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

[Deserteagle]

Or perhaps someone has thought it through on an intellectual level, rather than an NRA slogan level.

Very few "armed" robberies of establishments result in violence. Even bank robberies have very few injuries even though the bad guys have to enter deep into the establishment to rob a bank.

Like most restaurants, Denny's have the cash registers near the entrances. So it is even easier for a bad guy to get in and get out with the money than in a bank.

Thus Denny's security plan, like those of most banks, is to give the bad guys the money and get them off the premises with as little risk as possible to its employees and customers.

The two most likely things that would screw up that security plan are:

1. Am employee who tries to prevent the robbery; and

2. a customer who tries to intervene in the robbery.

Denny's can train its employees to eliminate the first problem.

It can prohibit customers from carrying weapons on the premise to help reduce the probability of the second.

In essence, Denny's no gun sign says "We don't want any idiots trying to intervene in a robbery and putting our employees and customers at a much higher risk of being injured or killed. If you are that type of an idiot perhaps you should eat elsewhere."

The no guns sign isn't for the bad guys - its for the other idiots.

You bring up a good point that I havent thought of before. I guess in the end it doesnt bother me if the business loses any money in a robbery because it aint mine. Only problem is that this logic makes a little bit too much sense to be the actual reason why many businesses have those signs. Im sure some businesses have no gun signs for this reason and Im also sure (and know) that many other businesses have them for other reasons like they dont like guns or like Costco, they dont allow guns because it "bothers" their customers.

 

[NavyLCDR]

No such signs here in MI... must be a local thing...

Same here. No signs. We have even had open carry get togethers in Dennys.

Being a MA native, where people can break into your house, rob you and sue you AND WIN for tripping and hurting themselves, I have to agree with this.

But outside of MA where we have rights, I agree with NavyLCDR. You can't let people die or get hurt if you can stop it from happening. Here in VA if that happened and lives where in danger and I could do something about it, I would. Because I wouldn't fear jail for being the good guy.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Link Removed

UHOH! We have a RAMBO! in the house!
And a fine example of open carry, too! Brings a tear to my eye.

 

[NavyLCDR]

9 out of 10 times the armed robbers will leave once they have what they want with nobody being injured. You just have to wonder.... is this the ninth armed robbery....or number ten?

 

[m1gunr]

So glad signs hold no weight of law here in Washington.

 

[NavyLCDR]

Digging through the boxes in the basement, I found this old photo of snatale42 and myself....

Link Removed

 

[santa]

There are always variables to consider. Things such as are there innocents in the line of fire, is your gun capable of stopping the BG, how good a shot you are, among many other variables we have the luxury of considering while posting. Those of us who have undergone more than the 'which end does the bullet come out' training realize this and plan and practice should we ever have to make the decision to shoot. But I believe there are times that as NavyLCDR put it "it is better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6". Or as I (and a well known movie)would put it 'sometimes you have to do unto others before they do unto you'.

 

[Grognard Gunny]

It just seems like in most instances you would be too afraid to use it.

Maybe just demonstrating common sence. Descretion being the better part of valor.

One thing one learns in the military quickly, many "heroes" collect their accolades ex post facto. (It IS preferred to be able to collect one's retirement check, ya know.)

It's a matter of carrying for the protection of me and mine. They have people they pay good money to to worry about the rest of the society. (The REAL sheepdogs.)

Exception: If it should happen that in the act of protecting me and mine, others nearby should reap the benefits of my efforts.... all well and fine. Rest assured that it would not be the primary reason why I would act.

You need to retire for a few years, Nav. If for no other reason than to get this "White Knight" syndrome burned out of you. It can get you killed! (I thought self defense was the prime directive here?) LOL!

GG

 

[Grognard Gunny]

Digging through the boxes in the basement, I found this old photo of snatale42 and myself....

Link Removed

To be captioned: "Spread out, ya FNGs! One grenade or bobby trap will get you both!" (DOH!)

