I recently found myself in need of a mattress. After a severely disappointing experience with 1-800-Mattress and several sleepless nights on my loveseat (or sex-couch, as a filthy-minded foreign friend prefers to think of it) I turned to the internets and asked, where oh where can I get a mattress today?
Google not only provides the answers, but also the user reviews to tell me what I’m getting. I was shocked to learn that Value City Furniture, the very people I purchased my sex-couch from, had put me in danger!
No self-defense allowed – Nickname unavailable – Jun 30, 2008
VCF is one of those places that doesn’t allow law-abiding citizens to have the means to protect themselves if they enter their store. They require … More »
VCF is one of those places that doesn’t allow law-abiding citizens to have the means to protect themselves if they enter their store. They require everyone to make themselves helpless, even if they have a state issued handgun carry license. Haven’t we seen enough mall, church, and school shootings to know that criminals and deranged individuals don’t respect signs that restrict only law-abiding individuals? « Hide
[Flag as inappropriate]
0 out of 2 people found this review helpful. Was this review helpful?
Clearly, I had no choice but to buy from the Original Mattress Factory. Thank you, Anonymous Paranoid Guy!
I doubt he is really that paranoid, just overly-dramatic. I won’t shop at places with “no guns” signs either, but my reasons are political rather than paranoia–While they have (and should have) the right to post those signs, I have the right to boycott. To me it would be like a sign that said “No GLBT” or “Christians Only”. They are restricting my rights because of a lifestyle choice that I have made that does not harm them.
In some cases we have managed to get businesses to change their policy and remove the signs It is unusual that a company the size of Value City would post these signs, and for some reason they don’t post their department stores.
I’m actually vaguely reassured by such signs, even though I imagine most people with concealed carry permits ignore them. Aside from frisking customers individually, it would be a pretty hard policy to enforce. I do not generally worry about deranged gunmen shooting up my mall, and if that did happen, I would think my odds of getting shot would increase with the number of citizen-heroes shooting back.
Long story short, letting a guy who actually does think his odds of getting mown down in a public place are great enough to justify packing at the furniture store (or at least thinks I’m frightened enough to take such a scenario seriously) does not make me feel more warmly towards the whole concept of concealed carry.
Is that why some people are all freaked out over the gays? They’ve got hidden death sticks, and they’re not afraid to use them? Well hell’s bells, we should ALL hate the gays then. Next time I see one of those butchy lesbians, I’m totally going to tell her her and that death stick ARE NOT welcome in my store.
I must admit that I have never in my life seen a sign reading “No Guns” outside a mattress store, or, for that matter, any other kind of store. But then I live in the Soviet Republican of Canuckistan.
The difference being that there have been very few reports in the last decade of stores being robbed by a customer who was concealing homosexuality on his or her person. Also, when robberies have taken place, it is extremely rare for a would-be heroic customer to make the situation worse by trying to deter the robber using homosexuality powers.
They showed up here in Ohio at about the same time the state started issuing licenses. Initially there were quite a few, but most of them have been taken down. Many businesses subscribe to compliance sign services, and many of these services included the no guns signs even though they are not mandatory.
There are very few reports (if any) of stores being robbed by license holders. The ones who will obey a sign aren’t the ones you need to worry about. There are almost certainly a much higher proportion of homosexual robbers than licensed robbers–I assume that sexual orientation doesn’t make one more or less likely to commit crimes, while statistics show that license holders are about 5 times less likely to be convicted of serious crimes. I’ve never been searched by police, so I could have carried my gun my whole life with no legal trouble
We also rarely make things worse. If we have to draw a gun, less than 10% of the time do we have to shoot it. When we do shoot, we hit the wrong person less than 2% of the time, compared to about 15% for police. To be fair, police have a much harder time sorting out what is going on since they usually get there after it starts, and they aren’t supposed to run away–We are encouraged, and in some cases required to run if possible.
First of all, being gay isn’t a lifestyle choice. No, seriously, it’s not.
And second of all, you cannot compare whether or not someone is CARRYING A GUN to whether someone sleeps with members of the opposite sex, same sex, both, or neither
In once sense you are right, but that’s not what I’m talking about. Self defense is not a lifesytle choice, but the specific means used are.
