Archived Target Waffles on Guns in Stores

[Red Master]

The fact is that gun bans of all kinds have been tried, and they haven't worked. They haven't worked in individual buildings like schools or courts, they haven't worked when put in place in cities like Chicago, and they haven't worked when instituted in entire countries like Australia. So why does anybody think that a gun ban would work any better in Target?

Australia is demonstrably false. Since the government started pushing major gun legislation through in the mid-90s gun deaths in Australia has fallen roughly 75% and has been steadily declining over the years. The others you have mentioned were addressed very clearly by Melvin.

Sources? But yes the gun deaths may have dropped a little, due to guns being a little harder to get a hold of, but the overall murder has not dropped.

And if Melvin's theory was true, then the areas around places like Chicago, the ones with not as much gun control would have a murder rate just as high as Chicago's, but they don't. But that really doesn't matter because regardless of why gun bans don't work, they don't work, even according to Melvin's theory.

 

[Red Master]

because people don't want schools turning into the OK Corrall. It's one thing to have a police officer on a school campus, but I don't think having the janitor packing heat is a great idea.

So institute a program In schools where school employees such as janitors, teachers and principles can carry at the school, but first the must go through mandatory firearms training similar to what cops go through.

Or just do what my and many other schools did and have a police officer on campus. My high school had an on-campus police officer every single day of the school year. We never had any problems with weapons at school.

But many schools aren't doing that. Probably because most places can't afford the extra payroll.

 

[Barcode]

because people don't want schools turning into the OK Corrall. It's one thing to have a police officer on a school campus, but I don't think having the janitor packing heat is a great idea.

So institute a program In schools where school employees such as janitors, teachers and principles can carry at the school, but first the must go through mandatory firearms training similar to what cops go through.

Or just do what my and many other schools did and have a police officer on campus. My high school had an on-campus police officer every single day of the school year. We never had any problems with weapons at school.

But many schools aren't doing that. Probably because most places can't afford the extra payroll.

Well when the next Sandy Hook happens to them, I'm sure they will. At least most schools are starting to have on duty police officers (a lot already did, including my old HS)....

Schools get shot up all the time. Why would you not want someone armed in the school to defend the kids?

I would. A police officer who is (hopefully...) trained to use their weapon, but also to minimize risks to bystanders, verbal de-escalation techniques, possibly equipped with less-lethal weapons such as a taser, and is trained to utilize a weapon judiciously and as safely as possible when faced with an armed gunman. Not a janitor who took a 2 week concealed carry class and has never shot anything but targets and animals. I don't necessarily begrudge people their right to carry weapons, as in my state it's well within their legal rights, but that doesn't necessarily mean that I think it's a great idea.

Well put

 

[Red Master]

So institute a program In schools where school employees such as janitors, teachers and principles can carry at the school, but first the must go through mandatory firearms training similar to what cops go through.

Or just do what my and many other schools did and have a police officer on campus. My high school had an on-campus police officer every single day of the school year. We never had any problems with weapons at school.

But many schools aren't doing that. Probably because most places can't afford the extra payroll.

Well when the next Sandy Hook happens to them, I'm sure they will. At least most schools are starting to have on duty police officers (a lot already did, including my old HS)....

I'm all for having a police officer in schools. All I'm saying is that there needs obviously needs to be somebody armed in our school to defend the kids, and if thats a cop then thats great. But if there isn't a cop then there needs to be somebody else like a teacher or principle.

 

[Barcode]

Or just do what my and many other schools did and have a police officer on campus. My high school had an on-campus police officer every single day of the school year. We never had any problems with weapons at school.

But many schools aren't doing that. Probably because most places can't afford the extra payroll.

Well when the next Sandy Hook happens to them, I'm sure they will. At least most schools are starting to have on duty police officers (a lot already did, including my old HS)....

I'm all for having a police officer in schools. All I'm saying is that there needs obviously needs to be somebody armed in our school to defend the kids, and if thats a cop then thats great. But if there isn't a cop then there needs to be somebody else like a teacher or principle.

There really needs to be a police officer and no one else though. Police Officers have much more extensive firearms training than regular civilians do, and know how to handle the situation the best. Cel worded it best IMO...

Unless like the Principal was a former soldier/cop or something? Lol.

