order]

Nobody has questioned Target's right not allow guns in their stores if they don't want to. This argument is about whether they should exercise that right or not, and for reasons stated above it would be stupid for them not to allow guns in their stores.

On this note, you didn't answer a previous question. How often do supermarkets like Target get robbed?

 

[Red Master]

Nobody has questioned Target's right not allow guns in their stores if they don't want to. This argument is about whether they should exercise that right or not, and for reasons stated above it would be stupid for them not to allow guns in their stores.

On this note, you didn't answer a previous question. How often do supermarkets like Target get robbed?

I don't know. how often do they get robbed?

 

[oath2order]

Nobody has questioned Target's right not allow guns in their stores if they don't want to. This argument is about whether they should exercise that right or not, and for reasons stated above it would be stupid for them not to allow guns in their stores.

On this note, you didn't answer a previous question. How often do supermarkets like Target get robbed?

I don't know. how often do they get robbed?

No, thats what I'm asking you. Because in my experience, and pribably in the experience of many other people, armed robbery is NOT a concern. Personally, I've worked here for three years. Never been robbed. I have the feel that's most people's experience. If I was a betting man, I'd say you have a better chance at being struck by lightning than being in a store while it's getting robbed.

Maybe your store gets robbed a lot. I don't know. But I agree with Target's position on ribberies in general. "Give them what they want." Look if I'm cashiering, and someone points a gun at me and asks for the money, the last goddamn thing I need in this world is some wannabe superhero with a gun thinking HE'S going to save the bloody day.

All I've noticed from the pro-gun crowd is this massive paranoia and fear that there are bad guys just around the corner.

 

[mrknownothing]

Mods, can we close this thread? This forum is about Target, not politics.

 

[Red Master]

Nobody has questioned Target's right not allow guns in their stores if they don't want to. This argument is about whether they should exercise that right or not, and for reasons stated above it would be stupid for them not to allow guns in their stores.

On this note, you didn't answer a previous question. How often do supermarkets like Target get robbed?

I don't know. how often do they get robbed?

No, thats what I'm asking you. Because in my experience, and pribably in the experience of many other people, armed robbery is NOT a concern. Personally, I've worked here for three years. Never been robbed. I have the feel that's most people's experience. If I was a betting man, I'd say you have a better chance at being struck by lightning than being in a store while it's getting robbed.

Maybe your store gets robbed a lot. I don't know. But I agree with Target's position on ribberies in general. "Give them what they want." Look if I'm cashiering, and someone points a gun at me and asks for the money, the last goddamn thing I need in this world is some wannabe superhero with a gun thinking HE'S going to save the bloody day.

All I've noticed from the pro-gun crowd is this massive paranoia and fear that there are bad guys just around the corner.

If armed robbery isn't a problem at Target then what would be the point of banning guns in the stores? Besides, Like I said before, people carry for self-defense, not to stop robberies.

People that carry are not paranoid. They simply hope for the best, but prepare for the worst.

 

[paidtosmile]

IMO, I would appreciate Target banning open-carry in their stores. There isn't a need for somebody to go grocery shopping with a huge gun strapped across their back. If you're going to talk self-defense, concealed carry is a more logical alternative.

Similar to all the policies, procedures, best practices, and processes that corporate rolls out.... They aren't all ridiculous, but usually there just isn't a need for them.

 

[Tiemypog]

Question for all the posters on this thread.

Have any of you seen this at your store? And is it any kind of real problem?