Are Anti-gun Businesses More Dangerous to Patronize?

Status
Not open for further replies.
I'm not sure whether a business is more likely to be the scene of a violent crime simply by virtue of being a GFZ. That said, I am sure that, in the event that the business does become such a scene, I'm less likely to be able to protect myself or others if I am unarmed than if I am armed.

It's not just about the odds. It's about the stakes, too.
 
Only rarely is a mass shooting NOT where the shooter had some sort of conflict or issue with a person or persons of said business. There is no documentation from surviving mass shooters that this is the case.
Click to expand...
Probably because there aren't many surviving mass shooters in the first place. They usually go in with the expectation of dying.

The only trend we can seem to see in location selection is that they seek areas in which they can inflict a large number of casualties within a short period of time.

Not all of those are gun-free zones. The Navy Yard had armed guards. There were armed civilians in the Tucson Safeway parking lot.

Their conflicts, when we know them, are not with specific individuals. They seem to stereotype people into highly generalized groups.
 
Its worth noting that there is no reason to believe that someone wouldnt specifically target a GFZ because it is a soft target.
 
I believe SD trumps property rights of places open to the public for business.

A notion oft-stated but not held up by law in most states. However, it brings up an interesting consideration. If SD trumps property rights in places open to the public for business, then the same trumperage does not not exist for the folks who work in businesses not open to the public? How come their right to defend themselves isn't equally valid?
Click to expand...

I actually believe the latter also. However, the former comes from the argument that your business is part of your 'castle' and you should control it. However, when you open to the public, you lose the sanctity of your private castle.

I don't believe employers have any control over employee rights if it does not directly and clearly affect the business operations. They can't tell you what religion to practice nor should they interfere with your right to self defense.
 
Does anyone care to guess why a mass shooter would avoid a police station during a shift change when there are lots of potential targets? So they choose a soft target instead. So, yes to the OP's question. A soft target is more likely to be attacked by a mass shooter, so by extension, it can be argued that an 'anti-gun business' is more susceptible to a mass shooting and more dangerous. YMMV.
My $.02
 
They can't tell you what religion to practice nor should they interfere with your right to self defense
Click to expand...
I would disagree if people want others to respect their right to carry a firearm, I think peoples right not to want firearms on their private property should be respected. If people have an issue with not being allowed firearms on a property for fear being more likely to be attacked go elsewhere. Are they less safe in an no gun premises. I don't know, what incidents have their being to show that they are more likely to be attacked. ?
 
Police stations have been attacked, so that's not really the case. So have courthouses that have many armed officers.

I think many of you are off into conjecture without a real knowledge of the spectrum of mass shootings.

I don't see this being that productive due to factual errors and speculations.

Thus, I'm calling it.

Closed
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top