NC Restaurant Banned Guns, Got Robbed At Gunpoint

[SpatiallyAware]

If only they had an NRA sticker on the door instead.

In all seriousness I bet they would not have gotten robbed.

These thugs are looking for easy opportunities.

 

[michal1980]

the idiot left is once again missing the point:

The idiots store owners that put up the sign are just your average dimwit lefty. They think that if they have a sign it will keep them safe.

Because that's how the left thinks, the left thinks that criminals will obey signs and laws. So they pass more and more gun laws all in the hopes of reducing gun violence, failing every time because criminals don't give a fuck about the law.

 

[Abraxas]

In all seriousness I bet they would not have gotten robbed.

These thugs are looking for easy opportunities.

Ya-huh. That's why gun stores never get robbed. Wait.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Ya-huh. That's why gun stores never get robbed. Wait.

Only one of your previous links occurred during the normal operating hours, the rest were when the stores were unoccupied. Unless the robbers are armed to the teeth (like the last link you posted) they normally don't attempt to rob a gun store due to the fact most workers and shoppers could be carrying concealed.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

In all seriousness I bet they would not have gotten robbed.

These thugs are looking for easy opportunities.

Well that's the real tragedy, there was no one here to turn the robbery into a shootout.

 

[Engineer]

That's pretty hilarious actually.

Criminals taking advantage of naive idealism and vulnerability, what are the odds?

You find it funny that someone was robbed?

 

[kage69]

Your assertion didn't need to be rebutted. It was that mindfuckingly stupid.

Try to keep up.

Absolutely false. I made an observation and expressed amusement regarding a much cited situation that the pro-gun crowd frequently makes that actually came true. I did not "cheer" theft or assault in any way, but do feel free to provide something in the way of a quote to support your butthurt idiocy. You and your little retarded friend over there can get your panties up in a twist all you want, but putting words in other people's mouths and getting self-righteous over it is only making you both look increasingly immature and challenged in some way.

If you want to argue that criminals don't look for vulnerability, and that advertising that vulnerability has nothing to do with it being taken advantage of, well go for it. So far all you've done is say 'you're wrong because I say so,' and without even citing what it is I posted that you find incorrect.

Talk is cheap. From trolls it's pretty much worthless. So why not go ahead and man up and give that whole debate thing the old college try. I mean, it's not like you have much credibility or respect here to risk losing. Go nuts. At the very least it's going to provide me and others another laugh, not that we don't appreciate the grade school level of discourse you seem to be adept at. Quote what I said and show me where I'm wrong.

This is a little disappointing really; I can recall some posts of yours from awhile back that I actually considered well reasoned and generally sound, without idiotic trolling involved. Probably why I'm taking the time to ask you to give it one more shot, instead of throwing you on Ignore like MoU, who strikes me as possibly developmentally disabled in some way. I thought it was just severe butthurt at realizing gun supporters called this kind incident, but after a quick look at some other threads that he/she has crapped in, I realize sounding like an ignorant, rude little brat is the MO there. I won't waste any more time or electrons on a poster that emulates the likes of Incorruptatroll and acts superior about it. I mean that's just sad.

So how about it? Gonna take a swing, or are you really not worth anyone's time? Your call.




And everyone else, please don't feed the trolls. Kudos for not quoting them too. They just need to flail away until they fade away, like they usually do. *knock on wood*
Thanks.

 

[kage69]

You find it funny that someone was robbed?

Not at all. The very first thing I thought after reading that story was actually, 'well good thing no one was shot or pummeled into a wheel chair'

What I find amusing is when people think their idealism trumps realism. I don't personally consider it very realistic to expect criminals to respect polite requests from business while proceeding with the commission of a violent crime. YMMV.

 

[kage69]

Well that's the real tragedy, there was no one here to turn the robbery into a shootout.

Perhaps for the likes of spidey who do seem to take a bit of a thrill in stories like this. Myself, I think it's sad that this crime was quite likely caused (or at least aided by) the advertised position of the establishment which communicated a low threat level for criminals.

Several years ago a friend of mine in Mass. had his home and business burglarized (adjoining structures). After the hubbub died down, he lamented the cost of the security system he was thinking about installing to prevent it from happening again, then showed me the quotes. My reply was a link to a kit of fake surveillance cameras powered by a AA batteries which made a red LED glow, giving the appearance of a real security cam. Combined with generic home security stickers on a front window and back window facing the yard, it's looks the part of a secured home and business. Perception is a powerful thing, but I guess the real tragedy there is that he didn't spend thousands on a system he didn't really need, no?

 

[fskimospy]

Not at all. The very first thing I thought after reading that story was actually, 'well good thing no one was shot or pummeled into a wheel chair'

What I find amusing is when people think their idealism trumps realism. I don't personally consider it very realistic to expect criminals to respect polite requests from business while proceeding with the commission of a violent crime. YMMV.

The 'no guns' signs are not intended to deter criminals, they are intended to make the store a place without the casual possession of firearms that might make clients or employees unhappy or uncomfortable.

Additionally, the idea that criminals go around town searching for stores with 'no guns please' signs on them to rob is pretty ridiculous if you look into how much planning goes into the average robbery. (basically none)

What on earth made people think that the no guns signs were intended to deter crime?

 

[OCGuy]

:biggrin:

 

[WelshBloke]

the idiot left is once again missing the point:

The idiots store owners that put up the sign are just your average dimwit lefty. They think that if they have a sign it will keep them safe.

Because that's how the left thinks, the left thinks that criminals will obey signs and laws. So they pass more and more gun laws all in the hopes of reducing gun violence, failing every time because criminals don't give a fuck about the law.

