I agree with you. If you assume that the world can be separated into two kinds of people:
Guess which category is likely to ignore a “gun-free zone” sign and which category is going to generally follow it.
Our president is not protected by a “gun-free zone” sign. He is protected by a lot of guys with guns. I wonder why?
What’s new (or actually not new) is that lunatics don’t choose areas to shoot up because of their “no gun zone” status. They choose them because there are people there to shoot. People that - to their broken thinking - deserve to die. Beyond that, there isn’t a lot of logical thought going on, so your bringing up no gun zones is kinda pointless.
No, the argument doesn’t work because the “gun-free” zones aren’t. There are spree shootings that take place in places where guns are present but fail to stop the shooter. So the argument becomes, “Well, clearly they didn’t have enough guns to protect all these areas.” But the problem is that spree shootings are incredibly rare, but shootings that occur because someone just happened to be carrying a gun (and was angry, under the influence or just stupid) are already a far bigger problem, even with a relative paucity of guns.
In other words, what the NRA calls “good guys” and “bad guys.” And that’s the fantasy that’s the fundamental problem here - the world doesn’t neatly divide up into those groups.
Wow. That all sounds like blaming the victim. Just give the bad guy what he wants and hope he goes on his way with out hurting you further. Don’t defend yourself, you might force him to escalate the situation. If he tries to rape you or take you away from the area at gun point, try pissing yourself. What utter bullshit.
No, he escalated the situation when he decided to threaten me or someone else with bodily harm. I can’t read his mind. It is possible the guy would take the money and run. But there are many examples where robbers will shot someone just for fun, or worse. I am not willing to take that chance. If I have an opportunity to defend myself I will do so.
I feel like for this particular thread that there’s some missed opportunity in that the focus has been on gun-control rather than how crap Chipotle “food” is.
I’ll take a Chipotle burrito over just about any other fast food burrito. At least they use decent ingredients.
I feel like for every thread that mentions guns that there’s some missed opportunity in that the focus becomes about people’s pre-set position on gun control rather than the original subject.
I think you’re missing the point that I stated it’s a reactionary thing that people have done. I don’t think it’s effective or useful, but people in general feel they need to do something in situations that there is no outward control over. I mean you could put armed guards all over a school, that would help prevent school shootings, but it would make schools an even worse and more fear-inducing place than they are now.
Also those people with guns are highly trained and well-screened, not just anyone who can fill out a form and submit a photo for their gun card. Those people protecting the US president also will only use deadly force when there’s no other option; not something I’d be willing to trust with some of the people I’ve seen who carry regularly.
Also, please see the comment by Glitch (http://bbs.boingboing.net/t/you-can-eat-burritos-without-a-firearm/32146/127) made earlier. They put it much better than I ever could of why it’s a bad idea to draw firearms in a tense situation.
Blaming the victim? I’m merely explaining the best way to not get yourself or others killed. How do you get a personal value judgement out of that?
It doesn’t matter who starts a conflict, if you take action that brings the extant conflict closer to violence, you are by definition escalating the conflict. If you want to astronomically increase the liklihood of people dying, by all means, pull a gun.
It’s not just possible that an armed robber will flee without violence once given your valuables - it is the single most likely outcome. Even if the odds were only slightly better than 50/50, it’s still the smarter move for coming out of things alive. But in actual fact the odds are far, far better than that - they’re in the very highest percentiles.
But maybe you’re confident that you can handle any punk in the world with your trusty big iron. Maybe you’re willing to gamble with your own life (and you’re clearly willing to take up the mantle of judge, jury, and executioner to condemn a petty criminal to death, but that’s another matter entirely). What happens if there are other people around?
Are you willing to gamble their lives and safety as well? When the overwhelmingly safest choice for everyone involved in or nearby to such a conflict is to surrender your valuables, are you honestly going to endanger other lives just to protect your petty property?
I can respect wanting to protect yourself. But taking a situation from bad to worse is not the way to do it. Once bullets start flying, chaos reigns and people are quite often going to die.
If you happen to have a gun once things go to hell, at that point there’s no reason not to use it. Once the fight actually breaks out, sure, feel free to do whatever you can to finish it - but only a goddamn fool would choose to start the fight when they could have avoided it entirely. And no, it wasn’t “the other guy” who started it. A fight isn’t a fight until someone throws the first punch.
If you’re the one who provokes that first punch simply because you’re too proud to take the high road and make the right choice, you deserve whatever you get. The problem is that the people around you might not, and it would be your fault for setting things off. If you find yourself sitting on a powderkeg, that fact that someone else put it there doesn’t give you the right to drop a match on it, epsecially when there are other people around to get hurt.
I guess someone should just tell the cops to leave bad guys alone. Odds are they will be on their way and no one will get hurt. Get the cops involved, guns are drawn, and someone is going to get hurt. It will give them more time to write speeding tickets.
Do you live in Britain?
Well, Chipotle are the ones taking it in the neck. They tried to make a reasonable response to an unreasonable situation, so now both lunatic fringes hate them and are being dickly on their properties. Perhaps that’s some sort of karmic retribution?
I have to admit I don’t know what Chipotle’s food tastes like, though. There’s lots of actual taquerias around here that cater to the illegal Mexicans who cut the rich people’s lawns, so I don’t bother with the chains.
If you’d been paying attention you’d realize that I’ve multiple times mentioned that the police would of course pursue criminals after they flee a robbery.
Telling you the best way to not get yourself killed in a robbery literally has nothing to do with the police finding robbers and bringing them to justice.
