« Rep. Eric Massa unloads on Democrats | Main | OK... we'll play... »

Double Shot

Two stories caught my attention this morning.

First up, Derrick Jackson -- who can always be counted on to toe the liberal line right past the point of reason -- rails against Starbucks, who has decided that it will NOT enforce a gun ban in its shops.

I don't have a dog in this fight -- I don't drink coffee, and I don't own any guns -- but I am a Constitutional militant, and I believe wholeheartedly in the 2nd Amendment. In this case, Starbucks has the legal right to insist on being a "gun-free zone," but it has chosen not to do so -- and that has the gun-grabbers in a huge hissy-fit.

As I argued in the comments over there, and have argued countless times before, the main feature of "gun-free zones" is to provide a target-rich environment for any nut who decides to go on a shooting spree. All of the big mass shootings have taken place where the property owners have decided to declare "gun-free." And for some reason, that magic phrase doesn't seem to deter a nutjob with guns who wants to kill people -- they aren't turned away by the stern signs.

Don't they know they're BREAKING RULES on their way to commit murder? Sheesh.

If the mere presence of guns were enough to trigger mass nuttiness, then we'd see more shootings at hunting clubs, gun shows, firing ranges, and the like. Instead, it's the places where guns are strictly forbidden (schools, colleges, malls, and whatnot -- even Fort Hood, where soldiers were forbidden to carry weapons) where these massacres take place.

One notable exception was the New Life Church in Colorado. There, it was known that a nutjob was targeting churches. The members of that congregation took matters into their own hands and formed a volunteer armed security detail of members -- and when said unnamed nutjob showed up, one of the volunteers (Ms. Jeanne Assam) shot and wounded him, stopping his murderous rampage. (The gunman then took his own life, rather than being captured.)

Last night, we had another demonstration of just what "gun-free zones" tend to lead to. On the allegedly gun-free campus of Ohio State University, one employee was killed and two more were wounded.

Didn't that gunman know the rules?

II. Conduct or Behavior Not Tolerated by the University A. Direct or implied threats. B. Physical conduct that results in harm to people or property. C. Possession of deadly weapons on University property.

And what's a deadly weapon?

Deadly weapon - any instrument, device or thing capable of inflicting death, and designed or specially adapted for use as a weapon, or possessed, carried or used as a weapon including, but not limited to, a firearm (including unloaded, inoperable or sawed off firearms, starter pistols, zip guns, etc.), knife, club, brass knuckles, martial arts weapon, or stun gun. Prohibited items shall not be stored in personal vehicles parked on state-owned and/or leased property.

Apparently this unnamed shooter didn't read THE RULES.

Banning of firearms does not guarantee safety. What it does is promises would-be predators defenseless prey.

I'm going to repeat myself: when someone declares a place to be a "gun-free zone," they are making an implicit promise. They are saying "you can give up your right to defend yourself, because we'll protect you." That's a promise they can't keep, and that's a promise they have no business making.

But don't worry. They'll never have to pay the price for failing to keep it. That price will be paid by those who trusted them.


TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/38439.

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Double Shot:

» Maggie's Farm linked with Tuesday evening links

Comments (37)

Jackson is in a tizzy over ... (Below threshold)
Oyster:

Jackson is in a tizzy over that one isn't he? It seems as if Starbucks genuinely isn't interested in implementing touchy feelie rules just because, well, it sounds nice.

Hell, I went to a Starbucks once about three years ago and decided a cup of coffee wasn't worth $4. Neither was I interested in being forced to order a "tall" or "grande" rather than than just small or large (don't get foo-foo with me!) and never went back. I may have to go buy some coffee from them as thanks for not buying into the leftist dogma.

I think this is a case of p... (Below threshold)
Jeff:

I think this is a case of projection. Hard core leftists almost never have any experience with guns. They also hate their political opponents with such fury that they often imagine they would use a gun on them if they owned one. They assume that guns owners MUST have the same anger at their political opponents, they simply must.

