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

[Vic]

You're not going to find that in the 2nd amendment considering that its whole purpose is to not allow the federal government to infringe on the rights of the citizens to posses firearms. You'll find that in the constitution or laws of the state where the business is located.

Interesting. Which side did you takby rqe in the gay marriage wedding cake debate, BTW?

I'm pro gun rights, and I concealed carry, but I would never carry on someone else's property without their consent. That's just bad manners, at the very least.

 

[xBiffx]

Interesting. Which side did you takby rqe in the gay marriage wedding cake debate, BTW?

I'm pro gun rights, and I concealed carry, but I would never carry on someone else's property without their consent. That's just bad manners, at the very least.

WTF does that matter?

To you second point, I'd agree, but these are franchises and they all aren't owned by Panera. So Panera is way outside their jurisdiction here and are treading on the owners' rights to chose. Also, its a business, you are either welcome or you are not. There is no playing the fence. A sign tells you if you are or aren't welcome too.

 

[bshole]

WTF does that matter?

To you second point, I'd agree, but these are franchises and they all aren't owned by Panera. So Panera is way outside their jurisdiction here and are treading on the owners' rights to chose. Also, its a business, you are either welcome or you are not. There is no playing the fence. A sign tells you if you are or aren't welcome too.

Well customers are probably always welcome. Lethal weapons..... not so much....

 

[xBiffx]

Well customers are probably always welcome. Lethal weapons..... not so much....

ROFL, lethal, its so much scarier sounding (not to mention more Hollywood).

Grow up, kid.

 

[Darwin333]

Yes, robbery is a violent crime.

No ridiculous debate needed, just saying that the biggest city in the US has a largely disarmed populace and has a pretty decent crime rate as well. You might be surprised how little you actually need guns to be safe.

But in the rare circumstance that you do need a gun you really really need a gun right then and there.

 

[alzan]

The link covers both CCW licensees and peace officers in separate columns. Criminality is lower among CCW licensees than police officers in Texas, Florida and New York.

I don't doubt that a good 10% of CCW holders ignore those signs wherever they go, but IMO that's a level of law breaking equivalent to speeding 5mph over the limit. Maybe not even that, since they likely have the best of intentions while doing it.

Thanks for admitting to the possibility of 10% of CCW holders ignoring the signage, which was my original point.

My hat's off to you!

I understand the odds of ever needing to use a firearm are very low. But there is still a chance. There's ~ a 1/11M chance of getting bit by a shark while at the beach, but you still swim don't you?

Been to the ocean several times, never swam because of the possibilities of sharks, poisonous jellyfish, rays, etc. When I swim it's in lakes and I always wear water shoes and keep an eye out for snakes.

 

[Nebor]

Thanks for admitting to the possibility of 10% of CCW holders ignoring the signage, which was my original point.

My hat's off to you!

Oh, then I didn't have a problem with your original point. It's where you went from there that I took issue with.

 

[QuantumPion]

Good example. Unfortunately it's all too easy to find one or two examples that may seem to justify the existence of the law. I would make an educated guess that securing your gun before entering an establishment with proper "No Guns Allowed" signage is not going to put you or others in harms way a large majority (+95%) of the time.

You are silly. You just defeated your own argument. If no guns allowed signage is not going to put me in harms way because the odds of someone else killing me is so low, than why ban me carrying in the first place? By your own words, the chance of one of these incidents happening is low. The odds of me needing a gun to defend myself, not just from a mass shooter but from regular mugging/robbery/etc is far higher than the odds of a legal CCW holder doing something illegal (which is pretty much unheard of).

 

[z1ggy]

Been to the ocean several times, never swam because of the possibilities of sharks, poisonous jellyfish, rays, etc. When I swim it's in lakes and I always wear water shoes and keep an eye out for snakes.

That's good for you I guess... But by your logic then you should also be wearing a bullet proof vest or carrying every where you go. The odds of you being killed by a shark while swimming are much lower than being killed by a gun.