Of course you can. Both prejudices are based on inexperience and ignorance. For many people, the only time they hear about someone carrying a gun is when it is used in a crime, or when one of our “cold dead hands” loudmouths is talking about impending armed revolution. Not a whole lot different than a few decades ago when the only time most people heard of non-hetero sexuality was associated with drag queens and sex crimes. Both groups got lumped in with criminals and crazies. We don’t whip out our guns to win an argument, we don’t go blasting away randomly when there’s a robbery. There are nearly 5 million of us in America, and we’ve got an extremely good record, far better than average.
I support someone’s right to boycott a business if they don’t let you bring in carry-and-conceal. It is a perfectly legitimate way to change a policy like that. I don’t care enough about guns in businesses one way or an other to do so, but more power to you if that’s the thing you are into.
I, for one, am not paranoid enough to bring my guns with me anywhere but to hunting or shooting practice, (or places that those things may happen) but, if you are *shrugs* the statistics the poster put above seem to check out. Calling them “death sticks” is a little extreme (besides, those are cigarettes- do ban those from stores).
But, I do strenuously object to the comparison to GLTB and Christians. You can leave your gun in the car. You can leave it at home. GLTB and Christians can’t just “leave” that behind- it is a part of their identity. You’re identity as a gun owner doesn’t change if you don’t physically have the gun on hand. Now, if the place banned gun OWNERS, instead of just guns, I’d be right there with you in boycotting them, and probably picketing them to.
Paranoid is insulting. I got my license for a number of reasons, and a belief that I will likely need to shoot my way out of trouble isn’t one of them. I intentionally have a low-risk lifestyle that makes gunfights as unlikely as I can manage.
The biggest reason I got my license was so my wife would get hers. She was working on foot as a property tax assessor in some nasty neighborhoods that others in her company refused to go to–She had a legitimate need. Second was political–I did not want concealed carry to be lost due to a perceived lack of interest, and I think society is better off if there are more decent people armed than criminals. (I’ll support work towards moving either side of that ratio in the right direction) I do want the ability to carry legally on the few occasions I might need to.
No analogy is perfect. How about a sign that said “No scripture or Christian symbols allowed”? You won’t be searched, and if you do carry those items you can leave them behind. A sign that said “GLBT must have employee escort in the toy department”–Is that OK if the escort is quick and courteous? No guns are telling me that my kind isn’t trustworthy, but if I change I can spend my money there.
I never claimed that getting a carry and conceal liceance was paranoid. As you point out, there are a number of good reasons to get them. What I said was paranoid was bringing it in with you to your average furniture store. There is very little chance of needing it for your day to day chores.
As for the hypothetical posed, I would be against the religious symbols ban on principle, because for many people that is a functional ban. There are quite a few religions that require you to have religious attire on at all times. And the GLBT one is still bad, because you still cannot change your GLBT-ness.
And I don’t think that companies put up these signs because they do not trust gun-owners as a group, but rather they do not know who is a responsible gun owner and who is looking to rob them. I know, I know: the lack of the gun may not necessarily deter a criminal; but a gun is a tool. Like any tool, it enhances one’s natural ability. A thief would be easier to deter without the gun behind them.
And, if the thief ignores the sign (like I’m sure you’re bound to suggest) perhaps the company wishes to limit the amount of cross-fire between the overzealous gun owner and the thief. 2% (if your statistic is accurate, and really, I think it probably is) is not 0.
I would like to see more “non crazy” gun owners out there getting onto the news. It does bother me that the racist, paranoid, nutcases get the most press.
You appear to be saying it is paranoid to USE a license. I avoid places where I think I’ll need my gun, but it is easier to just carry it unless there is a reason not to than to try to predict my day. Physically, carrying a gun is only marginally more difficult than carrying a cellphone.
I probably am slightly paranoid about leaving it locked in my car–In those cases I’m more worried about it being stolen and misused than needing it while it is there.
To know who is responsible is pretty easy–The ones with the licenses, the ones who will obey the sign, the only ones the sign applies to are the responsible ones that you don’t have to worry about.
That argument supports a total ban, but doesn’t support banning concealed carry. Anyone who is going to cause trouble with a gun is almost guaranteed to ignore the sign.
