Restaurant Bans Guns...But Not Armed Robbery

[bripat9643]

Are conservatives really this dumb or are they just so used to reposting whatever they are told to?

Do you really think those signs are for criminals to read and say......I can't rob this place, no guns are allowed?

These restaurants don't want morons walking around with rifles and handguns. It upsets other patrons and it upsets their employees. In spite of NRA mythology of armed citizens fighting off robbers, they do not want shootouts in their restaurants or stores. Give the robber the money and send him on his way

Saves employees or innocent bystanders from being shot

There are documented incidents where armed citizens ended shooting sprees as a result of being armed. Also, the fact that many robbers know (or believe) that citizens are armed acts as a deterrent in and of itself. A robber is less likely to commit a crime if he knows (or believes) that it won't end well for him.

Mass Killings Stopped by Armed Citizens |

You are far more likely to be shot if you have a gun:
Carrying a gun increases risk of getting shot and killed - science-in-society - 06 October 2009 - New Scientist

That theory doesn't account for the fact that places that get robbed a lot are the ones who tend to have guns, so the likelihood is already higher that they will get shot, whether armed or not.

 

[rightwinger]

And just now may robbers do you know?

What we do know is that three armed robbers went into that restaurant and nobody was killed

And we also know that armed thugs never killed anyone . . . . . . . oh, that's right. We don't know that.

In this case ....no, they didn't

But a shootout with three thugs would have

 

[bripat9643]

What we do know is that three armed robbers went into that restaurant and nobody was killed

And we also know that armed thugs never killed anyone . . . . . . . oh, that's right. We don't know that.

In this case ....no, they didn't

But a shootout with three thugs would have

Hindsight vision is always 20/20. When armed thugs walk into a business, you never know if you are going to be shot or not.

 

[DriftingSand]

Are conservatives really this dumb or are they just so used to reposting whatever they are told to?

Do you really think those signs are for criminals to read and say......I can't rob this place, no guns are allowed?

These restaurants don't want morons walking around with rifles and handguns. It upsets other patrons and it upsets their employees. In spite of NRA mythology of armed citizens fighting off robbers, they do not want shootouts in their restaurants or stores. Give the robber the money and send him on his way

Saves employees or innocent bystanders from being shot

There are documented incidents where armed citizens ended shooting sprees as a result of being armed. Also, the fact that many robbers know (or believe) that citizens are armed acts as a deterrent in and of itself. A robber is less likely to commit a crime if he knows (or believes) that it won't end well for him.

Mass Killings Stopped by Armed Citizens |

You are far more likely to be shot if you have a gun:
Carrying a gun increases risk of getting shot and killed - science-in-society - 06 October 2009 - New Scientist

I've been carrying a gun for years and years. Still no bullet wounds but thanks for participating.

 

[Brain357]

Many armed robbers don't give you that option. It's your money AND your life. Therefore, the better scenario is this: a robber demands something from you at gunpoint and you simply shoot him.

1) You keep your money
2) You keep your life
3) Another piece of trash removed from the streets at no cost to the taxpayers.

Many? Do you have some statistics to share?

Workplace homicide is a topic of increasing public health significance. Robbery is an important type of violence in the workplace, accounting for 60-75% of homicides.

Homicide During Robbery: A Case-Control Study

Any more questions?

I don't see any real numbers in your link. This source says 458 workplace homicides occurred in 2011 and about 70% are done by robbers:
Workplace Violence

There were over 354,000 robberies that year:
United States Crime Rates 1960 - 2012

From what stats I could find maybe 50% of robberies are at the workplace. That's a pretty low percent of robberies leading to homicide at a workplace.

 

[DriftingSand]

Very true. A criminal with any sense does not want to use his gun. He does not want to turn an armed robbery into a murder. He wants to go in, get the money and get out
A batshit crazy criminal does not care about his life or anyone elses. Engaging him in a shootout could kill him or could induce him into killing everyone in your store.

And just now may robbers do you know?

What we do know is that three armed robbers went into that restaurant and nobody was killed

We also know that a single armed robber went into a Starbucks awhile back and two were killed. So ...

 

[rightwinger]

And just now may robbers do you know?

What we do know is that three armed robbers went into that restaurant and nobody was killed

We also know that a single armed robber went into a Starbucks awhile back and two were killed. So ...

And how many would be killed in a shootout?

Your Hollywood view of the world where the good guys and the bad guys shoot it out and the good guys always win is not warranted. Starbucks does not want your guns in their stores

 

[Statistikhengst]

Many? Do you have some statistics to share?

Workplace homicide is a topic of increasing public health significance. Robbery is an important type of violence in the workplace, accounting for 60-75% of homicides.

Homicide During Robbery: A Case-Control Study

Any more questions?

I don't see any real numbers in your link. This source says 458 workplace homicides occurred in 2011 and about 70% are done by robbers:
Workplace Violence

There were over 354,000 robberies that year:
United States Crime Rates 1960 - 2012

From what stats I could find maybe 50% of robberies are at the workplace. That's a pretty low percent of robberies leading to homicide at a workplace.

If you confront them with too many numbers, their eyes may glaze over some....

but be patient.

 

[Rozman]

Maybe the sign should have said...
No weapons
No concealed firearms.
No robberies please.We can't protect ourselves....

Ah the mind of the Liberal...love being a victim.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Restaurant Bans Guns...But Not Armed Robbery

So you decided to start a thread about it to exhibit your ignorance of a post hoc fallacy.

 

[Pogo]

Maybe the sign should have said...
No weapons
No concealed firearms.
No robberies please.We can't protect ourselves....

