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


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.
 

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.
 
... 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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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
 
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
 
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
 
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.
 
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

Your assuming I carry a gun because I have a right to do so. Well I also have a right to protest but I never protest, so my right to carry is not why I do carry. I have the right to open carry also but I dont. I carry because of safety and I like my handgun and want it with me. My guns are very precious to me!
There is reasoning beyond the simple fact that businesses have rights to have no-gun signs, just like the government has the right to put stop signs on whatever roads they want, but they dont put them everywhere. A business has reasons for their signs, whether it be trying to reduce customer intervention as nogods indicated, or whether it be simple anti-gun opinions. Again, Costco has the right to ban guns on its premises, but they only ban open carrying and they only do so because customers complained about seeing guns in the store. It wasnt about Costco not liking guns.

Im not defending anti-gun businesses, I try to avoid them. However, I originally stated that I thought nogods brought up a good point as to why businesses may use these signs other than the automatic assumption that they just dont like guns.
 
Your assuming I carry a gun because I have a right to do so. Well I also have a right to protest but I never protest, so my right to carry is not why I do carry. I have the right to open carry also but I dont. I carry because of safety and I like my handgun and want it with me. My guns are very precious to me!

I assume that you carry a gun because the Bill of Rights ALLOWS you to! That is the predeterminent. All else follows. (Unless you contend that you would carry even if the "right" to carry were non-existant. Which would make you a NON Law Abiding Citizen.)

Your other examples of "I have a right, but I don't chose to exercise them" is exactly the point of all this. We have the right. THAT is paramount! All else follows from that. THEN we can consider other reasons to carry or not to carry.

... and exactly why I tend to get testy with those who do exercise their rights under the second and believe that they have a duty to "convert" those who do NOT exercise those rights. That is interfering with their "right" as far as I am concerned.

Conversely, I get even more testy with those who believe that my right(s) should be recinded to comply with their view of the topic and try to use the power of the Legislature/Courts/Law to do so. That's a BIG "NO! NO!" in my book.

My "rights" are sacrosanct. So are yours. Sounds like a good case for live and let live to me.

GG
 
This thread was great. What an adventure. From Denny's, to all over the US, from a few people to 36 people (people magically appearing), from self defense to vigilantism (though not sure where that detour came from), instructors feeling elite over military and citizens...such a diverse thread. Statistics fluttering out everywhere.

I'm starting to see my respect level for firearms instructors closing in on my LEO respect level. I like what the other poster wrote on another forum, if I ever need to refer someone to "bend over 101" I know where to send them. I love living in Washington, I'm glad we don't have instructors here like the east coast. Some of the instructors in this thread remind me of the LEO white tiger recently had to deal with.

What ever happened to the good guy though? Oh I guess it doesn't matter, the courts don't know what they are doing anyways, I mean they let that miles guy go for defending himself in the other thread, and that was completely wrong. *sarcasm*

What a trip...
 
I just reread the entire thread (to see if I got the same "experience" you seemed to have) and have concluded that it WAS interesting! Wasn't it?

It certainly provided a lot of info on various "attitudes" of various posters. Some good, some not so good. Some "smart", some not so smart.

From statistical records (easily found), the bottom line is that, on average, you have twice the chance of getting killed through accidental gunfire from legit gun owners than you have of properly dispatching a legit bad guy. Now I know why.

Just sayin'.

GG
 
I just reread the entire thread (to see if I got the same "experience" you seemed to have) and have concluded that it WAS interesting! Wasn't it?

It certainly provided a lot of info on various "attitudes" of various posters. Some good, some not so good. Some "smart", some not so smart.

From statistical records (easily found), the bottom line is that, on average, you have twice the chance of getting killed through accidental gunfire from legit gun owners than you have of properly dispatching a legit bad guy. Now I know why.

Just sayin'.

GG

You got it. This is what gives the antis more ammunition to stack up against us. They just love to talk about the "lunatic" gun owner who opened fire in a Denny's and put innocent people at risk. I would love to see someone post links to legit training resources that state that this is a shoot scenario...
 
Firefighterchen said:
I'm starting to see my respect level for firearms instructors closing in on my LEO respect level. I like what the other poster wrote on another forum, if I ever need to refer someone to "bend over 101" I know where to send them. I love living in Washington, I'm glad we don't have instructors here like the east coast.
I'm glad to know you're absolutely sure that you don't have instructors in your state that think differently than you. I'm glad to know you are absolutely sure that people who live on the East coast think differently than you. I'm very glad to know that you have researched and found that instructors on the East coast are absolutely worse than those on the west coast. I'm glad to know that you are better educated on the subject than Mas Ayoob, who recommends one disengage. I'll sleep better at night now.

Generalizations illustrate ignorance on the part of the observer. No two people are alike whether they're LEO, instructors, crackheads, doctors or janitors. A generalization is an insult to the intelligence of anyone who ever studied sociology or behavioral sciences. Remember, when one has a problem with every neighbor, it's probably not the neighbors' fault.
 
Here's something I posted a while back on a similar thread. Figured I'd just quote myself instead of going through it all again...

Probably be a lot of collateral damage and casualties but heck, it's not every day you get to die like a hero! (or get killed in the crossfire of a couple of Rambo-Jrs).

Anyway, back to the original question.........being a typical sheep, I'd probably sit quietly and avoid eye contact as long as the perp didn't start shooting. I'd make every effort to place my hand on my pistol and have it at the ready in case of the dreaded worst-case-scenario. I guess I just don't have the balls to start a firefight in a situation where there's a high probability of bystanders being wounded or killed. Thankfully there are plenty of macho-men on this site who wouldn't hesitate to put the rest of us in a gloriously dangerous situation. Yeah, baby!!
 
Generalizations illustrate ignorance on the part of the observer. No two people are alike whether they're LEO, instructors, crackheads, doctors or janitors. A generalization is an insult to the intelligence of anyone who ever studied sociology or behavioral sciences. Remember, when one has a problem with every neighbor, it's probably not the neighbors' fault.

Amen. Funny how someone who's subject to negative stereotypes (a gun owner) can be so quick to do the same to others.
 
I don't know, have you ever heard of insurance???? Who let the sheep in here?

Two shots to the center of mass and one to the head tend to end a "Gun Fight" but again even Law Enforcement is trained that there are times to just be the best witness in the store. Not saying that I by myself would not take the fight to the perp, but if I had my family (not that I would be caught in denny's) I think I would try to just keep the fight away from them. I feel Denny's is trying to be PC in this day and age.
 
Denny's. Houston

I'm sure we can all say, lost of business because I can't wear my firearm in there. Being in law enforcement, in civilian clothes during a robbery once. I did exactly what the robberies told me to do. Was I scared for my life, do you want me to say no, I'm trained for this problem. First thing I did was made sure my firearm couldn't be seen. Second as they were yelling checking out the people around me. Thinking I could drop one but out numbered and out gun the choice was made. Follow the instructions and we should get out of it alive. Think what going on around you before you say you'll play Hero. Most Heroes that don't think are dead Heroes. One another thing to look at, think about it too. One person gets shot, better one than 15 others. Think it out and that's one thing I don't see anyone saying. Just some friendly advise.
 

New Threads

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
49,542
Messages
611,255
Members
74,961
Latest member
Shodan
Back
Top