I'm with docsleepy, Joe, what was the purpose of the sign, then?
See my post above re: the purpose of such signs. Keeping our robbers is not part of it.
I'm with docsleepy, Joe, what was the purpose of the sign, then?
Joe Demko
The purpose of the sign is not to prevent robbery.
A sign like that just means that a criminal knows that there is a higher probability of NOT getting shot by a customer while robbing the place.
Then what is the purpose of the sign?The purpose of the sign is not to prevent robbery.
^^^ Yes sir, you have to behave yourself in WA.
It's a pretty civilized place but thugs do get shot from time to time.
A sign like that just means that a criminal knows that there is a higher probability of NOT getting shot by a customer while robbing the place. Political statements notwithstanding, if a crook sees such a sign, that can be a factor in the calculus of whether or not to try to rob a place while minimizing risk to themselves.
Such a sign may or may not INVITE a robbery, but such a sign does say that the chances of law abiding CCW patrons actually having a pistol in that place is lower than if such a sign were not posted.
My post was not meant to be taken too seriously although it is true that a majorityInsurance companies know risks. That is their bread and butter. If there was a higher risk for such signage, then you could bet premiums would increase. That premiums haven't increased is a telling clue.
The only people that seem to believe this are non-business owning pro-gun people. If the business owner truly thought that a sign carried such power, they would put up "No Robbery" signs.
There is no sane business owner anywhere that believes a sign listing a rule is going to prevent a crime.
If pro-gun people believed signs worked so darned well, then why do we continuously seem people breaking the posted rules at gun ranges by pro-gun people?
That is because by your logic, it isn't a BBQ restaurant if it has such a sign, LOL. Your logic is tautologically flawed.
And the explanations are still stupid and silly! If they consider their own help so dangerous that they must disarm them, I don't want to eat there without being armed, the same goes for their clientele. If they're so dangerous, that they must be disarmed, I'm certainly not going to eat there, even if they allowed me to be armed!The sign's purpose has already been explained a couple times.
And the explanations are still stupid and silly! If they consider their own help so dangerous that they must disarm them, I don't want to eat there without being armed, the same goes for their clientele. If they're so dangerous, that they must be disarmed, I'm certainly not going to eat there, even if they allowed me to be armed!
And I am kind of shocked by the number of people on this site that seem to believe that people would engage in gun fights over a joggled elbow or having to stand in line! Or that a no-gun sign would keep the type of people who would engage in such behavior in the first place, from carrying a gun.
As for the geniuses who claim criminals never consider whether or not the target can fight back, why do they target women and old people, instead of football linebackers?
If businesses thought signs would stop bad guys, they would put up NO ROBBERY signs.
So you think it is stupid because you don't like it. Got it.
A lot of businesses have "no guns" signs up for patrons but the operators of the business themselves are armed. If you don't want to eat there, that is great. They don't want you with a gun anyway. So y'all can go your own way and be happy.
I don't think anyone here has suggested that the sign works against people who would ignore it. Businesses that post such signs know this. Again, the signs are not expected to stop bad guys just like speed limit signs don't stop speeders. If businesses thought signs would stop bad guys, they would put up NO ROBBERY signs.
Well the geniuses have looked at the stats, news articles, etc. and see where such signage makes no discernible difference in crime, just like CCW doesn't change crime rates.
The difference in your example is that when it comes to concealed carry, the criminals don't know who is armed and who isn't, but do know that the HUGE majority are not and are not likely to be armed. If they can't see the gun, they don't see a threat. Women, old people, etc. get targeted because they are perceived to not be a threat. Funny how CCW doesn't protect them any better from getting attacked initially either.
Most likely the latter.If the guys get caught will the charge be armed robbery and carrying a firearm into a posted gun free zone .. or just assault and robbery parole and a new obama phone ??