 

[The Dude Abides]

The fact is that gun bans of all kinds have been tried, and they haven't worked. They haven't worked in individual buildings like schools or courts, they haven't worked when put in place in cities like Chicago, and they haven't worked when instituted in entire countries like Australia. So why does anybody think that a gun ban would work any better in Target?

Australia is demonstrably false. Since the government started pushing major gun legislation through in the mid-90s gun deaths in Australia has fallen roughly 75% and has been steadily declining over the years. The others you have mentioned were addressed very clearly by Melvin.

Sources? But yes the gun deaths may have dropped a little, due to guns being a little harder to get a hold of, but the overall murder has not dropped.

And if Melvin's theory was true, then the areas around places like Chicago, the ones with not as much gun control would have a murder rate just as high as Chicago's, but they don't. But that really doesn't matter because regardless of why gun bans don't work, they don't work, even according to Melvin's theory.

Gary, Indiana has a higher murder rate than Chicago by a significant margin it's per capita murder rate is roughly 4.5 times higher than Chicago's. Of course Chicago has 2.7 million people compared to Gary's 80,000, but the fact is the murder rate is much higher on the Indiana side of the border than in Chicago.

Source: http://www.nwitimes.com/news/local/...cle_daf2640f-6cdd-5533-a94a-f2ec386d84fd.html

 

[Red Master]

But many schools aren't doing that. Probably because most places can't afford the extra payroll.

Well when the next Sandy Hook happens to them, I'm sure they will. At least most schools are starting to have on duty police officers (a lot already did, including my old HS)....

I'm all for having a police officer in schools. All I'm saying is that there needs obviously needs to be somebody armed in our school to defend the kids, and if thats a cop then thats great. But if there isn't a cop then there needs to be somebody else like a teacher or principle.

There really needs to be a police officer and no one else though. Police Officers have much more extensive firearms training than regular civilians do, and know how to handle the situation the best. Cel worded it best IMO...

Unless like the Principal was a former soldier/cop or something? Lol.

Thats why I said the janitors, teachers, and principles should have to go through firearms training very similar to what cops go through.

 

[Barcode]

Well when the next Sandy Hook happens to them, I'm sure they will. At least most schools are starting to have on duty police officers (a lot already did, including my old HS)....

I'm all for having a police officer in schools. All I'm saying is that there needs obviously needs to be somebody armed in our school to defend the kids, and if thats a cop then thats great. But if there isn't a cop then there needs to be somebody else like a teacher or principle.

There really needs to be a police officer and no one else though. Police Officers have much more extensive firearms training than regular civilians do, and know how to handle the situation the best. Cel worded it best IMO...

Unless like the Principal was a former soldier/cop or something? Lol.

Thats why I said the janitors, teachers, and principles should have to go through firearms training very similar to what cops go through.

Such courses take quite a while... I don't see Janitors or Most teachers going through the trouble (or the school willing to compensate for it). Principals maybe though.

Honestly its just easier to have a cop.

 

[Red Master]

The fact is that gun bans of all kinds have been tried, and they haven't worked. They haven't worked in individual buildings like schools or courts, they haven't worked when put in place in cities like Chicago, and they haven't worked when instituted in entire countries like Australia. So why does anybody think that a gun ban would work any better in Target?

Australia is demonstrably false. Since the government started pushing major gun legislation through in the mid-90s gun deaths in Australia has fallen roughly 75% and has been steadily declining over the years. The others you have mentioned were addressed very clearly by Melvin.

Sources? But yes the gun deaths may have dropped a little, due to guns being a little harder to get a hold of, but the overall murder has not dropped.

And if Melvin's theory was true, then the areas around places like Chicago, the ones with not as much gun control would have a murder rate just as high as Chicago's, but they don't. But that really doesn't matter because regardless of why gun bans don't work, they don't work, even according to Melvin's theory.

Gary, Indiana has a higher murder rate than Chicago by a significant margin it's per capita murder rate is roughly 4.5 times higher than Chicago's. Of course Chicago has 2.7 million people compared to Gary's 80,000, but the fact is the murder rate is much higher on the Indiana side of the border than in Chicago.

Source: http://www.nwitimes.com/news/local/...cle_daf2640f-6cdd-5533-a94a-f2ec386d84fd.html

The crime rate in Gary has been that high for decades. It wasn't until 2011 that Indiana allowed people to carry. You Can't blame the crime rate in Gary or Chicago on the lack of gun control in Indiana.