I don't like starbucks coff... (Below threshold)
Matt:

I don't like starbucks coffee, but support their right, 100% to decide what happens on their PRIVATE property. If they want to put up a sign that says, no shirt, no shoes, better service! I'm all for it.

I live in a state with open carry, and a generous concealed policy and we have no problems of the kind anti-gunners worry about. The various murders are caused by the drug trade not the honest citizen.

i can see a guy bringing au... (Below threshold)
gollyneds:

i can see a guy bringing automatic weapons somewhere, planning on a mass killing. then he sees the sign saying "no guns allowed"

"damn!" he says. "now i have to cart these all back home and i just feel so unfulfilled."

Reminds me of the statement... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

Reminds me of the statement made by the asshole VP of Student Affairs at Virginia Tech PRIOR to the shootings. 'We've taken certain measures to insure nothing like this (a previous shooting) will happen again.' Yeah, that worked out real well.

I've noticed in recent reports of random shootings in crowded areas, that some people have begun to fight back. In numbers, there's strength. Seems that getting attacked is not what shooters plan for. Unfortunately, they are holding the shooter for police. Personal opinion: The 'victims' beat the shooter to death with his own weapon, then turn him over to police. Word will spread fast. You don't hear of many people standing up and trying to hijack airliners anymore. Seems the passengers, unconsciously or not, have decided their not going to remain sitting down in what could be a man-directed missile.

I find it interesting that ... (Below threshold)
Mark W:

I find it interesting that Ohio State University clearly spells out that knives are banned on campus as deadly weapons. Just what utensils do they provide in the campus cafeterias? I would think that a knife would be necessary with some foods, but obviously they don't. If they are in fact providing knives in the campus cafeterias, are they not themselves in violation of their own rules?

Don't get stared on knives ... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

Don't get stared on knives Mark. Some idiot ER doctor in Britain wants all sharp knives banned. Seems that people are still showing up in the ER with injuries. Not gunshots, stab wounds. So the good doctor wants sharp knives "registered". You know, butchers, barbers, surgeons. Only those with a real "need". The rest of us can use butter knives.

Well said. But you should r... (Below threshold)
OLDPUPPYMAX:

Well said. But you should really buy a gun. The fact that we have and take advantage of the 2nd amendment is the only reason we still enjoy any of the others.

I thought this was a libera... (Below threshold)
914:

I thought this was a liberal free zone?

bryanD ...wow, you... (Below threshold)
Jeff:

bryanD ...

wow, you really nailed him there ... oh wait ...

I guess not ...

We hear your cry for help ... your worldview is crashing down around you and you are looking for a way out of your dawning realization that Obama conned you ... fear not, you are not alone ... we can help you return to the real world


While businesses have the r... (Below threshold)
Gmac:

While businesses have the right to declare they are "Gun free establishments I am also free to patronize other businesses that are more accommodating.
I avoid going to locations that say they are going to abuse my rights while at the same time declaring loudly to any criminal interested that there are victims waiting to be had. I don't care how much they don't like my right to self defense, I'm responsible for myself and family and am not dependent on someone else's largess for my personal safety.

"An armed society is a polite society."
Robert A. Heinlein

"Eliminate the insanity of gun-free zones, which will never, ever be gun-free zones. They will only be good guy gun-free zones, and that is a recipe for disaster written in blood on the altar of denial. I, for one, refuse to genuflect there."
Ted Nugent

Cleanup on isle 12 & 13.</p... (Below threshold)
Gmac:

Cleanup on isle 12 & 13.

Mop and bucket detail needed for drool containment.

Gmac,Enlighten me.... (Below threshold)
Rance:

Gmac,

Enlighten me. You're packing your weapon. You and your family walk into a business establishment and discover a robbery in progress. Exactly what steps are you going to take to protect yourself and your family that aren't going to result in the perp's attention and weapon being focused on you and yours?

Hmm. I thought bD ha... (Below threshold)
epador:

Hmm.
I thought bD had military firearms training.
Rance, needs some tutoring for sure, not the kind that should take up a thread here, though.

"hiding behind state's righ... (Below threshold)
mojo:

"hiding behind state's rights" is a pretty stupid concept.