Why do you assume that's why they put the sign up?

It's more likely that they didn't want their non carrying customers to be put off.

Also just because they don't want customers carrying doesn't mean that the owner isn't.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Why do you assume that's why they put the sign up?

It's more likely that they didn't want their non carrying customers to be put off.

Also just because they don't want customers carrying doesn't mean that the owner isn't.

Many of the places where I live have begun placing 30.06 signs in their windows as it prevents open carry supporters from bringing firearms on their property. The bad thing is that it also prevents CHL holders from doing so as well.

 

[OCGuy]

Many of the places where I live have begun placing 30.06 signs in their windows as it prevents open carry supporters from bringing firearms on their property. The bad thing is that it also prevents CHL holders from doing so as well.

Uh....those signs aren't aimed at Open Carry...since open carry in TX is rare, and illegal for handguns.

Nice spin, though.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Uh....those signs aren't aimed at Open Carry...since open carry in TX is rare, and illegal for handguns.

Nice spin, though.

Hmmmm could have sworn that open carry supporters (armed to the gills with AR-15's and the like) have gone to both Starbucks and Chipoltes in Austin in the past 6 to 9 months resulting in these companies either requesting people not to bring firearms on their restaurants or banning them from doing such.

 

[himkhan]

I never read a story about bad guys that respect "no gun allowed" or "gun free zone" signs.

http://news.yahoo.com/nc-restaurant-banned-guns-got-robbed-gunpoint-190221477.html

I never read a story about bad guys that respect the "no rape women" signs yet they still happen in "rape free zones" all the time.

 

[kage69]

The 'no guns' signs are not intended to deter criminals, they are intended to make the store a place without the casual possession of firearms that might make clients or employees unhappy or uncomfortable.

That's actually true, not sure why I phrased it that way but I agree - my apologies. However, that is the basic reasoning behind the idea of banning guns: that a law basically saying "No guns allowed" will somehow deter criminals already fine with breaking laws against robbery, assault, rape or murder. I should not have conflated the two though. Mea culpa. 8 hours of sleep over 3 days, what can I say. Ugh.

Additionally, the idea that criminals go around town searching for stores with 'no guns please' signs on them to rob is pretty ridiculous if you look into how much planning goes into the average robbery. (basically none)

Hrmmm, well while I agree that the average thief is dumber than Sarah Palin, I don't think it's a particularly time consuming feat of effort to compare one business which has elements of security to one that advertises less security. Predators seek out the easy hunt, you have to know this. A coyote sees a strong, healthy adult prey item as a lot less appealing than the shaky, still wet newborn whose defenses and mobility are telegraphed by the scent and sight of birthing fluids and membranes. Quite similar to the average thug opting to mug a 70 year old man with a cane instead of the 6'6" ex Marine walking with a confident stride and no problem looking people in the eye.

What on earth made people think that the no guns signs were intended to deter crime?

I'll skip repeating what I already covered above and instead ask, What on earth made people think that the no guns signs would not embolden stupid criminals, or at least make the establishment look more appealing than another establishment with no such ban? Robberies in progress have been prevented by clientele with concealed weapons before. Reminds me of the breakfast scene in Pulp Fiction. Tim Roth and his honey bunny are cleaning up, but that all halts when they encounter two cranky and hungry patrons with 1911s. Hollywood, of course, that's just me reminiscing, but I can provide links to real life footage of criminals being thwarted or taken out by CCW holders if you want. That isn't always the result in those situations, granted, but it's happened enough that criminals have clearly taken note and I feel it validates my argument.

 

[kage69]

Also just because they don't want customers carrying doesn't mean that the owner isn't.

Why do you assume the owner would be there? Why do you assume it doesn't make any difference to criminals if they are faced with one gun wielding responder or many? In my book the fewer barrels pointed at me, the better.

 

[soulcougher73]

Why is this a story? Obviously you people dont understand criminals.

 

[MagickMan]

Your assertion didn't need to be rebutted. It was that mindfuckingly stupid.

Try to keep up.

You'd know, since you're the master of "mindfuckingly stupid". :whiste:

 

[xgsound]

The 'no guns' signs are not intended to deter criminals, they are intended to make the store a place without the casual possession of firearms that might make clients or employees unhappy or uncomfortable.

The point is that clients and employees will not be happy or comfortable getting robbed. That is the opposite of the stated intent.

Jim

 

[shira]

the idiot left is once again missing the point:

The idiots store owners that put up the sign are just your average dimwit lefty. They think that if they have a sign it will keep them safe.

Because that's how the left thinks, the left thinks that criminals will obey signs and laws. So they pass more and more gun laws all in the hopes of reducing gun violence, failing every time because criminals don't give a fuck about the law.

So when owners put up signs that say "no tank tops," your opinion is that the only possible explanation is that they're trying to stop hot women from inciting an orgy in their restaurant? It couldn't possibly be the case that the owner wants to create a friendly, neutral, family environment that attracts more overall customers?

 

[shira]

The point is that clients and employees will not be happy or comfortable getting robbed. That is the opposite of the stated intent.

Jim

No, the point is that it's 1000 times more likely that business will be lost because potential clients will be turned of by gun-toting idiots than because a robber targets the restaurant.

 

[MongGrel]

Surprised no one has done the no guns guy walks out with the shotgun thing yet.

 

[OCGuy]

No, the point is that it's 1000 times more likely that business will be lost because potential clients will be turned of by gun-toting idiots than because a robber targets the restaurant.

In NC? That so?