Target respectfully requests that you shop unarmed

[myntalfloss]

[youtube][/youtube]

That probably wouldn't fit because it doesn't appear to me that his intention is calculated to alarm anyone. It would probably more likely that he would be charged with intentional failure to conceal. Especially since no one was alarmed at the time he did it and the only way anyone found out was that he was dumb enough to post it online.

What do you think his intention was and how do you know no one was alarmed?

I don't alarm easily but if I saw this pinhead pull a piece in a dept store, alarmed wouldn't quite describe my feelings. This idiot shouldn't be allowed near a real gun. Or a child.

Calm down. I said it probably wouldn't fit because it doesn't appear that his intention was to alarm anyone. Meaning, those around him at the time. The reason I think that is because we likely would never have heard about this if he hadn't been dumb enough to post it online. There was no headline about him being arrested for it or that the SWAT team was called in to surround the place and make everyone come out one by one with their hands above their heads. And to me, it looks like he is trying to be a little discreet in these pictures, while being a dingleberry showing off his gun in Target. That's what it looks like to me. If that's not what it looks like to you that's okay. I'm not going to tell you you're wrong. You might be right and I might be wrong. So what.

First and foremost, I hope I didn't give you the impression that I was upset with you, merely with the display monkey. If I gave that impression, I apologize. But, thank you for the soothing words.

As to the PROBABLY and APPEARS, without being there, I can only say that no one APPARENTLY made a report or if they did, it hasn't been made public. But, unless these Target shoppers are a special breed, and based on the reactions at the other OC sightings, I'd suggest that folks were PROBABLY alarmed. As to his intention, who knows? When you've got an idjit with these kind of decision making skills, it's anyone's guess as to what's transpiring in his little brain-housing group.

The 'what' in the 'so what' is;

If you're right and I'm wrong, then I've possibly overreacted to a brain-damaged asshat abusing his 2nd Amendment rights by brandishing a firearm in front of a small child in a wildly inappropriate setting.

If I'm right and you're wrong, then the aforementioned chapeau has alarmed and offended many people, thereby probably changing the opinions of neutral or even pro-gun citizens into people with a negative view of guns and gun owners (again using the previous sightings as rationale ). The assumption being, that if they can't count on legal gun owners to behave responsibly then all gun owners are bad and by extension, all guns are bad.

I hope you're right.

[myntalfloss]

However, the Preamble to the Constitution of the United States does say all that.

ShootDontTalk, basically, I agree with your premise, but here's the thing I would quibble with you over..... as a Christian myself, I agree that these rights are God-given. However, the founders were an eclectic bunch, including Christians, theists, agnostics, etc., and they realized that these rights had to be explainable as pertaining to them also. After all, how can an atheist who does not believe in a creator seriously claim rights established by a deity he doesn't even believe exists? So, the founders used a set of terms interchangeably, sometimes depending on who was speaking.... terms like "God-given", "nature's God", "natural rights", and so on. While I would never deny the Lord's involvement in this, others might, I think we need to be inclusive in our choice of terms so as to make it clear that these rights are universal, regardless of one's spiritual condition, simply because one lives and breathes.

If there's an award for most intelligent post, you've got my vote.

[myntalfloss]

I'm with you on the , and while I'm not against OC, for the life of me, I can't figure out why you'd want to. I understand carrying a defensive firearm but giving up the advantage of surprise that you get from CC seems counter-intuitive.

The idea is deterrence. That if a criminal is looking for a victim they are going to choose a soft target not a armed person to tangle with. I will say there are gives and takes to OC.

What is being done in TX with people acting stupid is not helping any of us. Our local target has no signs so far.[/quote]

Again, with you on the people acting stupid.

As to the deterrence factor, I'd suggest that if you and a bad guy are similarly armed, and he knows you have a gun and you don't know that he does, he has the advantage. Also, with your weapon in plain sight and within easy grasp, unless you're able to overcome the false sense of security that being armed gives you and remained vigilant, and have the physical skills necessary to retain your weapon during a struggle, the bad guy may soon have two guns. Carrying concealed diminishes these issues.

[mamabearCali]

I'm with you on the , and while I'm not against OC, for the life of me, I can't figure out why you'd want to. I understand carrying a defensive firearm but giving up the advantage of surprise that you get from CC seems counter-intuitive.

The idea is deterrence. That if a criminal is looking for a victim they are going to choose a soft target not a armed person to tangle with. I will say there are gives and takes to OC.

What is being done in TX with people acting stupid is not helping any of us. Our local target has no signs so far.

Again, with you on the people acting stupid.