If I have a right, I don't need to hide. Especially not from a bunch of gun-fearing wussies at the Globe.

16. Posted by Rance<p... (Below threshold)
Gmac:

16. Posted by Rance

I don't do 'what if' scenario's.

Which businesses are those?
17. Posted by bryanD

Any that don't have a sign posted saying guns are not allowed.

It must be extremely painful for the two of you to be so incredibly stupid. I feel my intelligence draining away every time I engage you morons.

OK, Mr. Green, here are two... (Below threshold)

OK, Mr. Green, here are two real life examples, not hypotheticals.

The Luby's Massacre.

The New Life Church shootings.

Look 'em up. Spin away.

J.

Exactly what steps dumbass?... (Below threshold)
914:

Exactly what steps dumbass?

Shoot first and ask questions later. Thats what.

RE: 15/19I always ... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

RE: 15/19

I always like it when assholes set up "hypothetical situations". Paint a very broad scene. It's a no-win, because when you state a course of action, suddenly it's "oh, I forgot to mention that...., thus negating what you've just stated."

Okay assholes: My family and I come in, each carrying an MP5, we're all wearing full body armor. We shoot the prep dead. Have a nice day.

hey Jay, nice real world ex... (Below threshold)
Drago:

hey Jay, nice real world examples. Don't expect any answers from the Steve Green-like morons of the world however- "real world factual examples" are painful for leftists like Stevie Green and Rance. It blows holes in their pretend-world and "magical thinkging" arguments so they avoid them like the plague and stick with their vague and/or strawman-riddled hypotheticals.

OK. Now I see. You... (Below threshold)
Rance:

OK. Now I see.

You're all John McClane clones.

Yippee-ki-yay.

Sorry Rance, did I spoil yo... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

Sorry Rance, did I spoil your fun?

Enlighten me. You'... (Below threshold)
Marc:
Enlighten me. You're packing your weapon. You and your family walk into a business establishment and discover a robbery in progress. Exactly what steps are you going to take to protect yourself and your family that aren't going to result in the perp's attention and weapon being focused on you and yours?
Gee, could you at least make the scenario a bit harder?

How about this, quietly push family aside, use the tried and true "drop the weapon and put your hands up," then and only if the perp fails to respond blast a hole in his heart bigger than the one in s greens skull.

There, that wasn't so friggin hard was it?

OK. Now I see.You'... (Below threshold)
bkw:

OK. Now I see.

You're all John McClane clones.

Yippee-ki-yay.

I guess you could just lie on the ground and wait to get shot and preserve your philosophical purity instead.

#15, incorrect assumptions ... (Below threshold)

#15, incorrect assumptions embedded in your question, and too many unspecified variables. In what state of the Union? What sort of business? Are both husband and wife armed? Are the children armed? What are their respective levels of skills? At what distance from the "robbery in progress" are they? How far along is the "progress"? How many perps? What weapons do they have? What is the layout of the business? How full or empty is it of others? How many workers are there? What time of day? What day of the week? At what distance from or how far into the business did they see the "robbery in progress"? If there is more than one perp, is one of them watching the entrance? Do any of the perps have weapons have weapons in very close proximity or contact with the victims? Are there any security guards on the premises? Has the family planned for this sort of scenario? (My firearms permit trainer's family is/does.) What is the level of awareness of the family when away from home, always yellow, sometimes, never...? In my state I may only defend myself, those to whom I would donate an organ, (i.e. family members) and the cops. When my trainer either raised or was asked a similar question he said, "Back out the door quickly and call the police". Now, how hard was that...?

What legislatures really ne... (Below threshold)

What legislatures really need to do is pass a law mandating that everyone love one another like brothers, 'philia' in the Greek. Should work just fine, eh?

here are two real life e... (Below threshold)
john:

here are two real life examples, not hypotheticals.
The Luby's Massacre.
The New Life Church shootings.
Look 'em up. Spin away.

