Panera Bread makes non-statement re: guns in their stores

[Zargon]

Being prepared is absolutely, inarguably irrational if the costs of preparation exceed the benefits you get from it.

firearms and training are not that expensive

 

[alzan]

If I didn't walk in to the store and then refuse to leave, I wouldn't be in trouble. Hence why I'm charged with trespassing. You'll figure it out eventually.

If you secured your weapon in your vehicle or in your home if the establishment in question is within walking distance then you wouldn't be in trouble either.

You'll figure it out eventually.

 

[bshole]

Why would owning a firearm in your home automatically reduce your overall safety? You are prepared to defend yourself in ways you could not without it which would enhance saftey. Proper storage and training also would enhance your safety and would be key if safety is the end goal here.

So you want to talk about exceptions and let them define the rule? That's not very logical.

Ask your insurance company, they know why. My insurance company grilled me about guns. It has an absolute effect on your insurance rates NEGATIVELY. So if the insurance companies have determined that your rates are higher then it is pretty much proven that you are statistically less safe with a gun in the house than not. The point is really not arguable, it is not theory, it is a proven fact that is acted on by insurance companies around the world on a daily basis. They even have equations which work out how much less safe you are and how much more risk you are to the insurance company for claims with a gun in the house.

 

[Nebor]

This thread is garbage. Every one of these open carry, restaurant ban type threads is crap.

The facts are that licensed CCW holders are the absolute most law abiding group tracked by statistics. They're more law abiding than police officer, doctors, locksmiths and even congressmen. There have been no significant issues since CCW swept across the nation in the late 90s\early 2000s. Blood hasn't run in the streets, and things have gone on as normal.

On the macro level, it doesn't seem like they really have an impact on crime or safety in a significant way. On the micro level, the number of positive anecdotes seem to heavily outweigh the negative ones.

I think it comes down to: If you don't like concealed handguns, don't carry one.

 

[xBiffx]

I'm doing the exact opposite: studies into the actual results of gun ownership in the home indicate that it is likely to make a person less safe. I'm quite certain that there are individuals this is not the case for, but in the aggregate it appears to be the case that a gun in your home is more likely to harm someone you like than defend you from someone you don't.

When talking about the wisdom of a choice in general, doesn't it make the most sense to talk about its average effect as opposed to exceptions?

Wait, so how does that mean that your safety is automatically lowered by owning a gun in your home? Keep in mind, we aren't talking about average individuals here, we are talking about CCW owners.

There's a chance of being severely injured from an airbag being deployed. Does that mean that I should not have an airbag in my car? Because there's a chance that it might lower my overall safety?

 

[xBiffx]

Ask your insurance company, they know why. My insurance company grilled me about guns. It has an absolute effect on your insurance rates NEGATIVELY. So if the insurance companies have determined that your rates are higher then it is pretty much proven that you are statistically less safe with a gun in the house than not. The point is really not arguable, it is not theory, it is a proven fact that is acted on by insurance companies around the world on a daily basis. They even have equations which work out how much less safe you are and how much more risk you are to the insurance company for claims with a gun in the house.

Mine insures all my guns so they know how many and what type I own. Didn't change anything in my rates. You are again full of shit.

Also, risk is not equivalent to safety and risk is what the insurance company is looking at.

 

[xBiffx]

If you secured your weapon in your vehicle or in your home if the establishment in question is within walking distance then you wouldn't be in trouble either.

You'll figure it out eventually.

If I'm not in the establishment, it really doesn't matter what I bring with me because I'm not there. In order for anything to happen to me, first I have to be present.

Also, there's no point in carrying a weapon for defense if I'm going to leave it "within walking distance."

 

[fskimospy]

Wait, so how does that mean that your safety is automatically lowered by owning a gun in your home? Keep in mind, we aren't talking about average individuals here, we are talking about CCW owners.

Nothing is automatic, we're just talking about averages. I'm not aware of studies specifically focused on CCW holders, but in general it appears that if your goal is safety that gun ownership is a bad decision.

There's a chance of being severely injured from an airbag being deployed. Does that mean that I should not have an airbag in my car? Because there's a chance that it might lower my overall safety?

But air bags DON'T lower your overall safety. The number of situations where they help people is greater than the number where they make things worse. That's why they are a good investment. It does not appear that gun ownership does the same.

 

[Bird222]

firearms and training are not that expensive

I need a new job then because the "gun hobby" ain't cheap for me.

 

[xBiffx]

Nothing is automatic, we're just talking about averages. I'm not aware of studies specifically focused on CCW holders, but in general it appears that if your goal is safety that gun ownership is a bad decision..

Again, why apply general to a specific set of people? Plus, appears is hardly a compelling argument.