As to the deterrence factor, I'd suggest that if you and a bad guy are similarly armed, and he knows you have a gun and you don't know that he does, he has the advantage. Also, with your weapon in plain sight and within easy grasp, unless you're able to overcome the false sense of security that being armed gives you and remained vigilant, and have the physical skills necessary to retain your weapon during a struggle, the bad guy may soon have two guns. Carrying concealed diminishes these issues.[/quote]

There are pluses and minuses to CC and OC. I usually CC. For the reasons you mentioned and more. OC is more visible which can be good or bad. With OC your weapon is usually more accessible, to both you and everyone else. In VA anyone can OC you must jump through a few hoops to CC. CC is more circumspect, you gain surprise, but lose deterrence. Anyway, I like constitutional carry carry how you like not cause you jumped through a bunch if hoops but because you are an American.

Anyway....good chat.

Now about target.....I find it funny that their statement has likely made them more of a target for thieves. Rather poetic.

[myntalfloss]

Anyway....good chat.

Now about target.....I find it funny that their statement has likely made them more of a target for thieves. Rather poetic.

I agree. I enjoy discussing differing views with civil people.

As to Target, it's kind of ironic. They're trying their darnedest to be respectful; they haven't had a hissy fit or threatened to post 3006 signs and they're still getting all the grief. I think I'll try shopping there just to support that sort of behavior.

[bilgerat57]

I didn't catch the entire article, just the headline while the wife was scrolling through, but apparently, the day after Target made their statement, a Target customer was robbed at gunpoint (I believe it was in the parking lot, not sure). Did anyone else catch that? I haven't had time to look for it. Might be interesting to see the liability level on that one since Target made a public statement about not allowing guns on premises.......

I don't think there is any additional liability.

http://gunsnfreedom.com/0709-go-to-targ ... un-policy/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Nothing in that article leads me to believe Target is subject to any additional legal liability because they've requested people to not bring their guns in. Are you suggesting otherwise?

I'm thinking the victims lawyer might make the argument that by publicizing their new firearms policy they have created an atmosphere where an armed criminal would feel he had an advantage over a citizen where it might not otherwise exist. We've seen lawyers in the past get away with more farfetched arguments....(ie: hot coffee at mickey d's?) I'm just doing a bit of "devils advocate" thinking here.

[C-dub]

First and foremost, I hope I didn't give you the impression that I was upset with you, merely with the display monkey. If I gave that impression, I apologize. But, thank you for the soothing words.

As to the PROBABLY and APPEARS, without being there, I can only say that no one APPARENTLY made a report or if they did, it hasn't been made public. But, unless these Target shoppers are a special breed, and based on the reactions at the other OC sightings, I'd suggest that folks were PROBABLY alarmed. As to his intention, who knows? When you've got an idjit with these kind of decision making skills, it's anyone's guess as to what's transpiring in his little brain-housing group.

The 'what' in the 'so what' is;

If you're right and I'm wrong, then I've possibly overreacted to a brain-damaged asshat abusing his 2nd Amendment rights by brandishing a firearm in front of a small child in a wildly inappropriate setting.

If I'm right and you're wrong, then the aforementioned chapeau has alarmed and offended many people, thereby probably changing the opinions of neutral or even pro-gun citizens into people with a negative view of guns and gun owners (again using the previous sightings as rationale ). The assumption being, that if they can't count on legal gun owners to behave responsibly then all gun owners are bad and by extension, all guns are bad.

I hope you're right.

It's all good. Others may have been alarmed, but since we haven't seen any evidence of that we don't know. Given the rabid way that the MSM goes after folks like this, I'd think that if anyone was alarmed and called it in and the police responded we would have heard about it by now and it might be national news. The level of irresponsibility from this guy is unbelievable!

[RetNavy]

I didn't catch the entire article, just the headline while the wife was scrolling through, but apparently, the day after Target made their statement, a Target customer was robbed at gunpoint (I believe it was in the parking lot, not sure). Did anyone else catch that? I haven't had time to look for it. Might be interesting to see the liability level on that one since Target made a public statement about not allowing guns on premises.......

I don't think there is any additional liability.

http://gunsnfreedom.com/0709-go-to-targ ... un-policy/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Nothing in that article leads me to believe Target is subject to any additional legal liability because they've requested people to not bring their guns in. Are you suggesting otherwise?

I'm thinking the victims lawyer might make the argument that by publicizing their new firearms policy they have created an atmosphere where an armed criminal would feel he had an advantage over a citizen where it might not otherwise exist. We've seen lawyers in the past get away with more farfetched arguments....(ie: hot coffee at mickey d's?) I'm just doing a bit of "devils advocate" thinking here.

