How does Banning Citizen Carry of Guns in Kroeger's Stop Armed Robbery?

Gun Watch ^ | 18 October, 2014 | Dean Weingarten

[marktwain]

Bank Robber in a Kroeger's

On freerepublic.com, a discussion about the Moms Demand Action push for a gun ban following an armed robbery of a bank inside of a Kroeger's, brought this commonly expressed question.  This one was from rktman:

"Uh, how would this have stopped the robbery again? Please 'splain that to us."

I will explain it.  MDA is playing a very long game.   In order to be effective, they have to reduce the number of guns in society by large, large, amounts.  They have to avoid considering any benefits gained from gun ownership.  Here is how I believe they think it will work:

1.  Bully retail establishments into banning the carry of guns in their stores, as a step to make guns illegitimate in society, as the combination of trial lawyers, legislators, and the old media have done with cigarettes.

2.  Keep incrementally banning guns everywhere possible to make guns more and more socially unacceptable, and legally difficult to own, in order to reduce the number of legal gun owners.

3.  When the number of legal gun owners are reduced sufficiently, ban the legal ownership of guns, except in extremely restricted circumstances.  Think Japan and the U.K.

4.  Gradually, through incremental gun confiscation, "buy backs", increasingly draconian restrictions on ownership and use, perhaps over a couple of generations, reduce the number of guns legitimately owned by 99 percent.

5.   This will start to reduce the number of guns used criminally by some amount, it does not matter how little.   As soon as the number of gun owners and/or guns start to drop, immediately claim credit for any crime reduction, even if the trends started long before your legislation and are not backed up by facts.

6.   Keep up the pressure, and eventually, after several decades, we will have less crimes committed with guns.   This is sure to happen, because even though crime has not been reduced elsewhere when guns were banned or restricted, we have a much larger number of crimes committed with guns than the UK or Japan.  Brazil, South Africa, Mexico, and Jamaica do not count because they are not the UK or Japan.

7.  An increase in crime by other means does not matter.   The goal is to reduce the number of crimes with guns, so only statistics involving guns matter.    It does not matter if overall homicides increase, if they are not committed with guns.   We can always turn our efforts to banning knives, as they have in the U.K.

8.  We know that governments will be beneficent all along the way, because no western democracy has ever been overthrown in the last 75 years.   Argentina, Venezuela, Mexico and Ukraine or other examples do not count, because they were not really western Democracies.   We know this because they were overthrown, invaded or became failed states, so they never were real Western democracies.  Blame their problems on the second amendment or on western democracies. 

9.   The efforts to reduce gun violence will not be rendered useless by 3D printing, smuggling, home made guns, or other technologies.  This is because we will define "gun violence" as violence with guns that were once in legal channels.   If a gun was produced illegitimately, we cannot be blamed.  We will also do everything we can to reduce access to those technologies that can be used to produce guns by anyone outside of governments.  

So you see, sometime in the far, far distant future, after the Constitution has been completely trashed, and the U.S. is a Utopian socialist state like the UK, we will have reduced armed robberies committed with guns by some amount.

This general program seemed to be working until about 1994, except, of course, the crime rate kept increasing with more restrictions on guns.   About 1994 "gun control" peaked, as did the levels of violent crime.  The electorate rebelled against the Clinton gun ban.  Second amendment supporters made serious gains from 1994 through 2013.  The rate of "gun violence" and overall violent crime fell in half.

I do not believe that the disarmenters have sufficient media control to pull off the above program, as illustrated by the failure of the Obama push for more gun control.   We are in the process of seeing  if a combination of old media push and new "progressive" billionaire money can do the trick.

A serious challenge exists in the tens of millions of dollars that are being thrown into initiative processes such as the Washington state initiative I-594.    If the disarmenters fail there, after spending 10 times as much as second amendment supporters, they may fall back for another 20 years.

©2014 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.
Link to Gun Watch

[RandallFlagg]

PING!