Odds of death by shark: ~1 in 3,700,000
Odds of death by snake: ~1 in 50,000,000

Odds of being shot to death by a firearm: ~1 in 350,000

 

[schmuckley]

Yep, you're right. Which is why I say everybody should be able to have CCW if they choose to. I hate the "may issue" crap. Why is a DA or ex cop more qualified to handle a firearm than somebody like me who probably goes to the range more than they do. Why do they get the added security and I don't?

That's a good point.

 

[alzan]

You are silly. You just defeated your own argument. If no guns allowed signage is not going to put me in harms way because the odds of someone else killing me is so low, than why ban me carrying in the first place? By your own words, the chance of one of these incidents happening is low. The odds of me needing a gun to defend myself, not just from a mass shooter but from regular mugging/robbery/etc is far higher than the odds of a legal CCW holder doing something illegal (which is pretty much unheard of).

Since the odds of a self defense or stopping a robbery/mugging/etc. situation are so low why have a gun and/or CCW/CHL?

Texas and other 46.15 or similar lawed states aside, CCW holders who enter businesses that display "No Guns Allowed" signs are in fact doing something illegal.

According to the FBI I live in one of the more violent cities yet I've never found it necessary to apply for a CCW/CHL and buy a gun.

 

[xBiffx]

Since the odds of a self defense or stopping a robbery/mugging/etc. situation are so low why have a gun and/or CCW/CHL?

Why do you wear water shoes?

Texas and other 46.15 or similar lawed states aside, CCW holders who enter businesses that display "No Guns Allowed" signs are in fact doing something illegal.

Not in Iowa. If there is a sign in a business, all they can do is ask you to leave if you are carrying. If you refuse, the most that can happen is you are slapped with a trespassing violation. It's not a weapons violation.

According to the FBI I live in one of the more violent cities yet I've never found it necessary to apply for a CCW/CHL and buy a gun.

Some people's self preservation instinct is greater than others.

 

[alzan]

That's good for you I guess... But by your logic then you should also be wearing a bullet proof vest or carrying every where you go. The odds of you being killed by a shark while swimming are much lower than being killed by a gun.

Odds of death by shark: ~1 in 11,000,000

Odds of being shot to death by a firearm: ~1 in 350,000

Odds of death from particular causes, like shark attack, are dependent on a lot of factors; how many times do I visit the ocean in a particular year, etc. Shot to death by firearm odds have many different factors as well; occupation, locale, activities, etc. So somewhat irrelevant.

Like I told QP, the FBI says I live in one of America's more violent cities/regions, yet in 56 years I've never found it necessary to apply for CCW/CHL and buy a gun. Or buy/wear a bullet proof vest.

 

[alzan]

Why do you wear water shoes?

Not in Iowa. If there is a sign in a business, all they can do is ask you to leave if you are carrying. If you refuse, the most that can happen is you are slapped with a trespassing violation. It's not a weapons violation.

Some people's self preservation instinct is greater than others.

Cuts from sharp rock edges, discarded beer bottles/cans/fishing hooks/etc.

Dependent on locale but whatever the citation and/or penalty the fact remains it's illegal.

True but it's also true that some peoples fear or paranoia is greater than others.

 

[xBiffx]

Cuts from sharp rock edges, discarded beer bottles/cans/fishing hooks/etc.

So you perceive a danger, right? There's your hint.

Dependent on locale but whatever the citation and/or penalty the fact remains it's illegal.

The fact remains that its not illegal. Carrying of the weapon is not what gets you in trouble, refusing to leave is what gets you in trouble. No different than a business kicking you out for a hundred other reasons.

True but it's also true that some peoples fear or paranoia is greater than others.

Yep, that's true, but then again, you're the one with the irrational fear of guns and law abiding gun owners. Being prepared and willing to defend yourself is hardly irrational.

 

[fskimospy]

Yep, that's true, but then again, you're the one with the irrational fear of guns and law abiding gun owners. Being prepared and willing to defend yourself is hardly irrational.

It could certainly be irrational. It is more likely that a gun in one's home will be used in a way that kills or injures you or a family member than it is that it will be used to prevent a crime. Considering that many people buy guns for self defense, if it in fact makes your family less safe that's irrational.