 

[Red Master]

I'm all for having a police officer in schools. All I'm saying is that there needs obviously needs to be somebody armed in our school to defend the kids, and if thats a cop then thats great. But if there isn't a cop then there needs to be somebody else like a teacher or principle.

There really needs to be a police officer and no one else though. Police Officers have much more extensive firearms training than regular civilians do, and know how to handle the situation the best. Cel worded it best IMO...

Unless like the Principal was a former soldier/cop or something? Lol.

Thats why I said the janitors, teachers, and principles should have to go through firearms training very similar to what cops go through.

Such courses take quite a while... I don't see Janitors or Most teachers going through the trouble (or the school willing to compensate for it). Principals maybe though.

Honestly its just easier to have a cop.

The training would actually only take a couple of weeks. I know a lot of teachers that would be willing to go through the training. Schools would be willing to compensate for it because it would be a lot cheaper than paying a full time cop.

 

[SrTPS]

and for every one instance of self defense five guns are stolen in this country and for every one instance of self defense there are 49 criminal uses of guns.

And the criminals are still going to use guns whether we ban them or not.

Except then they could be arrested and punished simply for carrying the weapon instead of us having to wait until they shoot up an elementary school. One solution is proactive the other is reactive.

Just want to point out that a Target gun ban would not get sometime arrested for unlawful possession of a firearm, they would simply be asked to leave Target property and potentially cited for trespassing. The only way sometime can be arrested for unlawfully possessing a firearm is by making possessing a firearm unlawful - and target isn't the law.

 

[StaticSun]

It's pointless. I will probably get arrested by the thought and word police again. Already happened in another thread. One day, I am going to leave Target behind and never look back. It will be the best day of my life. To finally be out of this hole and be rid of all the pain that this hole has caused me. FYI, the hole is the Target where I work at.

Thought and word police? Nah, just some basic civility and respect is requested here.

 

[melvin]

Except then they could be arrested and punished simply for carrying the weapon instead of us having to wait until they shoot up an elementary school. One solution is proactive the other is reactive.

Schools are gun free zones! And they still get shot up. And thanks to your "solution" nobody is ever able to stop the shooter until many kids are already shot.

We also have instances of people sneaking guns into courts and police stations and firing. Does that mean we should lift bans on carrying them into those places?

As to your other contention, let me just share what I've observed over the several decades of my life. I have many faults. I could fill an entire thread. Fortunately, one of them is not reacting poorly in pressure/crisis situations. Unfortunately, I have observed that the vast majority of people do not react well in such situations. They usually freeze or panic. The idea that people who are completely untrained in crisis situations will stop spree shooters and others is one that simply doesn't mesh with what I've observed. We train our law enforcement officers to react properly in such situations. We do not train concealed carry folks. Some may have such training and a small number may be able to respond well in such situations, but I believe the vast majority will not. Someone else in this thread mentioned the poor sod out in Las Vegas who decided he was going to be a hero versus those two nuts, and he ended up dead. He undoubtedly had no training in how to handle such situations. As I've said many times, the very last place I would have wanted to be in that theater in Aurora is next to some wannabe hero.

As a final point, I don't think anyone associated with the school system who has a spot of objectivity and sense wants personnel, be they administrators, teachers, custodians, cooks or anyone else to be walking around with loaded guns. Talk about a recipe for disaster.

If places like courts and police stations are still getting shot up, then what's the point of the ban?

I'm sorry, but your "observations" do not line up with the facts.

Schools get shot up all the time. Why would you not want someone armed in the school to defend the kids?

Schools do not "get shot up all the time." In fact, it's quite rare. You are exemplifying the sort of reaction I was writing about in which people have completely distorted senses of risk.

Why would we continue to ban guns in schools or courthouses or police stations? Let me first point out that this is why folks in other countries laugh at us, that we're even having to answer a question such as this. Nevermind those states that have stipulated that carrying guns into church shall not be infringed. (Can't you just see Jesus nodding in approval?) Now, why continue with such bans? Several reasons. First, because there will always be a segment of the population dissuaded from bringing them to those places because of the legal penalties. Second, each of these are places where there are frequently scores to be settled and sentiments running "hot." I can just picture it now, "Jimmy, stop talking back," as the teacher pulls out a pistol. Third, we already have trained personnel at those places. You have not made, nor has anyone else made, an effective case that people with guns who lack basic training in crisis situations are helpful in crisis situations.

