Should Target take action to keep rifles out of their stores?[W:37]

rocket88 said:

Should Target take action to keep rifles out of their stores? | Today's Question | Minnesota Public Radio News

So there's pressure on Target to restrict gun carrying. Now my own opinion is that open carry like this is more harmful to gun rights. If guns are OK, what else should openly allowed? Should we openly allow gay sex in the frozen foods aisle? You have that right too, right? It's my right to go barefoot, but they won't let me do that.

Click to expand...

Target can do what it wants.

Sababa said:

Ther eis a local law that requires public businesses to not discriminate. it really is that simple.





Well again and I don't know why people are not seeing this, the 2 amendment doesn't apply here. If I own a business in almost every jurisdiction in the country, and I want to ban guns, I am fully allowed to do it and no one's rights are violated. Linking it to serving gays is not a good analogy. Think of it this way. You are not allowed to preach at Target, give political speeches or yell at people who are buying products that you feel hurt the environment. All of which is protected by the Constitution if you did it on the sidewalk outside of the store (within a certain distance). If you do those things you won't be arrested for them in particular (meaning content) you will be arrested for trespassing and disturbing the peace. Just the same with guns. If Target restricts any form of open carry your right to open carry is not gone, just mitigated by their right not to have you do it in their store. If you do go in and are asked to leave and you don't. Like the preacher, shouter and politician you will be arrested not for having a gun but for trespassing or disturbing the peace. It really is that simple.

No I see no reason that a law not be passed that makes open carry ubiquitous in stores and other open public accommodations. I know some businesses that have restricted employees have faced laws that force them to allow carrying on sight, but until then Target is well within both their rights and the law to restrict it.

Now I wonder if a sign went up at Target that said "If you bring a rifle into the store we will assume you are a potential danger and you will be followed by security. If you move your rifle into any kind of position that allows you to fire you will be shot. Have a Nice Day" if that would solve the problem.

Click to expand...

Banning rifles or OC is not the same as banning guns. Its a shame so many on this thread can't keep that straight.

TheNextEra said:

If you do not wish to transfer the responsibility to the store for your safety, you don't have to shop there.

Click to expand...

Or I can just carry concealed, keep responsability for my saftey and Target can have my money.

Jerry said:

Or I can just carry concealed, keep responsability for my saftey and Target can have my money.

Click to expand...

Yep, you sure can. And when caught, you can face the trespassing charge as well. No skin off my back.

Jerry said:

Banning rifles or OC is not the same as banning guns. Its a shame so many on this thread can't keep that straight.

Click to expand...

Yup and I don't. You comment here is a mystery to me as it doesn't relate to what I said here.

TheNextEra said:

Yep, you sure can. And when caught, you can face the trespassing charge as well. No skin off my back.

Click to expand...

It depends. At least in some states, if you are found to be carrying and asked to leave....and do not leave....then you can be charged with trespassing. But if you leave, there are no charges.

TheNextEra said:

Yep, you sure can. And when caught, you can face the trespassing charge as well. No skin off my back.

Click to expand...

Yep, and if they could get a charge to stick, then that manager will need a new set of tires.

After that it moves on to identity theft....all because some buisness owners have an irrational fear of adults.

I've carried into posted businesses for years. I don't see that changing anytime soon.

Re: Should Target take action to keep rifles out of their stores?

Lursa said:

How many people are attacked in parking lots? Plenty of women, that's for sure. Or stopping for gas on the way? Or if your car breaks down after dark and you or your wife have to wait for a tow truck?

Man, you do not think these things thru at all, do you? Easier just to complain about stuff that makes you 'uncomfortable'.

Click to expand...

You're talking about the concealed carry of a handgun and I was discussing yahoos with their assault rifles over their shoulder. I haven't commented on anyone carrying concealed, except sarcastically in response to someone who implied those who have problems with open carry of rifles are "s'ing their pants." I'm very sympathetic to the unique dangers women face when alone. My sister in law recently got her permit - she lives on a remote farm, my brother is often working in the wee hours of the morning, and she's alone with five kids, driving in and out of this property. She carries a pistol. Fine. I support that.

I have serious doubts about whether carrying a pistol increases or decreases the net safety of most people who carry them, but that's not my decision to make except on a personal level.

And no one cares if you trust them...I dont trust a single other person on the road I'm driving on. Too bad for me, I have to deal with it. And I'm alot safer in Target with guns than driving on the roads every day.

Click to expand...

Well, obviously the store owners who ban guns care. YOU don't, but people who want their customers to feel comfortable shopping do. Perhaps it's the 15,000 or so injured from accidental shootings each year, the 600 dead, and the possibility that guns in the store can be used irresponsibly, escalating a fight to a deadly confrontation, etc.

And you mentioned driving - would you feel more or less safe driving if the next new demonstration of gun rights is to have a .50 cal strapped to the bed of the truck with one passenger manning it as the truck rolls down the interstate. I don't know about you, but I'd avoid that truck....

