Family-run Restaurant is the opposite of gun-free

[Wolferz]

Originally Posted by Oberon

You can imagine what it'd be like in that restaurant if someone dropped a plate:

You might see a lot of hands slapping leather but, that would be about all.

Imagine the look on a robbers face if he walked in and demanded money.

[Tango589]

Here's how I imagine it:

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by vanjast

Guns, like everything else, have their place... This sheer 'lunacy' on a 'restaurant scale' would keep me away from that restaurant.

The state of Utah allows open carry. I see people wearing guns on their hips fairly regularly, and have no trouble with it at all. You call it 'lunacy'. I don't see it that way at all. I'd feel perfectly comfortable eating there.

[Oberon]

I guess it depends on how good a shot the people around you are, and if there's another around that the bullet is going to ricochet off.

[August]

Originally Posted by NeonSamurai

I can think of countless small towns where nobody is packing heat and the crime rate is also zero.

Name some.

[NeonSamurai]

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2...er-major-crime
http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/articl...me-3196038.php

and that was from a quick search of the internet.

None of those states have open carry laws

Most small towns in Canada have virtually no crime either, and their homicide rates per capita with firearms is over 7 times lower than here in the US. Canada has very strict gun control laws, where civilians are not permitted either concealed or open carry of any firearms.

[Betonov]

And there are also strict gun controls here and most of the country is also crime free. An odd domestic murder every 2 years and some burglaries (which never happen when owners are at home).

More guns never equall less crime.
Oposite is also true.

[Gargamel]

Thing is, a crime would never occur there. Nobody who is going to try to rob a place would ever go there. The point of a robbery is to get away with the loot. The need would never arise for anybody to use those guns.


Of course, you can't account for lunacy, and then open carry or no guns at all, there'd still be a madman running around.

Thing is, a crime would never occur there. Nobody who is going to try to rob a place would ever go there. The point of a robbery is to get away with the loot. The need would never arise for anybody to use those guns.

If that were true then no bank which had armed guards would ever be robbed.

[Jimbuna]

I'll stick with the gun laws here in the UK thanks.

[August]

Originally Posted by NeonSamurai

None of those states have open carry laws.

That wasn't what you said orignally. Just because someone isn't carrying openly doesn't mean they ain't packing.

[Admiral Halsey]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

If that were true then no bank which had armed guards would ever be robbed.

Has a bank with armed guards ever been robbed before though? If so were the guards incapacitated somehow or did they just not do their job?(Which if they're the mall cop type of armed guards I could see them panicking)

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by CaptainMattJ.

My only concern is if all that heat in one area is actually needed. Let's hope all those patrons know what they're doing should an emergency arise. Based on the average I.Q. of people i pass by everyday, i wouldn't count on all those strangers to handle crisis situations with a calm demeanor. Who knows how collected and how accurate these people would be should there be a shootout. God forbid innocent people die because a whole restaurant tries to be a hero at the same time and ends up missing or shooting the wrong people.

That, to me, is the myth of the advantage of armed citizens. It works out if there is only one "good guy" and everyone else with a gun is a "bad guy". Makes target selection easy. Unfortunately, if more people are armed, it becomes harder to determine who the good and bad guy are.

Imagine that if some unknown number of baddies try to rob this place. A law-abiding armed citizen looks around and sees a human with a gun. This citizen has about 1/2 second to make, what is probably, the most important decision in their lives. Shoot or not shoot. Good guy with a gun or bad guy with a gun.

There are no save files to reload if I choose wrong.

No amount of time spend on a firing range can prepare a citizen for this type of decision. Police and military, even with training and practice, have difficulty making these decisions. Can we really expect Joe six-pack to be able to make these decisions?

I have spent far too much time at the firing range looking at bullet holes in overhead baffles or through the firing table to feel confident that the average armed citizen can be expected to be able to handle themselves in an actual firefight.

It is not like all the baddies will look a like (although I think some in this country may think so) nor do all the baddies stand at one end of the room and the good guys at the other.

Equally scary, there is a subset of gun owners, as demonstrated in some past legal cases, who seem to think that shooting is not a last resort, but much further up the decision chain.

I would not feel especially safe if I were in a place where the majority of citizens are armed. I simply do not have much confidence on the judgement of the average person.

My guns are to be used as the absolute last resort only to protect me and my family. I am not LE and it is not my job to take down baddies.

Has a bank with armed guards ever been robbed before though?

Are you serious?

[Wolferz]

I saw a cool door mat today that I might go buy...
It said; "Locked for your protection, not mine"