If only someone was armed...

T

Tyrenz

Inactive
Hi all! This may be my first post?

I just wanted to re-visit a tragic event that touched me and my friends back when I was in high school.

Peetzakilla posted:
My email to them (Chuck E Cheeses) read:

I recently brought my family to your location in Vestal, NY. I found
it quite disturbing to see a "No Firearms" sign posted at the front
doors. Such signs are the definition of senseless. Law-abiding
citizens who have been issued a permit to carry firearms have, at
minimum, endured a lengthy background check process and pose a threat
to no one. On the other hand, those who intend harm will pay no heed
to a simple sign banning firearms and will, in fact, find a room
filled with defenseless victims who will, being honest and law
abiding, be totally unarmed.
I am very disappointed that your company has taken a position favoring
criminals and discriminating against law abiding citizens.
I will not be visiting your business again.



Well, I have received their response, actually last Thursday, and I replied to their response. I held off posting until today to see if they would answer my second query. They have not.

So, their response is:

Mr. Pfleuger,

We are in receipt of your email and understand your position regarding your
right to carry a firearm. For the safety of all of our customers and
employees, Chuck E. Cheese's chooses to maintain the position of no firearms allowed on their premises.

MERRY CHRISTMAS!
Click to expand...

I just bought my first gun, a SIG P229 9mm and have submitted my application for my CCW permit. When I read the above post, I just really upset that Chuck E Cheeses would dare respond in that way. Back in the 90's, a disgruntled worker walked into a Chuck E Cheeses and executed 4 innocent people, one of them who was my friend. Ben Grant lived 2 houses away from me and would come over every other day or so to hang out and play video games after school.

Here is a link to the article which describes the event:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3190/is_n1_v28/ai_14688386/

Ben was 17 when he was killed, so he wouldn't have been able to legally carry a firearm at the time, but the manager was the last one killed, and was killed in her office! If the manager had a weapon, maybe, JUST MAYBE she would have been able to take that psychopath (Nate Dunlap) down. BTW, Nate Dunlap was also a student at my high school and was NOT an outcast/wierd guy that fits the profile for a deranged shooter.

Peetzakilla is spot on. I just can't believe that CEC would dare reply in that fashion, when the tragedy that killed Ben Grant could have been prevented by an armed manager. Did they forget already?! because I can guarantee that none of his friends have forgotten about him. Obviously, CEC's policy regarding firearms in their restaurant did not prevent Dunlap from harming their employees.
 
Obviously, CEC's policy regarding firearms in their restaurant did not prevent Dunlap from harming their employees.
Click to expand...

Disarming prospective victims merely encourages criminals to prey upon them; it does, however, enable lawyers to feel the corporate back side has been covered against prospective law suits if someone with a gun does something stupid.

In short: the company's lawyers are more afraid of its employees than criminals.
 
Three NC politicians were interviwed by a local news station and the story aired tonight. Two were Republicans, and one was a Democrat. Two were females. They all stated that in light of the recent Arizona tragedies, they have applied for permits and intend on carrying their own defensive weapons. Despite the atmosphere on the national news, this was good to hear.


-7-
 
Peetzakilla is spot on. I just can't believe that CEC would dare reply in that fashion, when the tragedy that killed Ben Grant could have been prevented by an armed manager. Did they forget already?! because I can guarantee that none of his friends have forgotten about him. Obviously, CEC's policy regarding firearms in their restaurant did not prevent Dunlap from harming their employees.
Click to expand...

Nope, the policy didn't prevent the criminal acts. The policy isn't designed to prevent criminal acts. CEC's liability in criminal acts is much less than its liability for things they allow. CEC's policy is to keep idiot employees from doing stupid stuff with guns the company says they can carry at work. It prevents CEC employees from wrongly shooting each other or patrons during robberies.

Strangely, they have other policies that don't prevent criminal acts as well. CEC not only has the policy of allowing strangers to enter the business, but requires that employees interact with such strangers. Employees are not kept safely behind bullet resistent barriers.

In short: the company's lawyers are more afraid of its employees than criminals.
Click to expand...

It may be the CFO and not the lawyers.
 
Just something that came to mind, when reading the last post...

I worked for Wal-Mart for a year and a half, and was shocked to find out that WM takes out a life insurance policy on all of it's full time emplo...I mean, associates.
In this scenario, if CEC did something similar, they would actually MAKE money off of this situation. Just something to think about.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top