 

[melvin]

Maybe it was the area I grew up in, but all 3 of our high schools had a policeman that worked solely on campus. We also had regular practiced "lockdowns" where we treated the school as if there was a gunman and focused on protecting the students. We never had any incidents, and I'd like to think it due to that preparation and proactive response. We didn't wait for something to happen before acknowledging it. I believe Target should operate similarly. We shouldn't wait for a string of armed robberies to consider how to most effectively prevent them.

What is the relative danger going to work in a Target store?

I decided to try to look it up. It's difficult because of course Target doesn't want people to know this data. I managed to find a report that focused on Walmart that included data they had obtained from police departments that they used to compare the two retailers. Unsurprisingly, Target was considerably more safe and had less incidents. The 30 Targets closest to the high-risk Walmarts averaged 2 calls to the police per year for violent and serious offenses(assault, robbery, attempted robbery, homicide, kidnapping, rape, and sex crimes) once you factor out the 34% of all calls were to report automotive theft. I wish I could find data straight from Spot about it and get a more holistic view of what Target stores are experiencing. However, I think that looking at areas that Walmart sees the majority of its crime in gives a good sample of where Target might also see that crime occurring.

I'll leave this quote from the study here without comment: "Police reported 8 incidents involving weapons law violations at the 30 Target stores".

Your last sentence is key. A rational person would weigh the chances of being a victim of crime at Target versus the risks of carrying the gun to Target in the first place.

Do you recall about ten or twelve years ago when Oprah started a virtual panic among suburban moms with an episode about gas tanks being ignited at gas stations when a spark was somehow generated? It turned out to be a couple cases in several million. In other words, there was really no risk. We do a very poor job of assessing risks in our lives. Some of the same people who will lose sleep over their gas tank exploding at the gas station or being attacked at Target will be oblivious to the actual risks in their lives. For instance, they will choose to drive to that Target on a two-lane highway rather than a little longer trip on a four lane highway, increasing their chances of death perhaps tenfold. Now, most people are rational. This is why so few of them carry guns out in public in the first place. They've weighed the small chance of needing a gun in the vast majority of public settings against the costs and risks of carrying the gun to such places and judged it not worth it.

For me, what are the risks of me carrying a gun into Target? As I have said before, gun owners are not paranoid. They do not lose sleep over what they think may happen to them at Target the next day. They are simply prepared just in case something bad does happen. I think most of us would agree that there is almost no risk in going to a movie theater, yet one in Aurora still got shot up and people died. No I don't think that someone is going to walk in my store tomorrow and shoot up the place, but I can guarantee you that the victims in Aurora didn't think that was going to happen there either, but it did. All it takes is one homicidal mania. People that carry do not do it because they are paranoid or want to be heroes, they carry because they believe that it would be better to have a gun and not need it, than to need a gun and not have it.

Some are, some are not. Many have a completely distorted sense of what their risks are. I remember conversing with one man who got ahold of some data that stated that "80% of Americans will be victims of violent crime in their lifetimes." I asked him to pause and think about that number and apply a bit of skepticism and reason. He eventually, came around to say, "Yeah, that does seem awfully high." Still, he justified arming his wife as a means of protecting her from potential sexual assaults or worse by strangers. I told him he was doing his wife a disservice by giving her a false sense of security that a pistol will be an effective way of protecting her from attack from a stranger. Quite frankly, there is an emotional attachment on this issue that prevents many from looking at it objectively. I grew up in a heavily armed area. I am not afraid of guns. I am skeptical that new laws would reduce crime. At the same time, I'm skeptical that putting more guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens is a good idea. This sort of skepticism and going where the data leads you instead of falling back upon emotions and tired slogans is what's missing from this debate.

 

[Barcode]

I think we got off track a bit on what was supposed to be guns in Target. Does anyone really think that the shoppers in Texas should be roaming the store with weapons slung (rifles which can be ineffective in close quarters, and have a high chance for collateral damage), and being carried at low ready?? Is this not extreme? Would conceal and carry NOT be more prudent for shopping in the store ?

 

[Backroom81]

I think we got off track a bit on what was supposed to be guns in Target. Does anyone really think that the shoppers in Texas should be roaming the store with weapons slung (rifles which can be ineffective in close quarters, and have a high chance for collateral damage), and being carried at low ready?? Is this not extreme? Would conceal and carry NOT be more prudent for shopping in the store ?