GG

 

[Grognard Gunny]

You bring up a good point that I havent thought of before. I guess in the end it doesnt bother me if the business loses any money in a robbery because it aint mine. Only problem is that this logic makes a little bit too much sense to be the actual reason why many businesses have those signs. Im sure some businesses have no gun signs for this reason and Im also sure (and know) that many other businesses have them for other reasons like they dont like guns or like Costco, they dont allow guns because it "bothers" their customers.

... 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

 

[Grognard Gunny]

Or as I (and a well known movie)would put it 'sometimes you have to do unto others before they do unto you'.

Which IS, bottom line, the basis of all self defense. Precisely why we carry.

GG

 

[PatAz]

Terminal starvation is the only thing that would make me even cosider eating at a Denny's.

 

[NavyLCDR]

So which is it, Gunny? You are making two completely contradictory statements quoted below.

Maybe just demonstrating common sence. Descretion being the better part of valor.

One thing one learns in the military quickly, many "heroes" collect their accolades ex post facto. (It IS preferred to be able to collect one's retirement check, ya know.)

It's a matter of carrying for the protection of me and mine. They have people they pay good money to to worry about the rest of the society. (The REAL sheepdogs.)

Exception: If it should happen that in the act of protecting me and mine, others nearby should reap the benefits of my efforts.... all well and fine. Rest assured that it would not be the primary reason why I would act.

You need to retire for a few years, Nav. If for no other reason than to get this "White Knight" syndrome burned out of you. It can get you killed! (I thought self defense was the prime directive here?) LOL!

GG

Which seems to indicate your hesitation to act in a situation such as the Dennys robbery.

'sometimes you have to do unto others before they do unto you'.

Which IS, bottom line, the basis of all self defense. Precisely why we carry.

GG

This seems to indicate that you believe when presented with a threat, the defender should start an actual attack first, "precisely why we carry." Which is it?!? Make up your mind, Gunny.

I do not, and cannot, understand how anyone can say that armed criminals, in this case multiple armed criminals, in the same room as they are in are not a threat to them. You have no idea at what point in time the armed criminals may turn their attention to you and either take you as a hostage or shoot you either because everything has gone to crap and they want no witnesses or because something pushed them over the edge and they go psycho. Me....I'm going to attempt to eliminate that possibility before it comes to a reality.

 

[Grognard Gunny]

Terminal starvation is the only thing that would make me even cosider eating at a Denny's.

Since you brought up that angle..... true as stated.

GG

 

[Grognard Gunny]

So which is it, Gunny? You are making two completely contradictory statements quoted below.



Which seems to indicate your hesitation to act in a situation such as the Dennys robbery.



This seems to indicate that you believe when presented with a threat, the defender should start an actual attack first, "precisely why we carry." Which is it?!? Make up your mind, Gunny.

I do not, and cannot, understand how anyone can say that armed criminals, in this case multiple armed criminals, in the same room as they are in are not a threat to them. You have no idea at what point in time the armed criminals may turn their attention to you and either take you as a hostage or shoot you either because everything has gone to crap and they want no witnesses or because something pushed them over the edge and they go psycho. Me....I'm going to attempt to eliminate that possibility before it comes to a reality.

Nonsence. I made two completely generic statements as to what would and what would NOT cause me to spring into action. Apparently, to you, this is case for dichotomous thinking. While I, on the other hand, consider it an ongoing estimate of the situation at hand.

Even those "contingencies" may be taken completely out of my hands by the actions at the onset or during the commission of the activities of the BGs. Thus immediate reaction drills would come to fore rather than considered analysis. (IRDs are good for no other resort situations, but are prone to errors in execution. Mainly because they cannot take into consideration all contingencies of a given situation. Better a good, considered plan, IMHO.)

I stated the terms by which I would become a "shooter". The Law prescribes most of that thought process, "clear and present danger to life and limb of me and mine", would be a good summary. If given the option, again completely out of my hands as to whether one or more even exists, I would prefer to keep as many open as long as possible.