But since we’ve decided to divorce ourselves from reality at this point, by all means, invent arguments and put words in my mouth, then smugly invent a rationalization for those imagined arguments that appeals to your deluded nationalistic fervor.
Hell, I’ll even join you to blow off some steam.
"This person said that drawing a gun in a robbery will escalate the situation! They must REALLY mean that criminals should be allowed to run free and be allowed to do all the crimes! This person must be one of those Bad Guy lovers! Which must mean they can’t be from America! Maybe they’re French? They’re a bunch of cowards and hippies who are soft on crime after all - or so I imagine.
No, wait, their spelling and grammar is too good - everyone knows the Frenchies can’t speak good English. Wait… English! They must be British! Those no good Brits! Why do they hate Freedom so much? Remember the Alamo! “No reproduction without copulation!” Bunch of wussies. Can’t even fight a World War without us coming to save their asses!"
See, if some people had their way Smokey would have drawn his own pistol and started a firefight with Walter in the middle of a crowded bowling alley instead of deciding the situation was insane and not worth people dying over and marking his score for that bowl down as zero. 
[quote=“Glitch, post:142, topic:32146”]
If you’d been paying attention you’d realize that I’ve multiple times mentioned that the police would of course pursue criminals after they flee a robbery.[/quote]
Why would you promote that? Does the danger of drawn guns suddenly diminish now that they are out side? Now you are literally chasing someone, possibly into a literal corner. Are there no innocent bystanders now? If the cops just let them go on their way, no one get hurt. Right? That’s your goal, right? To see no one gets hurt?
What if the cops were at the restaurant getting a taco when it gets robbed? Should they act, or is it safer for everyone involved to let them have their money and take off?
Should this line of reasoning extend to my home? Probably all he wants is my TV. Well, not MY TV, it’s an old Sony and weighs like 100lbs. Maybe I should help him load it up to be nice. I can get that new flat screen then. Hopefully my wife and kid will be fine. People are basically good anyway.
I understand your point about the odds being if you did nothing you won’t get hurt. I disagree with you that it is an acceptable risk. We do many things to promote our safety, even if the odds are against us actually getting hurt. All this fear of firearms stems from the very unlikely event of you actually being harmed by one.
My mother knows people who were victims of robbery, who ended sexually assaulted and executed. I guess their families should take comfort in that they did the right thing and didn’t escalate the situation.
No, if you have endangered my life or the life of my family, I will do what I can to ensure their safety.
The reason I asked is because the Brits have taken to coddling criminals in unimaginable ways. From locking up victims who defend themselves against attackers, to victims being successfully sued when criminals are hurt on their property committing a crime. Your viewpoint would be more understandable come from Britain.
Have you been reading the Mail again? You can use reasonable force to defend yourself.
I can assure you that the authoritarians running the place are quite happy to throw people in prison, usually as they know someone making a profit out of it!
Huh? Please use logic here…
There are also shootings that COULD have turned into sprees, but were stopped by a good guy with a gun.
And, no, please do not post links to that horrible “Mother Jones” article – the premise is so badly flawed that I have a hard time believing that it is an honest mistake… either the author was an idiot or a liar.
Keep in mind that people who are prone to that type of behavior are more likely to have had a run-in with the law. To get a concealed-carry permit, you have to be fingerprinted and go through a very extensive background check. I don’t think that the problem is as bad as you make it out to be.
Statistically speaking, if you keep out of certain areas, America is an incredibly safe area. I hate to say it, but a lot of the crime in this country is restricted to a very small minority of zip codes.
EDIT
I just thought that I would throw this in from Wikipedia: Concealed carry in the United States - Wikipedia
The same study concluded that Texas CHL holders were always less likely to commit any particular type of crime than the general population, and overall were 13 times less likely to commit any crime.
And…
He later went on to acknowledge that, “Mr. Lott’s research has convinced his peers of at least one point: No scholars now claim that legalizing concealed weapons causes a major increase in crime.”
And…
The majority of defensive gun uses (DGUs) do not involve killing or wounding an attacker. Government surveys indicate 108,000 to 23 million DGUs per year, while private surveys indicate 764,000 to 3.6 million DGUs per year.
Since when is this about feelings? We are talking cold hard facts and warm, mildly spiced burritos.
Feelings.
Actually, I think yours is.
Do you really think I have Stormfront bookmarked?
I ate there one time and got food poisoning. They’re not getting a second chance. Besides, we have a nearly endless selection of not-chain restaurants in the Ann Arbor area. Any of the hole-in-the-wall taquerias around here beat chains with whips (and chains). I do agree that both ends of the spectrum are acting spectacularly poorly in regards to the untenable position Chipotle had been put in by the open-carry people, but I wouldn’t go so far as to call it karmic retribution just because it’s another bland, corporate chain restaurant. Maybe call it common (and now expected) knee-jerk reaction in post-polarized America.
Ok, I’ll rephrase it, since you didn’t get it: there’s this myth that spree shooters choose “gun-free” zones in which to commit their acts because they’re afraid someone with a gun will stop them; they don’t and they aren’t. A number of these shootings happened in places where there were, in fact, people who were armed and still failed to stop them.
Also, we’re not even talking about “concealed carry.” (But since you brought it up, it’s quite easy to get a concealed carry license in certain states without having any sort of extensive background check - unless you think checking for felony convictions is an extensive background check - and you don’t have to even live in that state to get it.) I’m not sure what the relevance of concealed carry is supposed to be here.