Expanding on this:
The shoppers in Texas aren't carrying their rifles around because it's part of their normal routine. They're doing it as a (badly thought out) form of protest due to handguns remaining illegal to open carry. They have on many occasions done so illegally by carrying in stores and restaurants that sell alcohol which is forcing many of these companies to issue public statements banning weapons on their premises. They are frequently rude and have posted the personal info of people who debate with them in the streets, the most notorious of which being a Marine vet who started receiving several death threats as a result.

Concealed carry is already legal here and much more prudent for reasons I have already stated in this thread.

 

[oath2order]

It's pointless. I will probably get arrested by the thought and word police again. Already happened in another thread. One day, I am going to leave Target behind and never look back. It will be the best day of my life. To finally be out of this hole and be rid of all the pain that this hole has caused me. FYI, the hole is the Target where I work at.

This is a Target forum, there aren't thought and word police.

Expanding on this:
The shoppers in Texas aren't carrying their rifles around because it's part of their normal routine. They're doing it as a (badly thought out) form of protest due to handguns remaining illegal to open carry. They have on many occasions done so illegally by carrying in stores and restaurants that sell alcohol which is forcing many of these companies to issue public statements banning weapons on their premises. They are frequently rude and have posted the personal info of people who debate with them in the streets, the most notorious of which being a Marine vet who started receiving several death threats as a result.

Concealed carry is already legal here and much more prudent for reasons I have already stated in this thread.

I think the shoppers mentioned are a bunch of idiots.

 

[Red Master]

Maybe it was the area I grew up in, but all 3 of our high schools had a policeman that worked solely on campus. We also had regular practiced "lockdowns" where we treated the school as if there was a gunman and focused on protecting the students. We never had any incidents, and I'd like to think it due to that preparation and proactive response. We didn't wait for something to happen before acknowledging it. I believe Target should operate similarly. We shouldn't wait for a string of armed robberies to consider how to most effectively prevent them.

I decided to try to look it up. It's difficult because of course Target doesn't want people to know this data. I managed to find a report that focused on Walmart that included data they had obtained from police departments that they used to compare the two retailers. Unsurprisingly, Target was considerably more safe and had less incidents. The 30 Targets closest to the high-risk Walmarts averaged 2 calls to the police per year for violent and serious offenses(assault, robbery, attempted robbery, homicide, kidnapping, rape, and sex crimes) once you factor out the 34% of all calls were to report automotive theft. I wish I could find data straight from Spot about it and get a more holistic view of what Target stores are experiencing. However, I think that looking at areas that Walmart sees the majority of its crime in gives a good sample of where Target might also see that crime occurring.

I'll leave this quote from the study here without comment: "Police reported 8 incidents involving weapons law violations at the 30 Target stores".

Your last sentence is key. A rational person would weigh the chances of being a victim of crime at Target versus the risks of carrying the gun to Target in the first place.

Do you recall about ten or twelve years ago when Oprah started a virtual panic among suburban moms with an episode about gas tanks being ignited at gas stations when a spark was somehow generated? It turned out to be a couple cases in several million. In other words, there was really no risk. We do a very poor job of assessing risks in our lives. Some of the same people who will lose sleep over their gas tank exploding at the gas station or being attacked at Target will be oblivious to the actual risks in their lives. For instance, they will choose to drive to that Target on a two-lane highway rather than a little longer trip on a four lane highway, increasing their chances of death perhaps tenfold. Now, most people are rational. This is why so few of them carry guns out in public in the first place. They've weighed the small chance of needing a gun in the vast majority of public settings against the costs and risks of carrying the gun to such places and judged it not worth it.

For me, what are the risks of me carrying a gun into Target? As I have said before, gun owners are not paranoid. They do not lose sleep over what they think may happen to them at Target the next day. They are simply prepared just in case something bad does happen. I think most of us would agree that there is almost no risk in going to a movie theater, yet one in Aurora still got shot up and people died. No I don't think that someone is going to walk in my store tomorrow and shoot up the place, but I can guarantee you that the victims in Aurora didn't think that was going to happen there either, but it did. All it takes is one homicidal mania. People that carry do not do it because they are paranoid or want to be heroes, they carry because they believe that it would be better to have a gun and not need it, than to need a gun and not have it.

