Even with a divided opinion, many corporations are posting their support for Starbucks' decision to ignore the Brady Center's insistence that Starbucks throw customers out of their establishments. [See Part I.]
It's great to see praise for standing your ground against a political nuisance. Brady, not open carry customers. Most of the opposition to armed customers or even armed students on campus has been that companies may be found liable if an armed employee goes postal, but it happens a lot with knives and brute force without guns. The preponderance is in more who are coming to realize that it's safer to see armed students and armed workers than to be known as unarmed and defenseless.
Virginia Tech settled for $11 Million for a so-called ‘watered down' alert system. Meanwhile, this month and last month, adult students protest being disarmed at Colorado State U where they had previously seen their second amendment rights affirmed, and they never gave the Trustees reason to regret it. That is a cause for litigation if you're liability conscious.
Where you have a ubiquitous employee or student concentration of armed persons, you have a ubiquitous deterrent. The metric for this conclusion is that Security cannot be everywhere, and this absentee force creates an inescapable void on security in general. Thugs lurk and stalk within that void. Suddenly, the concept that the security is purely reactive clarifies the void's reach: everywhere. And if the reaction time takes ten minutes, it arrives far too late. How about a much faster reaction time?
Creating such a void of response puts active shooters on the honor system that they will not act once security goes somewhere else. This seems rather indifferent to the needs of visitors and employees or students. The idea of refusing armed employees denies the company another layer of protection: the willingness of the employee or student to participate in their own safety and more effectively than a void.
Where you have a ubiquitous employee or student concentration of armed persons, you have a ubiquitous deterrent.
Students themselves or employees can fill that void created by police who leave the area to supervise other corners of campus. The plan of waiting for cops to leave (opportunity) then becomes neutralized and worthless to the would-be killer. There would still be a lethal presence on campus and the thug wouldn't know where it really is. It could be the target herself. That's deterrence.
Be sure to register for my Safer Streets Newsletter.
___________________________________________
The second amendment is the better paper protection. Safe Streets In The Nationwide Concealed Carry Of Handguns is written for non-gun owner Americans, and is also available as an e-book.
Comments
Your talking common sense and putting the fear back where it belongs in the minds of criminals. Criminals who know that unlike cops, potential victims are more likely to use deadly force on a criminal because this is not something they do every day. Corporations should not be sued for following the law and any lawsuit that blames them for doing that should be dismissed immediately. I suspect the sale of coffee is going to climb nicely for them. One does not have to carry his or her gun inside but it is nice to know that if you forget no one is going to treat you any different.
The style of the left as in Brady is to hound companies who have a specific vulnerability: public image. When a company such as Starbucks notices that their image is enhanced by standing up for themselves against bullies, they speak volumes.
Other companies will notice, and once again, Brady has bitten off more than it can chew and may soon have only itself to blame.
Voters may notice, too, that they don't really need to listen to the left on any issue anymore as if the left has a legitimate opinion: it doesn't. The left only pushes people around, and that's not much of an opinion on an issue requiring serious good faith discussion.
As I have stated in an earlier column's comments, I no longer carry a gun. But I reserve the right to do so. When I did exercise that right, it was illegal in most of the states. But it was my right and it was necessary that I not be helpless. The latter still applies, but i am much limited in my movements now, due to age and disability so I don't get out much, and it isn't very far to a firearm should I need one here at home.
However, I am very supportive of businesses who recognize my rights as a human being and not at all interested in doing business with those that don't. It is my choice whether I exercise those rights, when a business honors that, I honor that businness with my patronage. I do not treat with businesses who think me not adult, not human or somehow subject to their limitations of my rights as a full adult human. Let them make their money elsewhere they won't get any from me. Seems a poor business practice to rely on immature subhuman customers, though.
"i am much limited in my movements now, due to age and disability"
Hey, you're not getting socialist disability payments from the Fascist State are you?
How is that that so many of the rough-tough guys around here are actually half lame elderly guys? You're like that guy Kurt Hoffman who is in a wheel chair and a hundred years old but has his military pic from 1955 on his blog. Living in the past.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!