|
BecomingV -> RE: Must have used a knife (8/7/2014 6:07:23 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: BamaD
quote:
ORIGINAL: BecomingV
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.
Yes they have every right to ban firearms on their property, just as I have every right to do business somewhere else.
GUN FREE ZONES DON'T WORK.
According to Alabama law any injury incurred by anyone during the commission of a crime falls squarely on the criminal.
If two guys hold up a place and one of them gets killed the other goes up for murder 1.
I believe it is the same in Florida.
Florida law is not something which is applied equally to all segments of the population, so... in short, "don't count on it."
Now, the point I was making is that without further information, I know that I can't judge whether putting up a "gun-free zone" sign WORKS.
Define, "works" as you mean it. Putting up the sign may "work" for the business owner in terms of putting up a public boundary which may be used to deflect potential law suits. Agreed? Or, putting up the sign may "work" for the business owner, at home - appeasing a spouse who wants to see them do Something! In other words, it may only be symbolic in terms of actually keeping guns out of the place, but it still may "work" to gain the owner some peace, at home.
Those are a few examples of why I can't say that the sign doesn't "work" without more information. Otherwise, I'm just looking at a sign and making stuff up.
ETA - typo
|
|
|
|