Some are, some are not. Many have a completely distorted sense of what their risks are. I remember conversing with one man who got ahold of some data that stated that "80% of Americans will be victims of violent crime in their lifetimes." I asked him to pause and think about that number and apply a bit of skepticism and reason. He eventually, came around to say, "Yeah, that does seem awfully high." Still, he justified arming his wife as a means of protecting her from potential sexual assaults or worse by strangers. I told him he was doing his wife a disservice by giving her a false sense of security that a pistol will be an effective way of protecting her from attack from a stranger. Quite frankly, there is an emotional attachment on this issue that prevents many from looking at it objectively. I grew up in a heavily armed area. I am not afraid of guns. I am skeptical that new laws would reduce crime. At the same time, I'm skeptical that putting more guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens is a good idea. This sort of skepticism and going where the data leads you instead of falling back upon emotions and tired slogans is what's missing from this debate.

Skepticism is good. I respect the fact that you are trying to look at this issue objectively. But I have presented data, like the fact that between 2007 and 2011 235,700 crimes were stopped by law-abiding citizens carrying guns.

Also, I find it interesting how first you guys use school shootings as a reason for more gun control, but now you say that the lack of them is a reason for more gun control.

 

[Red Master]

I think we got off track a bit on what was supposed to be guns in Target. Does anyone really think that the shoppers in Texas should be roaming the store with weapons slung (rifles which can be ineffective in close quarters, and have a high chance for collateral damage), and being carried at low ready?? Is this not extreme? Would conceal and carry NOT be more prudent for shopping in the store ?

Nobody here is saying that people should be carrying rifles around. Even the NRA is very much against it.

 

[melvin]

Your last sentence is key. A rational person would weigh the chances of being a victim of crime at Target versus the risks of carrying the gun to Target in the first place.

Do you recall about ten or twelve years ago when Oprah started a virtual panic among suburban moms with an episode about gas tanks being ignited at gas stations when a spark was somehow generated? It turned out to be a couple cases in several million. In other words, there was really no risk. We do a very poor job of assessing risks in our lives. Some of the same people who will lose sleep over their gas tank exploding at the gas station or being attacked at Target will be oblivious to the actual risks in their lives. For instance, they will choose to drive to that Target on a two-lane highway rather than a little longer trip on a four lane highway, increasing their chances of death perhaps tenfold. Now, most people are rational. This is why so few of them carry guns out in public in the first place. They've weighed the small chance of needing a gun in the vast majority of public settings against the costs and risks of carrying the gun to such places and judged it not worth it.

For me, what are the risks of me carrying a gun into Target? As I have said before, gun owners are not paranoid. They do not lose sleep over what they think may happen to them at Target the next day. They are simply prepared just in case something bad does happen. I think most of us would agree that there is almost no risk in going to a movie theater, yet one in Aurora still got shot up and people died. No I don't think that someone is going to walk in my store tomorrow and shoot up the place, but I can guarantee you that the victims in Aurora didn't think that was going to happen there either, but it did. All it takes is one homicidal mania. People that carry do not do it because they are paranoid or want to be heroes, they carry because they believe that it would be better to have a gun and not need it, than to need a gun and not have it.

Some are, some are not. Many have a completely distorted sense of what their risks are. I remember conversing with one man who got ahold of some data that stated that "80% of Americans will be victims of violent crime in their lifetimes." I asked him to pause and think about that number and apply a bit of skepticism and reason. He eventually, came around to say, "Yeah, that does seem awfully high." Still, he justified arming his wife as a means of protecting her from potential sexual assaults or worse by strangers. I told him he was doing his wife a disservice by giving her a false sense of security that a pistol will be an effective way of protecting her from attack from a stranger. Quite frankly, there is an emotional attachment on this issue that prevents many from looking at it objectively. I grew up in a heavily armed area. I am not afraid of guns. I am skeptical that new laws would reduce crime. At the same time, I'm skeptical that putting more guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens is a good idea. This sort of skepticism and going where the data leads you instead of falling back upon emotions and tired slogans is what's missing from this debate.

Skepticism is good. I respect the fact that you are trying to look at this issue objectively. But I have presented data, like the fact that between 2007 and 2011 235,700 crimes were stopped by law-abiding citizens carrying guns.

Also, I find it interesting how first you guys use school shootings as a reason for more gun control, but now you say that the lack of them is a reason for more gun control.

