What does this tell you?

Image (c) New Yorker magazine

TN bans carry in government offices, and the Army bans carry on their bases and offices. Since we know that the signs do not stop determined assassins, we can only guess that the rule-makers are more worried about their own staff. And, more specifically, about their own staff going homicidally crazy without warning and┬ájust having a weapon on them at the time. That’s the only kind of problem that the rule against carry can even pretend to prevent.

So the rule-makers for the Army and the State of Tennessee assume that enough of their own employees (other than police) are unstable, murderous creatures with no self-control. And that they would, if unable to murder others immediately, cool down and not come back to work with a weapon the following day. Either that, or they assume that the treatment they get at work would make anyone snap.

And these are the people presume to tell the rest of us how to live?

This entry was posted in civil rights, rkba, self-defense and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

9 Responses to What does this tell you?

  1. Seth says:

    They’re also assuming that they, and their staffs, would be worthless at defending against an attacker even if armed.

  2. divemedic says:

    That isn’t it at all. Rules against carry are about legal liability: if a criminal who comes in against a “no weapons” policy, the property owner is shielded from legal liability, but if a guest or employee shoots anyone in the absence of a weapons policy, the employer/property owner can face a lawsuit that, at the very least, will cost money in the form of legal fees.

    • Oleg Volk says:

      Based on that, we could expect the owners of private businesses to post — they they seldom do because that offends quite a few potential customers. Government creatures enjoy a monopoly, so they can get away with it.

    • Paul Koning says:

      The notion of being liable for the actions of third parties in the absence of a policy seems pretty shaky. And if that’s really true, it would be very easy to fix by legislation.
      And a policy doesn’t prevent legislation — and in fact, it should not. It would be a very good thing if those who create disarmed victim zones were sued for forcing their customers to be defenseless.
      Finally, that isn’t the excuse I’ve heard. The most common excuse is “to make people feel safe”. (Note the key word: “feel” as opposed to “be”.)

  3. Kristophr says:

    Since the “No Guns” sign did not get shot, they need a bigger one to hide behind.

  4. divemedic says:

    @ koning: Businesses who fail to take action to prevent a forseeable hazard are often sued. For example, a business who fails to install security lighting in a parking lot is liable when visitors are attacked in the lot.
    Read on:

    • Paul Koning says:

      Ok, so then a business that declares itself a disarmed victim zone would be liable if those disarmed victims are attacked by armed criminals, right?

  5. Sherman Ooverman says:

    Were they attacked by a midget? Not one shot above the panic bars which are about 42″ off the floor. Pretty hard to land some center of mass shots if you’re aiming that low.

  6. Ron W says:

    I believe that no guns sign is not a Tennessee sign, but a “Federal Installation” one as it says at the top of the sign. Those who deny firearms to our military keep them for themselves. And that is an evil thing!

Comments are closed.