Yer famous, d00d!

[Blue Collar Christian]

I know I’ll never be robbed in Kroegers. Or in our local Sears, or any other place with their sissy “no guns” signs.

[BereanBrain]

as I implied it varies state to state.

Here in Texas, IF you are a property owner, you have to put a sign up with EXACT wording, and it has to cite the section of the law. (it’s called citing section 30.06) Note that its easy to remember since 30.06 is also a rifle caliber :)

So If you (a property owner, or a store, or Kroger or Starbucks) just “say” something or put up a sign that does not cite 30.06 properly in the state of Texas, it holds no force of law.

In Texas, as part of CHL training, you learn the laws, like this.

However, other states are different in that regard... I would say DO NOT take word of mouth — always LOOK UP what the local laws are.

I went to the State Fair of Texas. It’s legal to carry there, but discouraged. They made me show my carry license and DL to an officer. I got to bypass the metal detectors though. :) I won’t say if or what I was carrying, but I like bypassing the search no matter what :)

There is NO SUBSTITUTE for know and Exercising your rights.

If you don’t use it, we will loose it.

Just because you are a property owner does not mean your make the law.
Try not renting to someone because of their race, or not serving them in your establishment because they are gay. See what I mean? You are no more the King of your Castle.

[BereanBrain]

every state that has concealed carry legalized sees a drop in robbery. FACT.
Check into what happened to Florida gun crimes (like robbery) once citizens were made legal to carry. Crime dropped big time.

[yefragetuwrabrumuy]

The only thing I find troubling here is that there is no effort at counterattack. Instead of always being on the defensive against gun controllers, there should be some means of punishing them, figuratively speaking, for their efforts.

We do not ever want to get caught up in what is called a “static defense”, which means only fighting defensively, never offensively, because no lesser light than Napoleon Bonaparte noted that a static defense is slow suicide.

We need to fight back.

[marktwain]

The Constitutionalists have been involved with counterattacks for at least since 1987. We have won much.

I suggest you read this review:

http://gunwatch.blogspot.com/2014/07/book-review-rise-of-anti-media-by-brian.html

[Impala64ssa]

Moms Looking For A Little Action.
Good one! I refer to them as Moms Impugning Legal Firearms (M.I.L.F.)

[Impala64ssa]

Check into what happened to Florida gun crimes (like robbery) once citizens were made legal to carry. Crime dropped big time.
Too bad they're still holding "round table discussions" on stand your ground. Actually, since Travon "skittles" Martin really didn't produce the desired results, they're just waiting for another similar situation to arise. Maybe the next thug can be portrayed as a modern-day Medgar Evans. Who wants to be a martyr?

[BereanBrain]

I think the Travon Martin deal is an example where a citizen confused self defense with neighborhood watch.....Citizens are not the police. If you have that mentality, you should not carry.

[marktwain]

This is the best summation of what happened between Travon Martin and George Zimmerman, based on facts, that I have read. You may be surprised what you learn.

[yefragetuwrabrumuy]

The trouble is that in this trench warfare, head on attacks are far less effective. While a defensive line must continue, of course, a flank attack against the gun controllers would likely have far greater effect against them.

In past, I’ve suggested associating gun rights with capital punishment, which the left has been trying to end almost parallel to their efforts with gun control. Right now it is only legal in 32 states.

But importantly, unlike gun control, where they are losing, the erosion to the death penalty, in their minds, is where they are winning, so they are far more willing to expend resources in that direction.

In practical terms, when for example the next mass shooting takes place, and the gun controllers launch their next push, pro-gun liberty people can likely “hold the line” against them. But if, right then, there is a major push to restore the prompt death penalty, especially for mass shooters, it will hit them on their flank.

Whenever they open their yaps to call for gun control, the gun rights advocates can just dismiss their argument as meaningless, then change the subject to the execution of the shooter. This will have extra impact at first, because they will not be expecting it.

It may be enough to break their well-funded and organized attack.