Ah the mind of the Liberal...love being a victim.

Maybe the sign at the top of this thread should read:

No logical fallacies
No cherrypicking
No biased samples
No non sequiturs

Whoops there goes.. ♫ another fallacy thread. ♩ Ker- plunk.

Ah the mind of the gun fetishist... play myth-ty for me...

 

[Siete]

I'm just so confused. How is it that liberal policy of banning guns didn't stop these armed robbers?!? Watching the failure of liberal policy never stops being fall-down hilarious...

Restaurant with 'No Weapons, No Concealed Firearms' Sign Robbed at Gunpoint

really?

the difference between a company policy and an illegal robbery confuses you?

ok then,

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

What we do know is that three armed robbers went into that restaurant and nobody was killed

We also know that a single armed robber went into a Starbucks awhile back and two were killed. So ...

And how many would be killed in a shootout?

Your Hollywood view of the world where the good guys and the bad guys shoot it out and the good guys always win is not warranted. Starbucks does not want your guns in their stores

True.

The right to carry a concealed firearm pursuant to the right of self-defense is intended to safeguard the individual, not empower the individual to act as ‘law enforcement.’

It’s naïve and ignorant to assume that those carrying a concealed firearm will act as a ‘deterrent’ to crime in a given venue, where it’s reckless and irresponsible for those who are carrying a concealed firearm to engage alleged criminals in a ‘shoot-out’ in the event of a robbery.

The premise of this thread fails accordingly.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

And just now may robbers do you know?

What we do know is that three armed robbers went into that restaurant and nobody was killed

We also know that a single armed robber went into a Starbucks awhile back and two were killed. So ...

…it’s a fallacy to assume that the two killed in the Starbucks would have survived if a customer was carrying a concealed weapon at the time, or that the alleged criminal would have refrained from robbing the establishment absent the no guns policy.

 

[Siete]

We also know that a single armed robber went into a Starbucks awhile back and two were killed. So ...

And how many would be killed in a shootout?

Your Hollywood view of the world where the good guys and the bad guys shoot it out and the good guys always win is not warranted. Starbucks does not want your guns in their stores

True.

The right to carry a concealed firearm pursuant to the right of self-defense is intended to safeguard the individual, not empower the individual to act as ‘law enforcement.’

It’s naïve and ignorant to assume that those carrying a concealed firearm will act as a ‘deterrent’ to crime in a given venue, where it’s reckless and irresponsible for those who are carrying a concealed firearm to engage alleged criminals in a ‘shoot-out’ in the event of a robbery.

The premise of this thread fails accordingly.

finally, a logician

 

[LuckyDuck01!]

I fail to see how any sign will stop a person with a concealed weapon from entering. They will continue just going into the businesses if they choose. The management and staff will not know he/she has one, unless of course, they begin searching all customers who enter.
So, for all those who carry concealed weapons....just ignore the stupid sign and go about your business.
What they don't know can't hurt them.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

I fail to see how any sign will stop a person with a concealed weapon from entering. They will continue just going into the businesses if they choose. The management and staff will not know he/she has one, unless of course, they begin searching all customers who enter.
So, for all those who carry concealed weapons....just ignore the stupid sign and go about your business.
What they don't know can't hurt them.

And you can legally do so however keep in mind, you aren't respecting their property rights so don't ask that they respect yours.

 

[Pogo]

What we do know is that three armed robbers went into that restaurant and nobody was killed

We also know that a single armed robber went into a Starbucks awhile back and two were killed. So ...

…it’s a fallacy to assume that the two killed in the Starbucks would have survived if a customer was carrying a concealed weapon at the time, or that the alleged criminal would have refrained from robbing the establishment absent the no guns policy.

And equally fallacious to assume that such an escalation wouldn't have taken down the same two, or likely more, in a free-for-all crossfire.

"Hey, there's a fire. Let's put it out with this gas pump".

 

[bripat9643]

We also know that a single armed robber went into a Starbucks awhile back and two were killed. So ...

And how many would be killed in a shootout?

Your Hollywood view of the world where the good guys and the bad guys shoot it out and the good guys always win is not warranted. Starbucks does not want your guns in their stores

True.

The right to carry a concealed firearm pursuant to the right of self-defense is intended to safeguard the individual, not empower the individual to act as ‘law enforcement.’

Law enforcement is only intended to perform the defense functions that individuals are entitled to perform for themselves, so the distinction you claim is meaningless.

It’s naïve and ignorant to assume that those carrying a concealed firearm will act as a ‘deterrent’ to crime in a given venue, where it’s reckless and irresponsible for those who are carrying a concealed firearm to engage alleged criminals in a ‘shoot-out’ in the event of a robbery.

The premise of this thread fails accordingly.

It's no more "reckless" than the police engaging in shoot-outs with armed robbers. In fact, the record shows that concealed carry holders are more likely to nail the perpetrator and avoid harming bystanders than the police.

Your premises fail. For one thing, that's all they are: premises, not logic, and the facts don't back them up.

 

[bripat9643]

We also know that a single armed robber went into a Starbucks awhile back and two were killed. So ...

…it’s a fallacy to assume that the two killed in the Starbucks would have survived if a customer was carrying a concealed weapon at the time, or that the alleged criminal would have refrained from robbing the establishment absent the no guns policy.

And equally fallacious to assume that such an escalation wouldn't have taken down the same two, or likely more, in a free-for-all crossfire.

"Hey, there's a fire. Let's put it out with this gas pump".

No one assumes it, knucklehead. The recorded events show that to be the case.