The signs may have an effect opposite to what is intended–An amateur study of Columbus Ohio police reports found that United Dairy Farmers, a convenience store/gas station chain that bans guns had 70% more gun crime per store than Speedway, a similar chain that doesn’t. I will admit flaws in the study–Primarily a lack of a control group. It may be that United Dairy Farmers already had a higher crime rate before the law was passed, so this is inconclusive.
The 2% is for all defensive gun use, not just robberies, and only includes when the gun is fired–Remember that 90% of the time no shots are fired, so the overall “crossfire” number is closer to 0.2%. The “intervening bystander” number is likely lower still, since there is a choice of whether to get involved. I won’t get involved unless I think the robber is likely to kill someone, and I think I can stop him without making it worse.
erm, Sevesteen, I think your whiteness is showing.
I’ve managed to survive going on twenty-seven years on this planet without once needing a firearm for protection, largely by “avoid[ing] places where I think I’ll need [a] gun”. I’ve never even been in a situation where I thought it’d be nice to *have* one, much less *needed* one. So I’m having a hard time understanding why people feel the need to walk around every day equipped to blow the heads off their fellow citizens. Yes, a handgun is a tool, just like any other firearm; the trouble is that a firearm is a tool meant specifically for killing, and a handgun is a tool meant specifically for killing *humans*. And if you want the privilege of carrying such a tool around on your person, hidden, then I don’t think it’s wrong of me at all to look askance at your reasons for having that desire.
Sevesteen, you claim that your primary reason for getting a concealed carry permit was so that your wife would also get one. Why, then, is it necessary for you to carry a firearm with you nearly everywhere you go? (I’m assuming, from what you’ve said so far in this thread, that that’s what you do. If that’s a false assumption, then I stand corrected, but I’d still be interested to hear your answers to these questions.)
Why do you find it *preferable* to carry a firearm with you nearly everywhere you go, especially if you deliberately avoid situations in which you think you might have a need for it? Do you just live somewhere that’s incredibly more dangerous than everywhere I’ve ever lived in my life? And why, most crucially, should I or anyone else be expected to have any willingness to trust life and limb to your judgment that “the robber is likely to kill someone, and [you] think [you] can stop him without making it worse”? Do you think that walking around with a firearm on your person makes you *more* trustworthy?
Being “legal” does not mean “responsible”. I do remember one case where my nutcase friend thought it would be fun to flash his gun to a young lady at a store. The employees (I think rightly) got nervous, and I convinced him to leave the store before things escalated. I don’t think he would have shot anyone, but I still don’t consider that “responsible” actions to needlessly intimidate (or in his case, show off) with a weapon.
My father, who has a federal license (federal law enforcement) thought it would be great fun to get slightly inebriated and shoot off his pistol into the air, in the middle of a town, in front of me and my friends during a New Year’s Party. This is slightly worse, as someone really COULD have gotten hurt (though luckily, no one did). Because we were white and suburban, no one was called, and he did not get into any legal trouble.
I worked at a trap club for 4 years- I have loads of stories of people being irresponsible with weapons who were legally licensed. Some of them even do involve getting hurt, although I have never been in a case where it has been fatal. Licenses still may not stop stupidity.
A really good short essay that explains a lot is Why the Gun is Civilization by Marko Kloos. An excerpt:
Society is overall better off when there exists a few percent armed, decent, anonymous people. Criminals should not know who is a guaranteed safe target, and it should be very dangerous to be the one who starts violence, even when the victim appears helpless.
I also think I am less of a target when I carry–I am more confident and alert, and therefore less the type of person criminals choose as victims.
Statistics. Sometimes we stop crime and save people, or cause a criminal to be captured. Very rarely we screw up and hurt an innocent, but that is a couple orders of magnitude less likely Why should you trust life and limb to a cop, when cops have a far worse record than license holders? (The record of police isn’t really their fault–It is a lot easier to properly respond to a violent crime when you are there to see and understand as it begins, rather than coming to the scene later. It is somewhat equivalent to dealing with a fire with an extinguisher in the beginning, or waiting for the fire department.)
It is unfortunate, but society still needs people armed and ready to resist criminal violence. I don’t think all of them should be government employees.
