BecomingV
Posts: 916
Joined: 11/11/2013 Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: BamaD We have one set of gas stations in our town has declared themselves to be a gun free zone (no self defense zone). Our first holdup in a couple of years happened last night at one of their stations. Since guns are banned the thug obviously used a knife. I don't understand why they didn't declare it a no crime zone, obviously that would have prevented the holdup. A "gun-free zone" does not equate with a "no self-defense zone," as other posts pointed out. I read your OP as having a mocking tone, which fell flat because of ^^^ that first assertion. Businesses have always asserted a right to limit customers: 1 - No shoes, no shirt, no service 2 - No backpacks 3 - Only 3 students, or less, at a time and more recently, no eyeglasses' cams. When the business you wrote about put a limit on guns under their roof, I see that as being no different from a Presidential gathering. Is THAT a "no guns" gathering? No. The Secret Service keeps their guns, but those who enter are not welcome to bring their own. The business may have a gun behind the counter and have trained all employees in its use. THAT will not prevent gun crime, because a criminal (regardless of what the specific crime they commit is) is a person who will violate the rights of others, in pursuit of getting what they want. So, they may put a bullet hole in the sign that seeks to limit them. However, by NOT allowing customers to bring in guns, should a gun crime begin, there isn't going to be a lot of cross-firing going on, and the chances of hitting a bystander, are lessened. Should a customer come in, and an armed robbery occurs, and the customer begins shooting, too, at least the "no guns" sign is something a lawyer may use to protect the business owner from a law suit. If the customer's bullet ricochets and kills a kid, for example. A case could be made that responsibility for the killing sits squarely on the customer's head and the practice of suing the business, too (because of deeper pockets) wouldn't pass muster, under these circumstances. So, while in the OP, the setting of a no gun zone appears to be laughable, perhaps with a bit of expanded thought, it's not. There may be a very real, profitable and reasonable set of reasons behind it. I would suggest asking the business owner what the reasoning is before coming to a conclusion, or mocking it.
< Message edited by BecomingV -- 8/6/2014 1:20:44 PM >
|