But air bags DON'T lower your overall safety. The number of situations where they help people is greater than the number where they make things worse. That's why they are a good investment. It does not appear that gun ownership does the same.

Ah, but you are only looking at one situation, gun ownership by anyone in a home and applying that to a anyone's overall safety. How about gun ownership by CCW holders?

Just like guns, airbags can lower your safety in certain situations. For guns, when does this apply to CCW holders, that's the real issue here.

 

[Zargon]

Nothing is automatic, we're just talking about averages. I'm not aware of studies specifically focused on CCW holders, but in general it appears that if your goal is safety that gun ownership is a bad decision.



But air bags DON'T lower your overall safety. The number of situations where they help people is greater than the number where they make things worse. That's why they are a good investment. It does not appear that gun ownership does the same.

correlation and causation issues

there is a correlation between gun deaths or accidents and gun ownership, go freaking figure that you are more likely to have an accidental discharge in house with a gun than without

 

[HomerJS]

Mine insures all my guns so they know how many and what type I own. Didn't change anything in my rates. You are again full of shit.

Also, risk is not equivalent to safety and risk is what the insurance company is looking at.

Hmm less risky \= more safe? I think insurance companies disagree with you.

BTW - When air bags were optional in cars your rates were discounted. Bags pretty much standard now in all cars.

 

[xBiffx]

Hmm less risky \= more safe? I think insurance companies disagree with you.

BTW - When air bags were optional in cars your rates were discounted. Bags pretty much standard now in all cars.

No it doesn't. You could be doing something that has little risk and still have safety issues.

Risk assessment is a part of safety but to equate risk to safety is incredibly ignorant. People often, to their detriment, have the misconception that low risk means they are safe, not true at all.

The insurance aspect of this conversation is meaningless. Insurance companies don't asses safety, they asses risk based on certain factors. Your safety is separate.

Basically risk is something you can't control for a given activity, safety is.

 

[trenchfoot]

Nothing is automatic, we're just talking about averages. I'm not aware of studies specifically focused on CCW holders, but in general it appears that if your goal is safety that gun ownership is a bad decision.



But air bags DON'T lower your overall safety. The number of situations where they help people is greater than the number where they make things worse. That's why they are a good investment. It does not appear that gun ownership does the same.

Not to mention the false equivalence that a lot of folks apply to firearms with other things that can possibly kill. The way I look at it, the primary purpose of a firearm is to kill something with ease at a safe distance. Now, how that can be compared with a car that have as its primary purpose being a means of convenient transportation is IMO, ludicrous. Comparing a firearm with an airbag simply ratchets up the craziness of the comparison "test" and conveniently diverts away from the logical conclusion that firearms have an express purpose in their design and any other technological advancements that are applied to them, where to make them "better" simply means to make them that much easier to kill with or to kill something a lot "better" than its competition.

We can go on and on about what other roles firearms can play other than its actual reason for being, but just for the reason that the primary tool of war is, at its base level a hand held instrument for which to kill the enemy better and faster than they can kill you, makes comparing them with a loaf of bread that a person can accidentally choke on and die from is, well, what can I say....

 

[alzan]

This thread is garbage. Every one of these open carry, restaurant ban type threads is crap.

The facts are that licensed CCW holders are the absolute most law abiding group tracked by statistics. They're more law abiding than police officer, doctors, locksmiths and even congressmen. There have been no significant issues since CCW swept across the nation in the late 90s\early 2000s. Blood hasn't run in the streets, and things have gone on as normal.

On the macro level, it doesn't seem like they really have an impact on crime or safety in a significant way. On the micro level, the number of positive anecdotes seem to heavily outweigh the negative ones.

I think it comes down to: If you don't like concealed handguns, don't carry one.

Perhaps you shouldn't post in them if they're "garbage".

On a micro level, myself and my family are safer without having guns than we are if we have them; it has nothing to do with whether we "like" them.

 

[fskimospy]

correlation and causation issues

there is a correlation between gun deaths or accidents and gun ownership, go freaking figure that you are more likely to have an accidental discharge in house with a gun than without

Well that certainly seems like a problem, doesn't it?

 

[fskimospy]

Again, why apply general to a specific set of people? Plus, appears is hardly a compelling argument.

Ah, but you are only looking at one situation, gun ownership by anyone in a home and applying that to a anyone's overall safety. How about gun ownership by CCW holders?

Just like guns, airbags can lower your safety in certain situations. For guns, when does this apply to CCW holders, that's the real issue here.

My point is simply that for the average person the research currently indicates that gun ownership makes you less safe. Maybe CCW holders are immune from this trend, but considering the magnitude of difference my guess is that's unlikely.

