Denny's "no guns allowed" signs seem to be working. - Page 11
Page 11 of 13 FirstFirst ... 910111213 LastLast
Results 101 to 110 of 125

Thread: Denny's "no guns allowed" signs seem to be working.

  1. #101
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Posts
    597
    Quote Originally Posted by nogods View Post
    Well then...what if you start shooting at them and they start shooting back as they are trying to leave the premises. Unfortunately, my family and I are in their line of fire. My best option might be to shoot you so they can leave and thereby eliminate the risk for my family.

    You cool with that?
    I certainly am.

  2.   
  3. #102
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    washington state
    Posts
    817
    Quote Originally Posted by Rich_S View Post
    Why would I read the laws for Washington if I don't live there and have no plans to go there? That's a pretty silly suggestion. A man walks into Denny's and goes up to the cash register with a gun and demands cash. How is he threatening you with a gun? If a man comes at you with a tire iron that's a completely different scenario and the way it should behandled is completely different. In the case of Denny's there were two BGs. You're putting the life of the cashier and everyone in the building in jeapordy rather than helping if you pull your gun. If their intention is to take the money and run, which is more often than not the case, you just started a fire fight for nothing. Shoot first and ask questions later works well in movies but in real life.....not so much.
    First I live in Washington so knowing the laws of the state where I am is not silly any more than knowing the laws of any State I am visiting. I have no idea of what your travel plans are and thats your business. There have been many(too many)instances of a mass shootings that could have been prevented or minimized IF a properly armed and prepared person took action. What if the BGs got spooked or decided that witnesses were a bad thing? IF the same situation that took place in Texas was to happen to me I would have to take action. There is always a risk and variables that can change the scenario as I said on an earlier post,but in my opinion doing nothing can be deadly. If you need an example look at an incident at a resturant in Texas several years ago.

  4. #103
    Quote Originally Posted by Grognard Gunny View Post
    ... and in any case, it is perfectly within THEIR legal rights to preclude guns from private property.

    Why is it that while expounding on the virtues of OUR rights, we tend to forget that others have rights also? Is it not said that your rights stop the moment when they interfere with mine?

    So the bottom line for me is that I can understand others exercising their rights, even if they interfere with mine. I only tend to get REAl testy when the "others" decide to completely take my rights away in favor of their rights.

    Not on my watch.

    GG
    This was not in reference to rights at all. We understand everyone has rights. This is about the reasoning for the no guns signs, not about whether they have the right to or not.

  5. #104
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    699
    Hey now nogods, going a bit far aren't ya?

    Are you saying that you'd shoot an innocent man for defending another human beings life? Rich, you really agreeing with that? Did it not occur that hey, here's this guy firing on the BGs, maybe I should join him, not shoot at him? See how that line of logic works with the prosecutor.

    Ever heard of "alter ego" provisions in SD laws? I'm assuming your states dont have one because something must be in the water around there that you two would heartlessly stand idly by while a living breathing human beings life hung in the balance. Mine specifically provides for my criminal and civil immunity in just such a case because...well ya know....its just the right thing to do.

    Well here's to navy, me, anyone to agree in this thread, my whole state legislature, probably most in my state, oh and other state legislatures that disagree with you by passing identical legislation and most likely most of their citizens...hell to be honest, I'm POSITIVE that you two would be in the minority on this.

    Where are your morals? I bet everything I own that both of you would LOVE for someone to come to YOUR defense if the need arose.

    Considering your comments here, neither of you deserve it, both of you are morally deprived and not worth your flesh.

  6. #105
    Quote Originally Posted by Deserteagle View Post
    This was not in reference to rights at all. We understand everyone has rights. This is about the reasoning for the no guns signs, not about whether they have the right to or not.
    So maybe we can agree on this:

    1. If a no gun sign is premised on the theory that it will reduce crime on the premises it is illogical and dangerous to patrons because it offers no risk reducing plan whatsoever, it is just based on false hope.

    2. If a no gun sign is premised on an aversion to guns. then it suffers from the same faults as 1 above, only this time out of ignorance rather than illogical thinking.

    3. but if it is premised on a plan to reduce risk to patrons based on statistical evidence, then it might have some validity even if you disagree with the ultimate judgment being exercised.

  7. #106
    Quote Originally Posted by Deserteagle View Post
    This was not in reference to rights at all. We understand everyone has rights. This is about the reasoning for the no guns signs, not about whether they have the right to or not.
    Then what we say when we carry "because we have a right to" does not hold true for their right to post signs precluding you (and I) from "sullying" their precious business domain, because "they have a right to"?

    They post the signs in accordance with Law out of pure exercise of their rights to do so. They need no more "reason" than that. It's a personal thing and, most assuredly, has everything to do with "rights".

    GG
    Fanatics of any sort are dangerous! -GG-
    Which part of "... shall NOT be infringed..." confuses you?
    Well now, aren't WE a pair, Raggedy Man? (Thunderdome)

  8. #107
    Quote Originally Posted by Unfettered Might View Post
    Hey now nogods, going a bit far aren't ya?