You have witnessed far more irresponsible gun handling than I have. I should have said “those with licenses who will obey the signs” are the responsible ones. There are some people who carried before licenses were available, and some who will carry where they are not allowed. Carrying isn’t for everyone–If you think you are likely to use it for anything less than protecting life and limb, or that you will not put it away when intoxicated you shouldn’t carry.
It is very true that I don’t think if you are irresponsible you should carry, but that’s how it goes. And I’m not positive what the statistics are, but the fact of the matter still is that as long as the number of gun owners who are not responsible is a number greater than 0, store owners are going to be nervous.
*As a side note* Can I express how THRILLED I am that we can have a perfectly rational discussion and no one is being troll-y? There seem to be points of disagreement, but no one’s throwing out insults that tend to be common on these threads.
As long as the number of [insert minority] who do [insert bad thing] is greater than zero, (somebody) is going to be nervous. Even if the rate of [bad thing] is lower than average, the stereotype is still valid?
Pretty much no matter how you measure–Arrest rate, conviction rate, serious crime, violent crime, overall crime, gun crime–People with licenses have a record much better than average. (One exception–In some states the arrest record for license holders was worse for a few years after a CCW law is passed, due to false arrest by poorly trained law enforcement. Conviction rate remains low) Not all data is available in all states, but all the available data points to the same conclusion.
Civility is not only good manners, it is good strategy–If there is any chance I’m going to influence someone’s opinions towards my view, I can’t appear to be a rude, raving loony.
You keep trying to make parallels to minority rights, and I just don’t think it’s the same thing. A minority group is going to be composed of good people and bad people (as is a majority group). As is a gun-owners as a group. But a minority group cannot just pick up and set down their “groupness”- I can’t leave my femalehood in the car, nor my bisexual-ness. A black person can’t be “white” to go into a store. You can leave your gun in the car.
And an irresponsible gun owner is not dangerous (or at least, as dangerous) without the gun. It is not the gun owner in the store, it is the tool itself.
You are reminding me of the comments of some in the black civil rights movement dismissing gay rights–”It’s not the same thing–At least you can pass”. Discrimination against concealed carry isn’t vile like discrimination based on orientation or race, but there isn’t much better reason for it. (and a lot of legal gun control was originally racial, to keep blacks disarmed)
You keep talking about irresponsible gun owners as if it were common for license holders to shoot the wrong people. There are nearly 5 million license holders in the US. Stupidity is more common that I’d like, (in all areas of life, not just guns) but damaging screwups by license holders are rare. I suppose if you believe that there are no benefits to carry, banning it makes sense.
Actually, a lot of legal gun control was done for the purposes of going after moonshiners and other gangsters. I’m not going to say their was no racial component to it, but that wasn’t it’s main reason (although, I suppose you can make a compelling point that going after moonshiners was racial just indirectly).
In my law classes, they teach us that every law is discriminatory- they discriminate on age (drinking/ driving laws) they discriminate on drinking (drunk driving, public intoxication) and they discriminate on money (debt). What we (as a society) have to suss out is whether or not that discrimination is valuable and proper.
I am saying that a gun is a tool, originally designed to kill people, but by no means limited to it. I am saying that since it is a tool for killing, it does make some people nervous (particularly if they themselves are not armed or familiar with armaments). I am saying that business have a legitimate reason to dislike having guns in their stores; as they do not know who is a) licensed and b) responsible; if for no other reason than it makes other customers nervous (and businesses do have to be aware of their customers wants and feelings, logical or otherwise). And finally, I am saying that it is no undue burden for a gun owner to leave the gun at home or locked in a car in order for them to go into a store. Ergo, I do not consider it important enough to boycott a store, petition them, or to picket them, even though I think it is prima faciea silly.
You are referring to the National Firearms Act that put prohibitory taxes on machine guns, short barreled rifles and shotguns, and smaller taxes on disguised firearms–Prohibiting some guns to try to combat the organized gangs that prohibition of alcohol effectively caused.
I’m talking about mostly state laws that banned inexpensive weapons (although the Gun Control Act of 1968 federalized equivalents of these prohibitions) and required a license granted at the whim of local law enforcement to carry. Even today, states with discretionary licensing have an abysmal record of considering minorities equally with whites.
I have nothing to add to this discussion, but I wanted to show my appreciation for everyone here acting like an adult about this topic. If only our representatives in Washington could debate with the same civility.