 

[Nebor]

My point is simply that for the average person the research currently indicates that gun ownership makes you less safe. Maybe CCW holders are immune from this trend, but considering the magnitude of difference my guess is that's unlikely.

Even in the most gun happy states, the highest percentage of the population with CHLs is in Georgia, where 11% of the population is licensed to carry a concealed handgun. Nationally, only 11 million Americans are licensed to do so. And the vast majority of them are in the most affluent counties in the country. As a result, there just aren't that many CCW-shootings, and their criminality rate is extraordinarily low. This trend is exacerbated in Texas and New York, where a permit carries costs in excess of $300, ensuring the lower class doesn't have access to them.

Some think that the amount of CCWs is inversely related to crime. I tend to think that it's more of a psychological situation. Those who already live in nice areas with low crime already tend to like guns, and worry that others (often minorities) are going to try to take what they have or harm them.

 

[fskimospy]

Even in the most gun happy states, the highest percentage of the population with CHLs is in Georgia, where 11% of the population is licensed to carry a concealed handgun. Nationally, only 11 million Americans are licensed to do so. And the vast majority of them are in the most affluent counties in the country. As a result, there just aren't that many CCW-shootings, and their criminality rate is extraordinarily low. This trend is exacerbated in Texas and New York, where a permit carries costs in excess of $300, ensuring the lower class doesn't have access to them.

Some think that the amount of CCWs is inversely related to crime. I tend to think that it's more of a psychological situation. Those who already live in nice areas with low crime already tend to like guns, and worry that others (often minorities) are going to try to take what they have or harm them.

While I haven't checked the stats myself, if CCW holders tend to be considerably more affluent and have more social capital than the average person that certainly sounds like it would account for a substantial portion of the disparity in crime rates, etc.

I haven't seen a robust analysis of CCW owners' crime/accident/whatever statistics that controls for these other factors, but maybe it's out there somewhere. It would be interesting to see.

 

[Nebor]

While I haven't checked the stats myself, if CCW holders tend to be considerably more affluent and have more social capital than the average person that certainly sounds like it would account for a substantial portion of the disparity in crime rates, etc.

I haven't seen a robust analysis of CCW owners' crime/accident/whatever statistics that controls for these other factors, but maybe it's out there somewhere. It would be interesting to see.

Most of the analysis on the subject is out of Texas, since the DPS keeps the most thorough, in-depth statistics on CHL holders in the nation (at the direction of then Governor Bush, due to widespread opposition to the passage of the original CHL law.)

Here's a pretty good story out of San Antonio.

"Crime rates and licensed-handgun concealment are not closely related," said John Kilburn, a professor at Texas A&M International University who co-authored a 2004 study about gun permits in Louisiana. "Because we're talking about a human emotion of fear of victimization. And that overpowers anything."

Pretty much what I was saying.

 

[fskimospy]

Most of the analysis on the subject is out of Texas, since the DPS keeps the most thorough, in-depth statistics on CHL holders in the nation (at the direction of then Governor Bush, due to widespread opposition to the passage of the original CHL law.)

Here's a pretty good story out of San Antonio.

Pretty much what I was saying.

There's a lot more to it than crime rates though such as accidents, suicides, etc.

 

[Nebor]

There's a lot more to it than crime rates though such as accidents, suicides, etc.

I don't find accidents or suicides particularly concerning. Most accidents and several suicides with firearms only impact the person with the firearm. Being very confident that I'm not going to injure myself with a firearm, I'm far more concerned with what others are doing with their firearms, namely committing crimes.

 

[xBiffx]

My point is simply that for the average person the research currently indicates that gun ownership makes you less safe. Maybe CCW holders are immune from this trend, but considering the magnitude of difference my guess is that's unlikely.

The research is one sided but that's just because there isn't a way to quantify how much their safety was enhanced, due to preparedness from, owning a firearm. That would be attempting to prove a negative in that you would have to be able to show what the ownership helped them avoid or what didn't happen to them because they owned a firearm. Understandably, we don't have those numbers to compare.

 

[fskimospy]

I don't find accidents or suicides particularly concerning. Most accidents and several suicides with firearms only impact the person with the firearm. Being very confident that I'm not going to injure myself with a firearm, I'm far more concerned with what others are doing with their firearms, namely committing crimes.

I'm sure that nobody finds an accident very concerning until they have one. Regardless, we're talking about people in general.

 

[fskimospy]

The research is one sided but that's just because there isn't a way to quantify how much their safety was enhanced, due to preparedness from, owning a firearm. That would be attempting to prove a negative in that you would have to be able to show what the ownership helped them avoid or what didn't happen to them because they owned a firearm. Understandably, we don't have those numbers to compare.

You most certainly wouldn't be proving a negative. If gun owners are safer due to their firearms they should have a lower rate of victimization from various crimes.