    1) Are you saying that you'd shoot an innocent man for defending another human beings life? Rich, you really agreeing with that? Did it not occur that hey, here's this guy firing on the BGs, maybe I should join him, not shoot at him? See how that line of logic works with the prosecutor.

    2) I'm POSITIVE that you two would be in the minority on this.

    3) Where are your morals? I bet everything I own that both of you would LOVE for someone to come to YOUR defense if the need arose.

    4) Considering your comments here, neither of you deserve it, both of you are morally deprived and not worth your flesh.
    1) I believe poster indicated that supposed "good guy" was presenting more danger to an armed (thus far) bystander and his family than the Bad Guys were, at that particular moment. While "shooting back" at the supposed good guy might not be the optimum solution.... it COULD be construed to be one solution to a "clear and present danger" being presented.

    2) That is highly possible. However, since my (and other's) concern at the moment is the safety of me and mine.... it is more a matter of threat analysis and resolution. Target priorities assigned accordingly.

    3) It would be all nice and fuzzy to believe that there would be another "helpmate" available to help you out in your proposed situation(s)..... but I am not willing to bet my life on the appearance of a "white knight" coming to my rescue. (Another reason why I carry at all!) In my current list of acquaintences, I believe my wife is the only one I could fully trust with covering my "six". On the other hand, in today's rather morally depraved and shorted society.... you expect to find any? Without at least a thorough search?

    4) Ah! Another judge and jury heard from. But, better to be verbally castigated and tried by a citizen full of moral indignation than by a hot shot anti-gun DA trying to make a name for himself in search for his next step up the political ladder. The consequences of conviction are much less to "worry about" from the former.

    Just sayin'.

    GG
    Fanatics of any sort are dangerous! -GG-
    Which part of "... shall NOT be infringed..." confuses you?
    Well now, aren't WE a pair, Raggedy Man? (Thunderdome)

  9. #108
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Posts
    597
    Quote Originally Posted by Unfettered Might View Post
    Hey now nogods, going a bit far aren't ya?

    Are you saying that you'd shoot an innocent man for defending another human beings life? Rich, you really agreeing with that? Did it not occur that hey, here's this guy firing on the BGs, maybe I should join him, not shoot at him? See how that line of logic works with the prosecutor.

    Ever heard of "alter ego" provisions in SD laws? I'm assuming your states dont have one because something must be in the water around there that you two would heartlessly stand idly by while a living breathing human beings life hung in the balance. Mine specifically provides for my criminal and civil immunity in just such a case because...well ya know....its just the right thing to do.

    Well here's to navy, me, anyone to agree in this thread, my whole state legislature, probably most in my state, oh and other state legislatures that disagree with you by passing identical legislation and most likely most of their citizens...hell to be honest, I'm POSITIVE that you two would be in the minority on this.

    Where are your morals? I bet everything I own that both of you would LOVE for someone to come to YOUR defense if the need arose.

    Considering your comments here, neither of you deserve it, both of you are morally deprived and not worth your flesh.
    Take some training if you want to see who's in the minority here. Hint: it's the tough guy internet commandos who think they're prepared to save the day. When criminals have as many rights if not more than their victims you also need to think long and hard about stepping into a situation involving a total stranger when it more than likely will ruin the rest of your life. Look what happened here:

    Man Pleads Innocent to Assaulting Alleged Thief - Swampscott, MA Patch

  10. #109
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Santa Fe Area, New Mexico
    Posts
    3,487
    Quote Originally Posted by Grognard Gunny View Post
    "threat analysis and resolution. Target priorities assigned accordingly."
    GG
    Basics, all about basics! +1 GG
    "The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities." --author and philosopher Ayn Rand (1905-1982)

  11. #110
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    State of Confusion
    Posts
    7,733
    Quote Originally Posted by Rich_S View Post
    Take some training if you want to see who's in the minority here. Hint: it's the tough guy internet commandos who think they're prepared to save the day. When criminals have as many rights if not more than their victims you also need to think long and hard about stepping into a situation involving a total stranger when it more than likely will ruing the rest of your life. Look what happened here:

    Man Pleads Innocent to Assaulting Alleged Thief - Swampscott, MA Patch
    During PP classes we have an attorney on-hand to teach the defense of justification (use of force / deadly force). He makes it very clear that even a clean defensive shoot will probably ruin your life. He tells the class if you come to him charged in a shooting death he requires a $20K retainer and then charges at $350 per hour plus costs. Total cost? About $50K and he might lose.

    Too many posters are quick to pull out that gun. What many don't understand is that once they start shooting people may lose sight of who the BG is. Police arriving on the scene don't know either. Only a complete fool would open-up in a Denny's to prevent a robbery. You can't put that genie back in the bottle.

    If posters want to intervene and think it's their duty they must consider the consequences of this action carefully; to both themselves and the other patrons.
    GOD, GUNS and GUITARS

Page 11 of 13 FirstFirst ... 910111213 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast