Ah, sometimes I wonder why I read Huffington Post! I suppose for the same reason that many of my FB contacts (not all of them friends) are anti-gun liberals and I continue to read their drivel and shake my head. I prefer to hone my thoughts and thinking skills by reading contrary points of view. That in itself sets me apart from those liberals.
But I felt I had to mock Huffington's title for this article ("7 Companies That Don't Want Guns In Their Stores").
Let's see:
Tragedy number 1 on today's list - 4 marines killed by a shooter in Tennessee (at this point, no need to note his apparent cultural/religious affiliation). Take a good look at the picture of the front door of the recruiting station that he shot-up. See the "No Guns Allowed" sign? You can't shoot at that! Venue 2, where the tragic killings took place - you do know that military personnel (other than military police) are prohibited from carry on military installations, right? Good enough to carry and kill in foreign lands, our "heroes", yet not trustworthy at home. But that didn't stop Nidal Hasan or Aaron Alexis did it? How can that be?
Recent tragedy number 2: Charleston - 9 parishioners murdered by a young psychopath who was only armed because the liberal-cherished NICS failed. The pastor an anti-gun activist in a state where church carry is illegal without pastor permission. No, that does not mean they or anyone deserved to die. But that didn't stop Dylan Roof did it?
Recent News: Aurora shooter found guilty! Theater banned guns. Didn't stop James Holmes, did it?
Common elements in target selection? Do I need to explain it?
Okay then - but first, to some of the mistaken details in the Huffpost article:
1. Whataburger did not ban guns in their restaurants - they banned open carry. So that is lie number one. they banned the open display because they felt it might hurt the delicate sensibilities of their customers. They're probably wrong, but their right. But, as the article notes, they "asked people not to open carry". That falls far short of saying they "don't want guns in their stores." If I were them I would correct Huffington's mistaken report, before it hurts their business with concealed carriers - especially in Southern States (well, hell, I am probably the only one of us reading HP anyway).
2. Chipotle: As Huffpost itself noted, Chipotle said "The display of firearms in our restaurants has now created an environment that is potentially intimidating or uncomfortable for many of our customers." Not all guns - open display. Lie number 2.
Skip to 5, since Panera and Sonic both seemingly ask customers not to bring any guns to their stores.
5. Chili's: "We recognize that the open carry of firearms creates an uncomfortable atmosphere and is not permitted under many local liquor laws. So, we kindly ask that guests refrain from openly carrying firearms into our restaurants and we will continue to follow state and local laws on this issue.” So, they ask customers not to open carry - not to refrain from bringing guns, but open display of them. More misdirection.
So, blah, blah, blah, 3 of the seven listed specifically mention open carry, not simply "guns". And what they are also saying is that they don't want gun owners business. But all of this, while it demonstrates Huffington's tendency toward misdirection and hyperbole, misses the critical point.
Inconvenient Truth 1. Huffington and other anti-gun folks, including these businesses, do not realize that, as noted above, such requests affect only those who are not criminals, who have no criminal intent, people who "follow rules". How many times must it be said - a criminal bent on armed robbery or worse will not be deterred by a law, a sign, or a corporate request that his gun be left outside. Criminals, by definition, do not follow rules (DUH!).
Inconvenient Truth 2. Anti-gun folks also deny what has been shown time and again - that the greater the number of lawful carriers of firearms in a locale, the less violent crime - even more convincingly, longitudinally. Concealed carry has grown over the last 8 years (especially in recent years as the current administration has threatened to curtail 2A rights) , while violent crime has declined (of course, they will not tell you that, preferring to focus on individual tragedies committed by the mentally unwell). Criminals are brazen, but not brave and not stupid. They prefer to ply their illegal trade with as little risk as possible - for the most part, more benefit for as little cost as possible (although more and more of them will kill for no reason, whether appeased or not). That is why your grandma walking the street is a higher probability target than a six foot 250 pound man (unless he is a member of an opposing gang). Wonder why police in uniform are rarely assaulted except when trying to effect arrest, why most criminals run from them if they can; Hint - they are clearly armed and prepared - a criminal knows he may get shot. Criminals seek a disparity of force in their favor, as do all predators, and they work to get it by being callous, cold and uncaring (lots of things we could say about a culture that breeds them) and having increased numbers, larger size or carrying weapons - especially in an area where no law-abiding person will be carrying them.
Inconvenient Corollary 3. Hence, businesses that advertise to criminals that "good law-abiding folks will not be able to defend themselves here" are sending out invitations to them to commit crime. Be it Aurora CO, Newtown CT, Chattanooga TN, Columbine, Ft. Hood, Charleston, Washington Naval Yard, and so on, it is clear that those who want to kill choose to hunt where they are assured disparity of force (firepower) and violence (against helpless unprepared victims). And with the shooting in Tennessee, it also seems clear that it is not only criminals but terrorists who are aware that they can successfully kill with impunity and die a martyr by choosing such areas. For the terrorist, the only measures of success are body count and dying a glorious death in achieving it. Their only fear is dying a failure. What better hunting ground than one where resistance will be minimal.
The Silly Answer: Of course, liberal anti-gun folks will say that if we ban all guns, then the bad guys would not have them to do their dirty work. The short answer to that is the drug war. Years of trying to enforce prohibition of drug use has lead only to capitulation on some fronts (e.g., marijuana) and moves to reduce penalties since it is clear that use will continue despite them. If we, as a nation, cannot stem the tide of illegal drugs into this country then it is foolish to think we could possibly prevent a black market for firearms coming across the borders. So only those who live in that criminal subculture or are willing to do business in it (e.g., terrorists) will have guns. I cannot see how that fixes the problem. Paris has strict gun laws that did not protect those at Charlie Hebdo. Norway has strict gun laws, yet Anders Breivek succeeded in his large-scale massacre.
It is time to give up fantasy solutions and rose-colored glasses about singing kumbaya as a way to wish away the cruel realities of our current world. Be prepared - or not.
No comments:
Post a Comment