I'm not talking about being able to enforce it. I understand keeping it concealed and no one knows.
I'm simply asking that as responsible gun owners and carriers, should we not respect the "requests" made by business owners who post their businesses.
...
Some of us discriminate on postings against weapons as well, because it's the respectful thing to do.
Ahh, well. That's a personal choice that each person would have to make based on a number of criteria as regards each location they'd enter.
Personally, I don't see that something I do which is not known to another, and does not (and CANnot) affect another, can possibly be either respectful or disrespectful of that person. The gun that rides on my hip is unknown to the business owner and he will never derive any harm nor benefit from it (except in the direst circumstances in which his wishes are the very last of my concerns). It is wholly irrelevant to our interaction or our respectfulness toward each other.
Chances are there are multiple things he wishes I would do (vote for his favorite candidate, buy his products vs. those of his competitor, advertise his establishment to my friends, etc.) which I
could do to be respectful of him and his wishes. And he'd derive actual tangible benefits from those activities. But no one claims that I'm not being respectful of him if I don't chose to do those things.
If things I do or don't do which could HELP him aren't matters of "respect", then whether I do or do not do something that has no effect on him whatsoever seems to be utterly inconsequential.
Can I just avoid his shop? Sure. Maybe. Sometimes. But then I'm inconveniencing myself and causing him direct financial harm. Maybe I'm willing to do that to make a "silent statement" against that policy. But maybe I know a thing or two about liability, insurance, corporate/company policies, and the law, and don't feel too personally compelled by the sign on the door.
This is another 45/9 subject. we'll never settle it
Possibly, but I think even these kinds of debates can be logically distilled to basic cost/benefit questions. Even then, however, emotion, pride, tradition, etc. can still carry more weight for people than the most logical reasoning.
What I get a laugh out of is the frequent claim by some that such actions are "giving gun owners a bad name," or that "this is the sort of thing that hurts our rights," etc. When the entire discussion centers on
concealed carrying of a personal defensive arm -- absent any knowledge by the store owner or anyone else -- such claims are absurd in the extreme. Heated, rhetorical window dressing to add inappropriate emotional weight to a weak argument. (Actually a kind of logical fallacy known as an "Appeal to Fear.")