Let's look up some other real life, not hypothetical, examples:

In 2003 alone, 30,136 Americans died by gunfire: 16,907 in firearm suicides, 11,920 in firearm homicides, 730 in unintentional shootings, and 232 in firearm deaths of unknown intent, according to the National Center for Health Statistics. Nearly three times that number are treated in emergency rooms each year for nonfatal firearm injuries.

http://www.vpc.org/nrainfo/phil.html

By focusing only on a handful of high-profile "mass shootings" whose casualties don't even approach 100 a year, you're showing only how far you'll go to ignore facts just to make a flawed argument.

Here's another inconvenient... (Below threshold)
john:

Here's another inconvenient truth:

Concealed handgun permit holders have killed at least nine law enforcement officers in addition to 130 private citizens (including 14 shooters who killed themselves after an attack) since May 2007

http://www.vpc.org/press/1002ccw.htm

How do those real life, not hypothetical, numbers compare with the hypothetical numbers that could have been saved by handgun holders at New Life Church, Luby's Massacre, and (I'll even give you a freebie) Virginia Tech... combined?

Then, john, feel free to pu... (Below threshold)

Then, john, feel free to push for the repeal of the 2nd Amendment. The process isn't that complicated -- it's spelled out right in the Constitution.

J.

Strawman fail, Jay. Try reb... (Below threshold)
john:

Strawman fail, Jay. Try rebutting me on an argument I actually made, or a position I actually hold.

I hold myself to the same standard. I was addressing your position that an increase in legal handgun holders would reduce gun deaths, exemplified by your citation of a few high-profile, cherry-picked cases swathed in your hypothetical scenario of a gun-slinging hero competently coming to the rescue. Though an examination of the real life, not hypothetical, statistics shows that more deaths are caused by current (let alone increased numbers of) law abiding permit holders than would theoretically be saved in even an optimistic outcome of your imaginary stageplays.

How can that be? Don't they know they're FOLLOWING RULES on their way to commit murder?

Failure to comprehend, john... (Below threshold)

Failure to comprehend, john. It's a fine distinction, but my point was not "more guns equals more safety," but "banning guns equals less safety."

There is a tremendous correlation between extremely tight gun controls and violent crime. Some argue that the controls are a reaction, but they don't seem to work too well. That also defies the observation that large-scale violent crime -- the mass shootings I cited -- occur in places where there wasn't previously a significant violent crime problem.

My theory is simple: people who are inclined to commit violent crimes prefer victims who cannot defend themselves. By setting up certain areas as "gun-free," we are creating attractive nuisances for the violent -- places where they can be assured with a high degree of certainty that their would-be victims will be unarmed.

By simply not creating such areas and leaving it up entirely to the individuals whether or not they wish to carry weapons of self-defense, the aggressors now have to consider the possibility of armed resistance. And that is a clearly proven deterrent. Witness, as I said, the decided dearth of violent crime at places where large numbers of firearms are present. (Gun shows, firing ranges, etc.)

One not request or invite or demand that people carry arms; one need only respect people's right to choose whether or not to exercise their right to choose in regards to the 2nd Amendment. Starbucks has it right: they neither ban nor endorse guns on its property, it tolerates them and respects its customers' right to choose.

It all boils down to this: do I trust my average fellow citizen to not kill me today, if given the opportunity?

If you can't answer "yes" to that, then for god's sake don't go out on the roads. Cars kill more people every year than guns.

J.

Should any wrongful deaths ... (Below threshold)

Should any wrongful deaths committed by the police be cause to disarm the police? If not, why not? Why does the proffered misuse of firearms (VPC spurious data) argue for repealing the rights of all those who do not misuse them? Are you asserting that rights are contingent on their proper use or misuse? (Only the state should be armed, Jawohl?) If guns cause crime, why are mine so defective?

Besides, if you oppose gun,... (Below threshold)

Besides, if you oppose gun, don't own one.

In 2003 alone, 30,136 Am... (Below threshold)
Speller:

In 2003 alone, 30,136 Americans died by gunfire: 16,907 in firearm suicides, 11,920 in firearm homicides, 730 in unintentional shootings, and 232 in firearm deaths of unknown intent, according to the National Center for Health Statistics. Nearly three times that number are treated in emergency rooms each year for nonfatal firearm injuries.
~john

Since the whole AGW thing has basically exposed the statistical information process to open ridicule I'll stipulate for the sake of argument that your cited statistics are correct.