 

[z1ggy]

Odds of death from particular causes, like shark attack, are dependent on a lot of factors; how many times do I visit the ocean in a particular year, etc. Shot to death by firearm odds have many different factors as well; occupation, locale, activities, etc. So somewhat irrelevant.

Like I told QP, the FBI says I live in one of America's more violent cities/regions, yet in 56 years I've never found it necessary to apply for CCW/CHL and buy a gun. Or buy/wear a bullet proof vest.

Statistics are always reliant on many factors, but the overall theme is the same. You consciously chose to not swim when you are at the beach for fear of an ocean creature attacking you; you take special precaution when you enter lakes in case dangerous animals there are present, despite the fact you currently feel no sense of danger from firearms even though you are a factor of 10 times more likely to be harmed by one.

So all I'm pointing out is that your precautions are not based in reality. Even though death by firearm is still an extremely low statistical possibility, I am trying to hedge my "bet" so to speak, with the legal concealed carry of my firearm. I'm not harming anybody by simply having it, even in some liberal business where they "aren't welcome".

I'd rather carry and have no need for it, than not and wish I had been able to do more when myself or somebody I love has something tragic happen to them.

 

[xBiffx]

It could certainly be irrational. It is more likely that a gun in one's home will be used in a way that kills or injures you or a family member than it is that it will be used to prevent a crime. Considering that many people buy guns for self defense, if it in fact makes your family less safe that's irrational.

Being prepared is never irrational.

Owning and using a car makes your family less safe. Not seeing anyone complaining or calling that irrational.

 

[fskimospy]

Being prepared is never irrational.

Owning and using a car makes your family less safe. Not seeing anyone complaining.

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

 

[xBiffx]

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

Sorry, no its not irrational. It's ridiculous sometimes, at least to the extent that one chooses to be prepared, but its not irrational. It's definitely not inarguable. There is always a chance that you need to defend yourself.

I would argue that expecting nothing will ever happen to you and that you'll never need to defend yourself or that the police will always be there when you need them is what is bordering on irrational.

 

[alzan]

So you perceive a danger, right? There's your hint.

The fact remains that its not illegal. Carrying of the weapon is not what gets you in trouble, refusing to leave is what gets you in trouble. No different than a business kicking you out for a hundred other reasons.

Yep, that's true, but then again, you're the one with the irrational fear of guns and law abiding gun owners. Being prepared and willing to defend yourself is hardly irrational.

So if you weren't carrying the weapon you wouldn't be in trouble.

No just a healthy distrust of the percentage of CCW holders who may be illiterate and/or stubborn.

I have an irrational fear of guns? Yeah, just like I have an irrational fear of cars, one of which I get in daily and hurtle myself down freeways with other cars.

 

[xBiffx]

So if you weren't carrying the weapon you wouldn't be in trouble.

No just a healthy distrust of the percentage of CCW holders who may be illiterate and/or stubborn.

I have an irrational fear of guns? Yeah, just like I have an irrational fear of cars, one of which I get in daily and hurtle myself down freeways with other cars.

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.

 

[fskimospy]

Sorry, no its not irrational. It's ridiculous sometimes but its not irrational. It's definitely not inarguable. There is always a chance that you need to defend yourself.

I would argue that expecting nothing will ever happen or that the police will always be there when you need them is what is bordering on irrational.

1. Presumably your primary goal in owning a firearm is to make yourself and your family safer.

2. If your preparations have the result of making your family less safe it is impossible for me to think of any situation in which doing so would be rational.

3. Studies suggest that guns in the home are used considerably more frequently in ways that harm family members (accidents, disputes, etc) than they are used to prevent crimes.

 

[xBiffx]

1. Presumably your primary goal in owning a firearm is to make yourself and your family safer.

2. If your preparations have the result of making your family less safe it is impossible for me to think of any situation in which doing so would be rational.

3. Studies suggest that guns in the home are used considerably more frequently in ways that harm family members (accidents, disputes, etc) than they are used to prevent crimes.

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.

 

[fskimospy]

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.

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?