See....it's your perspective on the object, not the object itself and American has been on a campaign to demonize guns...and love their cars (this one since the 50s). And you can certainly see how people just pop their babies in cars...even with mere acquaintences...out of convenience and off they go at the drop of a hat....placing themselves and kids in more danger than they EVER are from people carrying guns out in public (concealed or open).

Click to expand...

I think that "America" in most cases is just pointing out the dangers of guns. 10,000 murders, 20,000 suicides, 15,000 non-deadly accidental shooting injuries, 600 accidental deaths, that owning a gun and having it at home INCREASES your risk of death, more guns in a state = more gun deaths, not less.

The guy with the rifle KNOWS everyone is watching him...duh. It's a statement in many cases (not that I agree with it). It's the ones you cant see until they open fire or hold up the cashier. :roll:

Click to expand...

Yes, it's generally a "look at me, I'm a Real Man with a gun," statement in my view. It's also IMO counterproductive, because people rationally don't trust strangers with assault weapons. Duh...

BTW, I didnt even shoot a handgun until my 40s. I never needed one before and I havent needed it since I got it. I try to carry as a rule...and used to... but am more about convenience today unfortunately, until I get a smaller one. There's no fear involved. It's prudence, just like carrying my cell phone. I dont like that either but I had to MAKE myself carry it everyday, everywhere...and that certainly has served a purpose in emergencies many times. Do I need it every day? No, but when I need it, I NEED it.

I learned to shoot, I liked it, and I recognized another tool to add for my own protection. So dont try building yourself up by tearing others down. Are people that practice firedrills with their family at home fearful? Or prudent? The ones that teach their kids about not getting into cars with strangers...fear? Are they scared every day their kid will be kidnapped? Or is it just smart to prepare your kid for it?

Click to expand...

[/QUOTE]

First of all, other than those who are being deliberately insulting to me, I'm not tearing anyone down. I'm trying to explain a position. If I insulted you, I apologize, but my point has been simple - I see it as common sense to distrust people carrying weapons in places where the need for them is exceedingly remote. Their presence IMO increases my risk of death/injury instead of decreasing it. I think this belief it rational and consistent with the evidence.

And comparing guns to fire drills perfectly illustrates my main point. A fire drill has NO downside at all. But guns are not risk free ways to protect yourself. If you own one and keep it at home, your risk of death by gun INCREASES because of suicide/accident/domestic violence. But for some reason, gun organizations now have shifted the focus from gun safety to convincing everyone that guns aren't risky at all, that the old common sense rules of gun safety don't apply anymore and when we have people walking around with loaded weapons, everyone is more safe, not less. And this is at a time when the murder and crime rates are decreasing and have for decades, not at their peak. Not ONE of the gun owners on here even recognizes ANY risk at all with people (total strangers) walking around armed and loaded. It's just bizarre and irrational to me. It is, IMO, properly a question of evaluating risk, the increase in safety being armed versus the risk of injury/someone grabbing your gun and using it against you etc. In this conversation there is no downside evaluation at all - it's assumed that armed people in public places are all upside. I don't get it.

30 years ago it would never occur to anyone to stop at a mall, reach into the back seat, and grab their shotgun/assault rifle, and strap it on their shoulder to get a new pair of jeans. Now I'm supposed to look at people who do that as predictably sane, responsible individuals. Sorry, but I don't. They might BE, but I'd never assume such a thing.

Jerry said:

Are there any Quakers left in the world?

Click to expand...

Of course there are. Richard Nixon was one, so his relatives. Whoever runs Sidwell Friends in DC.

There's only a few Shakers left, but there's a bunch of Quakers.

Thrilla said:

the actions of the person who has the firearm is what is important.... using your comparison... gays are fine, but gay sex in the aisle is not fine. ( the action is paramount)
but somehow, a gun is not fine.. regardless of action ( action is now of no importance whatsoever)

Click to expand...

Action is very important. Carrying a gun is an action.

Jerry said:

Yep, and if they could get a charge to stick, then that manager will need a new set of tires.

After that it moves on to identity theft....all because some buisness owners have an irrational fear of adults.

I've carried into posted businesses for years. I don't see that changing anytime soon.

Click to expand...

So your argument is that if you don't get what you want you will resort to criminal activity. You are exactly the type of person who shouldn't own a gun.

Lursa said:

It depends. At least in some states, if you are found to be carrying and asked to leave....and do not leave....then you can be charged with trespassing. But if you leave, there are no charges.

Click to expand...

That is true. Either way, it's like speeding to me. No skin off my back if someone does it, but then I have no sympathy for anyone when their caught either.

Jerry said:

Yep, and if they could get a charge to stick, then that manager will need a new set of tires.

After that it moves on to identity theft....all because some buisness owners have an irrational fear of adults.

I've carried into posted businesses for years. I don't see that changing anytime soon.

Click to expand...