But that's just me, a thinker rather than a berserker.

In addition, the observation as to "why we carry" is directly linked to the objective of self defense of me and mine in situations (there's that pesky "thinking" bit again) so requiring. Obviously, your trigger point as to what constitutes "necessary action" varies considerably from mine.

As for doing unto others..... it's merely a statement of fact in action. If they "do" first.... all else is moot.

Hey, no skin off my nose. It's nothing more than a difference of opinion. Mine typically tend to blend in shades of grey rather than the absolutes of black and whites.

BOTH of us would be remiss (and a bit obnoxious) to suggest one's mental set as superior to the other's. Like all aspects of life, one has to do what one "feels" is right for them. (Within the bounds of Law, of course.)

Perhaps we can discuss this again at one of the pubs I hope exists "on the other side". If not..... not.

GG

 

[mappow]

Nice dissertation GG

 

[santa]

An armed man holding up a store is a clear and immediate threat. I have had to take my gun out of its holster three times acting in self defence. This post isnt the place to give all the details, but one of the times involved a man with a tire iron that one minute would be rational the next a lunatic. He was high on something the police later told me. Many hold-ups involve drugs and an addict is NOT the most rational person and there is no way to tell for sure whats in the BG's mind(or whats left of it). In this case(Dennys) the threat was clear and immediate. The BG(s) had guns out and if thats not threatening what is? The only issue is, can I get a good clean shot(s) that will stop the threat?

 

[Rich_S]

An armed man holding up a store is a clear and immediate threat. I have had to take my gun out of its holster three times acting in self defence. This post isnt the place to give all the details, but one of the times involved a man with a tire iron that one minute would be rational the next a lunatic. He was high on something the police later told me. Many hold-ups involve drugs and an addict is NOT the most rational person and there is no way to tell for sure whats in the BG's mind(or whats left of it). In this case(Dennys) the threat was clear and immediate. The BG(s) had guns out and if thats not threatening what is? The only issue is, can I get a good clean shot(s) that will stop the threat?

Are you trying to compare someone coming at you with a tire iron to someone robbing a Denny's?

 

[santa]

The comparison is that if you are shot with a gun you could die. If you were hit by a tire iron you could die. In both situations there is a threat to your life and in this State you have the right to defend yourself. People have committed robbery using all sorts of weapons including guns,knives, pepper spray, toy guns and many other things including verbal threats. While I am not familar with the laws in Massachusetts, the law in Washington State is clear regarding the use of deadly force and the use of a gun. I would suggest reading an earlier post by NavyLCDR on this thread where he quotes the exact chapter and verse of Washington State law on this subject. When a man(woman)is threatening me with a gun or a man(woman)is threatening me with a tire iron my life(or others)is in jepardy and I will act to stop the threat.

 

[Rich_S]

The comparison is that if you are shot with a gun you could die. If you were hit by a tire iron you could die. In both situations there is a threat to your life and in this State you have the right to defend yourself. People have committed robbery using all sorts of weapons including guns,knives, pepper spray, toy guns and many other things including verbal threats. While I am not familar with the laws in Massachusetts, the law in Washington State is clear regarding the use of deadly force and the use of a gun. I would suggest reading an earlier post by NavyLCDR on this thread where he quotes the exact chapter and verse of Washington State law on this subject. When a man(woman)is threatening me with a gun or a man(woman)is threatening me with a tire iron my life(or others)is in jepardy and I will act to stop the threat.

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.

 

[nogods]

I do not, and cannot, understand how anyone can say that armed criminals, in this case multiple armed criminals, in the same room as they are in are not a threat to them. You have no idea at what point in time the armed criminals may turn their attention to you and either take you as a hostage or shoot you either because everything has gone to crap and they want no witnesses or because something pushed them over the edge and they go psycho. Me....I'm going to attempt to eliminate that possibility before it comes to a reality.

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?