Yes, and I pointed out the tremendous problems with basing that conclusion upon self-reports of using guns to stop crimes. I simply don't buy it, no more than I would buy statistics about job discrimination based solely upon self-reports.

 

[melvin]

I think we got off track a bit on what was supposed to be guns in Target. Does anyone really think that the shoppers in Texas should be roaming the store with weapons slung (rifles which can be ineffective in close quarters, and have a high chance for collateral damage), and being carried at low ready?? Is this not extreme? Would conceal and carry NOT be more prudent for shopping in the store ?

Nobody here is saying that people should be carrying rifles around. Even the NRA is very much against it.

They are against it because they know it turns normal people against folks who want to carry. On the flip side, rather than concealing a weapon, it lets everyone else know who is packing. Additionally, the argument used by the NRA, John Lott and others is that if criminals know that someone is armed, they are less likely to target them. If that is true, then gun advocates should prefer open carry. In other words, using their logic, having these folks open carry in a Target should make it safer than if those same folks concealed their guns.

 

[Red Master]

I think we got off track a bit on what was supposed to be guns in Target. Does anyone really think that the shoppers in Texas should be roaming the store with weapons slung (rifles which can be ineffective in close quarters, and have a high chance for collateral damage), and being carried at low ready?? Is this not extreme? Would conceal and carry NOT be more prudent for shopping in the store ?

Nobody here is saying that people should be carrying rifles around. Even the NRA is very much against it.

They are against it because they know it turns normal people against folks who want to carry. On the flip side, rather than concealing a weapon, it lets everyone else know who is packing. Additionally, the argument used by the NRA, John Lott and others is that if criminals know that someone is armed, they are less likely to target them. If that is true, then gun advocates should prefer open carry. In other words, using their logic, having these folks open carry in a Target should make it safer than if those same folks concealed their guns.

There are many gun advocates that prefer open carry. But the vast majority of the pro-gun community is opposed to carrying rifles around.

 

[Barcode]

I think we got off track a bit on what was supposed to be guns in Target. Does anyone really think that the shoppers in Texas should be roaming the store with weapons slung (rifles which can be ineffective in close quarters, and have a high chance for collateral damage), and being carried at low ready?? Is this not extreme? Would conceal and carry NOT be more prudent for shopping in the store ?

Nobody here is saying that people should be carrying rifles around. Even the NRA is very much against it.

They are against it because they know it turns normal people against folks who want to carry. On the flip side, rather than concealing a weapon, it lets everyone else know who is packing. Additionally, the argument used by the NRA, John Lott and others is that if criminals know that someone is armed, they are less likely to target them. If that is true, then gun advocates should prefer open carry. In other words, using their logic, having these folks open carry in a Target should make it safer than if those same folks concealed their guns.

Yes, showing that you are packing heat will strike fear into the hearts of criminals.

And into the rest of us.

 

[melvin]

I think we got off track a bit on what was supposed to be guns in Target. Does anyone really think that the shoppers in Texas should be roaming the store with weapons slung (rifles which can be ineffective in close quarters, and have a high chance for collateral damage), and being carried at low ready?? Is this not extreme? Would conceal and carry NOT be more prudent for shopping in the store ?

Nobody here is saying that people should be carrying rifles around. Even the NRA is very much against it.

They are against it because they know it turns normal people against folks who want to carry. On the flip side, rather than concealing a weapon, it lets everyone else know who is packing. Additionally, the argument used by the NRA, John Lott and others is that if criminals know that someone is armed, they are less likely to target them. If that is true, then gun advocates should prefer open carry. In other words, using their logic, having these folks open carry in a Target should make it safer than if those same folks concealed their guns.

Yes, showing that you are packing heat will strike fear into the hearts of criminals.

And into the rest of us.

Oh, make no mistake, I encourage every team member and guest to complain to store leadership as soon as they see one of these people walking around with their guns. It's particularly important for guests to do this, because these companies respond to numbers. If people start demonstrating that they won't shop at places that allow people in with their guns, policies will change left and right.

 

[Guest]

Why is the outcry selective? Why is it the end of the world when a school gets shot up while basically minimal coverage of daily drive by shootings in Chicago? Why doesn't Obama visit Chicago and offer condelences? Why do people turn away from that stuff? What makes a school better than a neighborhood in Chicago? Thought and word police, go ahead and arrest me. Just asking questions.