So if you're stupid enough to get caught you're going to then resort to illegal activity because of your own action? Classic.

TheNextEra said:

So if you're stupid enough to get caught you're going to then resort to illegal activity because of your own action? Classic.

Click to expand...

If I'm going to get arested for legal activity anyway then all bets are off. If a buisness doesn't want to play by the rules then I won't either.

Jerry said:

If I'm going to get arested for legal activity anyway then all bets are off. If a buisness doesn't want to play by the rules then I won't either.

Click to expand...

It wouldn't be legal activity though. If you are carrying and the private property specifically deems it not legal, then you are trespassing. Your activity is then illegal.

TheNextEra said:

It wouldn't be legal activity though. If you are carrying and the private property specifically deems it not legal, then you are trespassing. Your activity is then illegal.

Click to expand...

Private property can't deem anything illegal. Those signs have no force of law in my state.

If you have a no-gun policy and I ignore it, you have to ask me to leave. Only if I refused could you press a charge, and I can think of only a couple reasons why I may refuse, like getting my kids from the toy section first.

Then you have to explain to a judge why I should have abandoned my children in a public place.

So if you then got a lawyer to make a charge stick, good luck to you.

Sababa said:

So your argument is that if you don't get what you want you will resort to criminal activity. You are exactly the type of person who shouldn't own a gun.

Click to expand...

Funny thing is even if I did all that I could still get a gun, I could still carry it onto your property, and the only people to stop me would be others who ignored your stupid ban like me.

....whom you would then prosecute for trespassing, of course.

Jerry said:

Funny thing is even if I did all that I could still get a gun, I could still carry it onto your property, and the only people to stop me would be others who ignored your stupid ban like me.

....whom you would then prosecute for trespassing, of course.

Click to expand...

funny guys who talk tough like this are usually the ones who have their guns taken off them before they know what happened. It must be sad however to feel so frighten and weak to need to carry and how rude of you to resort to violence if someone challenges your world view.

Re: Should Target take action to keep rifles out of their stores?

ludin said:

i personally don't care if a businesses allows guns or not. if i had a business i would not allow open carry in my store. if you have a conceal license and a gun and i can't tell then there is little i can do about.

however a guy walking into my store with and open carry no. why? it is bad for business and makes other people uncomfortable and i don't know that person from jack and jill.

Click to expand...

I don't really have a problem with concealed carry.

If a bunch of gangstas walked in with rifles wearing ski masks, would you assume they're just law abiding citizens asserting their 2nd Amendment rights?

Sababa said:

....and how rude of you to resort to violence if someone challenges your world view.

Click to expand...

Rude, yes, like telling someone to completely disarm in a publicly accesable buiswness.

Jerry said:

Rude, yes, like telling someone to completely disarm in a publicly accesable buiswness.

Click to expand...

nothing rude about that, public businesses make all kinds of rules. I fear your detachment from reality and your clear threats make you a problem to society.

Jerry said:

Rude, yes, like telling someone to completely disarm in a publicly accesable buiswness.

Click to expand...

Jerry, I hope you know me well enough to admit that I am as Pro-2nd Amendment and pro-gun as they come.

But still, I consider open carry to be idiotic:
1. If you open carry, you are the first target for a mass shooter. Especially when everyone else who has seen you open carrying look to you to "Do Something!"
2. If the police come looking for a man with a gun, its best to not be one.

Despite one's right to open carry, I think concealed carry is far superior. Open carry rallies tend to turn public opinion against gun rights, because most people find the open carry of a gun, especially a long gun, as threatening. No matter how wrong they are, the act disincentivises the support of our cause.

Re: Should Target take action to keep rifles out of their stores?

The Man said:

Target is a private sector company, they should be allowed to ban whatever they want from their stores as long as the bans do not violate civil rights. And people can choose whether or not to shop there.

Click to expand...

And the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is a civil right.

Meanwhile we have poor bakeries that refuse to bake a cake for homosexuals and they're massively under fire - and making someone bake a cake is NOT a civil liberty. If anything it's a basic lack of tolerance for those with religious views that prevent them from partaking in such a "wedding" or ceremony.

Carrying a gun is a civil liberty.

Refusing to back a cake for homosexuals violates ZERO civil liberties.

Sababa said:

nothing rude about that, public businesses make all kinds of rules. I fear your detachment from reality and your clear threats make you a problem to society.

Click to expand...

They can make as many "rules" as they like, however those "rules" cannot circumvent the Bill of Rights.

It just seems progressives enjoy the Bill of Rights being spit and **** on given any reason - and ironically now progressives are using "business freedom" as an excuse for this level of tyranny.

Re: Should Target take action to keep rifles out of their stores?

Mr.Nick said:

And the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is a civil right.

Click to expand...

No it isn't. It's a constitutional right. If a private sector business wants to ban guns from their properties, that's their prerogative. It's no different than a store with a 'no shirt, no shoes, no service' rule.