Yes, Another Gun Free Zone....A lot of Good that Sign Did

[banyon]

Ironic that a guy from "Freedomnomics" advocates government restrictions. If he really believed in the free market, as I would wager he does, then he would recognize that this is a private establishment. Just like they reserve the right to exclude people wearing funny hats or gang colors, they can refuse people with sidearms. If people don't like that aspect, then they are free to shop elsewhere. The market will dictate which policy is more efficient.

Then again, I don't believe in any of that. Private establishments (probably in Dodge City) over 100 years ago used to have people turn in their sidearms before they came in, and I'm not sure we should take away the ability of businesses to choose.

But if the public wants to pressure what is ostensibly a public private venue, then that's fine by me.

[old timer]

"Private establishments (probably in Dodge City) over 100 years ago used to have people turn in their sidearms before they came in, and I'm not sure we should take away the ability of businesses to choose."

One major difference -- you're talking about a few blocks of businesses that had well armed lawmen, bar keepers, and owners. Also, well armed homes. Etc.

If that department store had armed security, et al., maybe that difference would have played out a different result. (Not to disagree that armed citizens would have been most helpful, too....)

[Value Pack]

I thought this cartoon says it all.

[Highwayman]

John Lott isn’t the only economist that has taken a serious look at the gun issue. The reason economists are interested is because they look at the cost benefits to gun laws in terms of dollars. It’s not just a body count. There is the finical burden to society for law enforcement, courts, incarceration, hospitalization of victims and so on. Concealed carry has shown to reduce crimes and therefore reduce the costs that we all pay for taxes and healthcare.

John Lott's Website

[banyon]

Originally Posted by Highwayman

John Lott isn’t the only economist that has taken a serious look at the gun issue. The reason economists are interested is because they look at the cost benefits to gun laws in terms of dollars. It’s not just a body count. There is the finical burden to society for law enforcement, courts, incarceration, hospitalization of victims and so on. Concealed carry has shown to reduce crimes and therefore reduce the costs that we all pay for taxes and healthcare.

John Lott's Website

You're not advocating conceal-carry in this thread. You're advocating something beyond conceal carry (i.e., conceal-carry + limiting private businesses' ability to accept customers). The former is a libertarian principle, but the latter is not.

That being said, I don't disagree if a private place is widely open to the public, then perhaps persuading the owner themselves to get rid of their ban is a good idea, so ong as it isn't through another regulation.

Places with alcohol, though? No way.

[banyon]

Originally Posted by old timer

"Private establishments (probably in Dodge City) over 100 years ago used to have people turn in their sidearms before they came in, and I'm not sure we should take away the ability of businesses to choose."

One major difference -- you're talking about a few blocks of businesses that had well armed lawmen, bar keepers, and owners. Also, well armed homes. Etc.

If that department store had armed security, et al., maybe that difference would have played out a different result. (Not to disagree that armed citizens would have been most helpful, too....)

I agree it's different now. I agree that security is needed in a venue with a lot of people that self-bans.

[Detector]

Places with alcohol, though? No way.

Why do you think we never see a shooter go postal in a Bar. They may be crazy, but they ain't completely stupid.

They pick the places that are helpless and vulnerable.

[Highwayman]

Originally Posted by banyon

You're not advocating conceal-carry in this thread. You're advocating something beyond conceal carry (i.e., conceal-carry + limiting private businesses' ability to accept customers). The former is a libertarian principle, but the latter is not.

That being said, I don't disagree if a private place is widely open to the public, then perhaps persuading the owner themselves to get rid of their ban is a good idea, so ong as it isn't through another regulation.

Places with alcohol, though? No way.

I went back and reread the thread and I can’t find anywhere where regulation of private business was proposed. Boycotts, yes. Lawsuits, yes. Media coverage, yes. Changing the law, no. Can you point out where I missed it?

[banyon]

Originally Posted by Highwayman

I went back and reread the thread and I can’t find anywhere where regulation of private business was proposed. Boycotts, yes. Lawsuits, yes. Media coverage, yes. Changing the law, no. Can you point out where I missed it?

It's implied, throughout the tone of Mr. Lott's article.

This was the giveaway though:

Originally Posted by Mr. Lott

Nebraska allows people to carry permitted concealed handguns, but it allows property owners, such as the Westroads Mall, to post signs banning permit holders from legally carrying guns on their property.

(emphasis added)

He is saying (admittedly indirectly) that the current law isn't good enough. He doesn't advocate any kind of boycott campaign or anything.

[Bubba]

I don't get that from that statement. To each his own I guess....

My thought is that if the property owner decides to not allow permit holders to carry on their property. They better have very good liability insurance because my family, for one, will be instructed to sue the owner for not allowing me to carry my protection onto their property and I am harmed or killed on their property.