How much crime and violence was prevented when guns were drawn but not fired or how much crime and violence was prevented because criminals decided that the chance that they may face armed citizens was too great and so went elsewhere?

There aren't any statistics to answer these questions, but here is another question: Of the above statistics, how many of the guns were illegal firearms, or possessed by people who were forbidden to own them because of past crimes, or how many of those firearm discharges were made by criminals?

So even if John's statistics are accurate they don't answer these questions and don't support the idea that guns should be banned.

After all, it's already illegal to shoot people isn't it and that particular law isn't being observed in most of the statistical cases cited.

In 2003 alone, 30,136 Am... (Below threshold)
Speller:

In 2003 alone, 30,136 Americans died by gunfire: 16,907 in firearm suicides, 11,920 in firearm homicides, 730 in unintentional shootings, and 232 in firearm deaths of unknown intent, according to the National Center for Health Statistics.

30136 Total Firearm Deaths

16907 Suicides(which would have occurred anyway by other means so doesn't support banning firearms)

13229 Total Deaths left after removing irrelevant suicide statistic

11920 Homicides(which would have occurred by other means so doesn't support banning firearms if we assume that the victims don't have firearms to defend themselves with)

1309 Total Deaths left after removing irrelevant statistic

730 Unintentional Shootings(accidents happen so this doesn't support banning firearms any more than a statistic about unintentional road accidents supports banning cars or motorcycles or bicycles)

579 Total Deaths left after removing irrelevant statistic

232 Firearm deaths of Unknown Intent (presumably this number, being included in the Total of Americans who died by gunfire statistic, includes people who were shot by American Police Officers in 2003)

So we end up with 232 firearm deaths in 2003, some or many of them shot by police officers.

I can live with this number considering there are 300+ million Americans.
I don't think firearms should be banned simply because 232 people were killed with them in 2003, many of the criminals shot by police officers.

In the 20th Century, 100 million unarmed citizens were murdered by their own governments.
That is why the 2nd Amendment exists, to protect the American people from their own government should it go rogue.

Disarming the people would be a first sign that the government is going rogue.

vpc...........Now ... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

vpc...........

Now there's an 'unbiased' source to go to for all your information needs.

Ever wonder why when our go... (Below threshold)
olsoljer:

Ever wonder why when our government does something really stupid, the sale of guns and ammunition (and the prices) skyrocket? I wonder where all those guns and ammunition went? If the "radicals" bought them all, then where did the rest go?? Since realistically all you need is one or two firearms and 300 rds per weapon, could it be that the average American senses something is wrong and wants the security? Could it be... could it be...that the Average American Citizen doesn't trust the Federal Government??

The phrase that often runs through my mind came from my oath of enlistment " ....to Support and Defend the Constitution against ALL enemies, both foreign and domestic...."
Puts one in a strange position, when the possibility that the CIC (POTUS) pursues legal (and possibly illegal) methods of ignoring both the Constitution and the will of the People, signs Treatys with foreign nations which may undermine the freedoms given us by the Constitution.

I asked 9 different law enforcement officers what they would do if directed by law to confiscate all weapons from the public. Would they enforce that law?? 8 said they would refuse or quit their force immediately. Why?? Because they felt they would not live thru the first 24 hours, and had privately owned weapons as well. Only one said he would do it (not the brightest bulb on the tree).

I am not sure how you could disarm the Citizens or who would enforce disarmament (an overseas country's military with whom we signed a weapons ban treaty?) in the United States. Our forefathers had extreme foresight in having the 2nd Amendment in the Constitution. THE SECOND AMENDMENT - a guarantee we could protect the rest of the Constitution.

....our forefathers brought forth upon this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal. We are now met on a great battlefield, testing whether that nation or any other nation so conceived, and so dedicated, can long endure..............
HOPE HISTORY DOES NOT REPEAT ITSELF




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy