Target’s Gun Ban Has Unexpected Results As Assailants Attack Store’s Unarmed Customer

Target’s Gun Ban Has Unexpected Results As Assailants Attack Store’s Unarmed Customers



Three days ago, Target enacted a new policy in which they asked customers to politely leave their guns at home or not bring them on the premises of any Target store. This was probably decided after a loaded gun was found in the toy aisle of one of their stores as reported here on The Inquisitr.


Unfortunately, their gun ban policy is proving to be problematic as numerous reports are coming in about Target’s customers getting robbed at gunpoint.

According to reports, including one in the Gainesville Times, Target shoppers at two different stores in Georgia have been robbed by armed assailants since the discount retailer announced the policy on July 2, 2014.

Perhaps as a reaction to the robberies, Target spokeswoman Molly Snyder said that there was no ban on guns, and it was just a “request” that the company hoped customers would honor. She said there would be no signs banning guns nor would customers with a gun be asked to leave.

Unfortunately, similar incidents have taken place at other Target stores. This includes a woman having her purse and car stolen by an armed assailant at a Target in Atlanta, and a man who was robbed of $500 at gunpoint at a Target on Shallowford Road, which is about 50 miles northeast of Atlanta.

It is possible Target didn’t understand that many gun-related crimes occur in gun-free zones, and their statement, though technically not banning guns, may have been enough to give the perception that their stores are easy pickings for would be criminals.

Jerry Henry, executive director for the website GeorgiaCarry.org, had this to say about Target:


“That’s what happens in gun-free zones. They actually should be called victim-enrichment zones because that what they are. If anyone want to commit a crime with impunity, take your gun where there are no guns. You can do what you want, get in and get out and there’s nobody to stop you.”

Prior to the incidents, the policy was getting both positive and negative feedback, especially on the Denver Post. What is unknown right now is if reports of Target customers being robbed at gunpoint will make the store reword or rethink their policy.

http://www.inquisitr.com/1343779/ta...ubbish-as-assailants-attack-stores-customers/

Once again, advertised gun free zones reaps it's own rewards

 

They tried to have it both ways by denouncing guns, but not outright banning them. All they had to say was "We do not appreciate being used as a stage in this open carry gun issue. As such, we are banning the open carry of firearms in our stores except by LEOs. Target supports the 2nd Amendment and welcomes legally concealed handguns in all stores. " That statement would have ended the debate for Target and not given out the "go ahead" signal to criminals that it was open season on Target customers. It also would have addressed the demonstrators' short sightedness in forcing retailers to choose a side in their quest for open carry.

I won't hold my breath waiting for this story to hit the MSM. I will also feel safer shopping elsewhere.

 

Yup, having more loaded firearms laying around in the toy aisle is definately better than doing something constructive to prevent criminals from getting guns in the first place.

 

OK genius. I don't want criminals to have guns either. Enlighten us as to how we go about denying guns to the bad guys, without denying the rights of the good guys....

 

Such as? Who's committing these crimes? Criminals. And what do criminals have? Illegal firearms.

Frankly, I think that it's hilarious that you believe criminals actually map out gun free zones and target just those areas.

 

Ensuring that people don't (knowingly or otherwise) sell guns to "bad guys" would be a good start.
Ensuring people don't leave them laying around unsecured (in Target toy aisles or elsewhere) would also help.

- - - Updated - - -

Obviously, impacting the ease with which criminals can obtain firearms is a decent place to start then, eh?

Who said that?

 

Can you please give my your proposed solution to this problem. How would you go about "ensuring" that people don't sell guns to "bad guys"?

 

OK. I want a fire engine, and a pony, and lots of chocolate milk, and...
Please tell us how this can be done while Santa Clause remains free to live his own life?
It's one thing to tell us that you want Unicorns to fly around, bringing hugs and smiles to everyone, but quite another to tell us how this might happen?
We await your wise counsel....

 

Background checks would be a decent place to start. Doesn't seem to stop lawful owners from purchasing freely from licensed dealers.

 

Does this serve any purpose other than flame bait given your cohort has already asked the same question without being an (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*) about it? Just sayin'...

 

That's a great idea! Oh wait, it's already on the books.

Any other groundbreaking foolproof suggestions?

 

Yup, because nobody could possibly purchase a firearm from... pretty much anyone other than a licensed dealer - without passing a background check.

For sarcasm to work, you have to be saying something that isn't moronic. Just sayin'.

 

Then I'm missing your point. Straw purchases illegally bypass the requirement for a background check.

When it comes to illegal firearm possession, effectively the horse has left the barn.

 

Sure, background checks on ALL gun purchases would only effect direct purchases (already an improvement on the status quo).

Moving the goalposts now by specifically focusing on straw purchases? Interesting...

 

Sounds like you're talking about buying guns on the street. Right?

If so, it's already illegal. By definition of the word, criminals don't obey laws. I don't get why that's so hard to understand.

If I wanted to sell a weapon I could technically sell it to anyone so long as an FFL does the transfer so as to follow the law and keep weapons out of the hands of people who can't have them. If the FFL denies the potential buyer I can simply sell it to the next qualified customer that an FFL will approve.

If someone sells a weapon off the books they are breaking the law, yet no law can physically stop them from it.

Your proposed idea is already on the books as I previously stated. And as any law it deals with post action.

 

BS, laws vary by state in relation to private sales and there's nothing stopping anyone from simply purchasing from a private seller in another (laxer) state.
Heck, you could even buy a firearm online from a private seller and have them mail it to you, as long as they shipped it in two parts.

I believe the vast majority of owners do follow the law and don't want criminals getting access to guns, but have no way of knowing the background of most prospective buyers and aren't encouraged to find out. As a result, complacency sets in (ie: "it'll never happen to me"), so private sales become a source for criminals.

Anything that reduces the ease with which criminals gain access to guns is a benefit, because it reduces the number of armed criminals. Why is that such a difficult concept

 

I agree. It's more likely to have been irate members of some local "militia".

 

We've been over this ad infinitum. You already know the whole array of arguments, and I get just plain tired of dragging the discussion through the same mud hole again and again. You already know, and you already have the reputation here of being one who doesn't respond to intelligent discourse.
You ALREADY KNOW that in most of the mass shootings, the shooter had a documented record of mental issues, but NOTHING was done about it. What purpose is served with more comprehensive background checks, when current laws are not being enforced?
You are of the camp who believes that ALL guns should be eliminated everywhere. That's why I bring in the Unicorns and Santa. I meet your fantasy with fantasy.
If you have anything to contribute here that is conducive to informed and intelligent discussion, we await your input....

 

Its such a "difficult concept" because it means a central database for all guns. In other words "Registration". You know you cant have background checks on private sales without knowing who owns what. Currently our federal government cannot legally keep a database of registered guns. So just go ahead and say it...... you are for registration of all weapons. I'm sure you will be real successful at getting all the illegal guns by the criminals and gangbangers registered. There is no sense in talking about universal background checks until you pass a federal law requiring gun registration. Good Luck.

 

...let's finish the statement.....registration leads to confiscation.

 

Why keep frequenting this forum if you don't want to discuss the topic? Hoping to find solely those people who exist to reaffirm your delusions?
You're right about one thing: I already know the whole array of arguments. When I can easily counter those arguments with facts and logic, your ilk resorts to flame bait and personal attacks. I wonder why that is?

A "reputation" requires perception by more than one individual. The idea that a few butthurt conservatives on this board regroup to discuss me personally and compare perceptions is almost as flattering as it is pathetic.
I respond to intelligent discourse and provide counterpoints when I disagree, which I back with evidence. That is the real source of your frustration.

You mean like the law that you can't sell guns to someone with mental issues, but have no obligation to find out whether a buyer has mental issues in the first place? The lack of "more comprehensive background checks" are the very reason the law is unenforceable!

Please illustrate a single occasion when I've said that I support any form of gun ban. I believe you'll find that I have repeatedly and consistantly argued against gun bans. I agree you are presenting fantasy, and find it sad that your understanding of my perspective is also fantasy.

Who's "we"? Are you now the designated spokesman for an organized group?

- - - Updated - - -

Someone undertaking a background check necessarily means that the government will have a database of all guns owned by that person?
Do you believe this is the case with current background checks through licensed dealers?

 

And once again your position boils down to nothing more than subjective paranoia, flame baiting and personal insults...

So much for rational discourse.

 

Currently, when you buy a gun from an FFL, You fill out the 4473 that is submitted to NICS. The FFL is required to keep this record, the Federal Government may not keep a database of this info. However if a private transaction record is submitted to NICS, Who checks to see if the gun is legal? Who checks to see if the gun stolen? The feds have to know who owns what in order to ensure the transaction is legal. It's simple... the only way universal background checks of private transactions will work is if there is a central database of all firearms.

 

..........and it is illegal for the Fed Gov to maintain a data base for registration of owners and guns.
Technically, it is unethical for the Fed Gov to do such a thing................

 

I think it depends on what you mean by registration.
If you mean, "for all firearms purchased through an FFL there is a traceable record to the original purchaser" then that already exists today.
If you mean that at a moments notice the police could look up what guns you personally had regardless of how you bought them - then this does not exist today, and the same process applied to private sales wouldn't suddenly change this.