Target could be liable IF they any one brings up the recent ruling about the Giants fan who suffered head injuries when he was beaten up even though it was in a parking lot.... Stadium has to pay the most while the other two has to pay some.... victim lawyers argued that the stadium didnt provide adequate security...

just mine opinion

[mojo84]

I didn't catch the entire article, just the headline while the wife was scrolling through, but apparently, the day after Target made their statement, a Target customer was robbed at gunpoint (I believe it was in the parking lot, not sure). Did anyone else catch that? I haven't had time to look for it. Might be interesting to see the liability level on that one since Target made a public statement about not allowing guns on premises.......

I don't think there is any additional liability.

http://gunsnfreedom.com/0709-go-to-targ ... un-policy/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Nothing in that article leads me to believe Target is subject to any additional legal liability because they've requested people to not bring their guns in. Are you suggesting otherwise?

I'm thinking the victims lawyer might make the argument that by publicizing their new firearms policy they have created an atmosphere where an armed criminal would feel he had an advantage over a citizen where it might not otherwise exist. We've seen lawyers in the past get away with more farfetched arguments....(ie: hot coffee at mickey d's?) I'm just doing a bit of "devils advocate" thinking here.

Target could be liable IF they any one brings up the recent ruling about the Giants fan who suffered head injuries when he was beaten up even though it was in a parking lot.... Stadium has to pay the most while the other two has to pay some.... victim lawyers argued that the stadium didnt provide adequate security...

just mine opinion

That case has nothing to do with "requesting" people not carrying their weapons. So no additional liability for Target from making the request.

[SSwt00SS]

What do they mean by "unexpected"? When you create the environment, what did you think would happen?

http://www.inquisitr.com/1343779/target ... customers/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[kenobi]

Target could be liable IF they any one brings up the recent ruling about the Giants fan who suffered head injuries when he was beaten up even though it was in a parking lot.... Stadium has to pay the most while the other two has to pay some.... victim lawyers argued that the stadium didnt provide adequate security...

just mine opinion

That recent judgement is interesting in light of this discussion. They said the team didn't provide adequate security. In the case of a violent crime at Target, the lawyers can say Target didn't provide adequate security AND told people not to provide their own security.

Some companies say they post signs for liability reasons. Maybe we can make posting those signs a bigger liability!

[bilgerat57]

Target could be liable IF they any one brings up the recent ruling about the Giants fan who suffered head injuries when he was beaten up even though it was in a parking lot.... Stadium has to pay the most while the other two has to pay some.... victim lawyers argued that the stadium didnt provide adequate security...

just mine opinion

That recent judgement is interesting in light of this discussion. They said the team didn't provide adequate security. In the case of a violent crime at Target, the lawyers can say Target didn't provide adequate security AND told people not to provide their own security.

Some companies say they post signs for liability reasons. Maybe we can make posting those signs a bigger liability!

That's the gist of the question. If a business is going to restrict your ability to protect yourself (within the law) then should they be required to compensate for that and be liable for the results? Seems like a good attorney could make a strong case for that. I wonder what kind of wording would be needed for a sign prohibiting only open carry on the premises and thus preserving the concealed option. I would think that would be a win-win for all.......

[mojo84]

Target could be liable IF they any one brings up the recent ruling about the Giants fan who suffered head injuries when he was beaten up even though it was in a parking lot.... Stadium has to pay the most while the other two has to pay some.... victim lawyers argued that the stadium didnt provide adequate security...

just mine opinion

That recent judgement is interesting in light of this discussion. They said the team didn't provide adequate security. In the case of a violent crime at Target, the lawyers can say Target didn't provide adequate security AND told people not to provide their own security.

Some companies say they post signs for liability reasons. Maybe we can make posting those signs a bigger liability!

That's the gist of the question. If a business is going to restrict your ability to protect yourself (within the law) then should they be required to compensate for that and be liable for the results? Seems like a good attorney could make a strong case for that. I wonder what kind of wording would be needed for a sign prohibiting only open carry on the premises and thus preserving the concealed option. I would think that would be a win-win for all.......

If one does not like the terms the store has they do not have to go there. It's really the customer's decision. Also, it is a "request".

[Abraham]

Mojo is right.

No one is obligated to shop at Target.

Undoubtedly, their request is a weak kneed appeal to all elements of gun control and pro gun folk too, after all it's a request...

Of course, they could do like some brave restaurant owners and welcome gun folk, but they're a big corporation and have to behave like gut-less politicians.

[SQLGeek]

I carried in not one but two Target stores today. Neither was posted with any kind of signage (which was already known) and nobody lost their minds or even knew.

My gun also didn't jump out of its holster and start randomly attacking fellow shoppers. So I've got that going for me...which is nice.