More From the Disarment Mentality

Being a stupid person, Joan Asks a Stupid Question.

Yes, I understand that sometimes bad people come in to work places. But the need to carry at work is just not on the minds of most people when they get dressed in the morning. It is the 2-3% of you who try to change the culture for the rest of us. It’s like the quotes from the articles about the Kroger shooting- people who aren’t trained and don’t keep up their skills shouldn’t be shooting in a work place. As we all know, accuracy is a problem and panic is another problem. I just don’t see it, Bryan. But some of you insist that you would and could carry in spite of the desires of employers or CEOs of companies. What is that all about?

What IS that all about. Well again Joan is flailing against a righteous shooting that likely saved several lives at that Kroger. Of course the elephant in the room for anti-rights cultists is that guns are used to save vastly more lives than they take, so they must discount as many defensive gun uses as they can to keep the lie alive.

As for people putting their guns on in the morning, I’d say its a thought of every gun owner who keeps arms for self-defense. If you own guns and are proficient in them, why wouldn’t want to keep one close at hand? As for percentages, I suspect Joan is pretty tone-deaf in this endeavor. Every place that issues permits is noting a rise in applications, and Wisconsin is FLOORED with the number of applications that have been received since carry became legal there in November. These are the people who will be carrying guns in their day-to-day lives, and not particularly considering WHERE they are going, just that they’ll be going there and where they go, they’ll be armed.

The question of training of course is more flailing as Indiana carry permits don’t require a training class, and this shoot went down as clean and perfectly as anybody had hoped. Of course like Joe Zamudio Joan wants to focus on what DIDN’T happen because what DID doesn’t fit with her fabricated view of reality.

Of course the reason why people would carry at work is simple…bad things can happy any time and any where, and if we KNEW where bad things were going to happen, bad things would only happen to stupid and reckless people. Of course any place that deals in cash can be robbed, and ANY robbery can turn violent by its very nature. Also if you work in a secure office building that does nothing to stop a troubled employee from entering. (Note that the shooter in this case was a prohibited person, was ignoring the countless Massachusetts gun laws…and one of his victims died with a New Hampshire Conceal Carry permit in his pocket…gun laws only disarm the lawful). And even if you work in a “Gun Free Zone” that does little to protect you as we know from various College Shootings, as well as stories like this.

As for the will of my employer. Well I work at their pleasure, so I will do my best to be a good worker…what I will NOT do is die for my job, nor do anything unsafe for a paycheck. If that means I get terminated from a job, there are better jobs to be had. I will note that my employer has no policy against firearms, and I’m happy for it!

Carry your guns people, the life you save might be your own!

This entry was posted in DGU, Freedom, Guns, Safety, Self Defense. Bookmark the permalink.

0 Responses to More From the Disarment Mentality

  1. Chris in Texas says:

    She’s really doubling down on the illogincal nonsense in her last couple of responses. I can’t respond there, so with your permission I’ll throw this in here.

    “There is absolutely no way to prove that the robber would have done harm to the clerk.”

    “The Shoot First or Stand Your Ground laws are bad news. In some cases, people who do not intend harm could be shot and there is no mandate to retreat- all that is needed is to say you were reasonably sure the person intended bodily harm and you get off with no charges.”

    If they don’t intend harm, what are they doing robbing a place of business using either a: a firearm, or b: an object that was intended to be mistaken for a firearm, for the purposes of threatening the safety of their victims?
    It may not be possible to prove that the robber intended to kill his victims. But at that point, he HAD proven that he held no regard for the laws prohibiting robbery, and that he had no problem with threatening his victims with deadly force. Given those two facts, why should anyone be forced to take the risk that the robber holds similar views on anti-murder laws, and is willing to use said deadly force against his victims?

  2. The Jack says:

    Her doubling down also includes bleating about “changing the culture”. That shows that on some dim level she’s realizing where we’re making inroads and how broadly we’re fighting.

    There’s also some magical thinking here. How is a “work place” different than anywhere else? So she’s all bent over a Kroger employee carrying. What about a Kroger shopper? Is it better if they carry? If so why?

    Again we have the “need” song and dance. And you know that if it were a Kroger shopper that did the shooting she’d be screaming about the “the need to carry [during errands] is just not on the minds of most people when they get dressed in the morning.”

    The truth is that just about everywhere is a “work place”. Not just retail and businesses either. Forests, farms, and parks have foresters, farmers, and park rangers. And yeah, I can see her making that very argument to ban carry in every “work place”.

    You also gotta love when someone wraps themselves up in the mantle of the majority and tells a minority to stop being so gosh dang uppity.

  3. Old NFO says:

    We’re screwing up her little utopia… Too bad, so sad… I carry because I just might need to USE it!

  4. I was going to make a similar point to The Jack. Japete, whining about “changing the culture” sounds like basically every old curmudgeon. You can basically write her rants for her.

    “In my day, we didn’t have concealed carry, we just got murdered at work. There we were, just a bunch of ignorant dinks, raped, robbed and murdered in the produce aisle and that’s the way it was and we LIKED it, we LOVED it! Hallelujah! I’m a dead duck in a supermarket robbery! Oh Happy Days! ”

  5. Pyrotek85 says:

    I liked how she responded to my first post saying she disagreed with me (wasn’t specific why) but hasn’t approved my reply to her.

    At first one might think we’re exaggerating by calling her a criminal apologist, but just look at what she’s wrote in that post. We’re supposed to give a person breaking a law, a serious one mind you, every benefit of the doubt that they mean no harm, even when they themselves say that they do.

  6. George says:

    I’ll echo The Jack and Sean. Is it just me or does she sound a little…plaintive? Almost like she knows she should be concerned, but doesn’t want to be. Why oh why do you keep making me think about this?

    • Weerd Beard says:

      She knows she’s on the wrong side of the issue. There’s far too much data out there for her to seek out…not to mention the metric tons of it dropped into her lap from those of us debating the issue (And even when she doesn’t PUBLISH a comment she READS it, and I know she follows links)

      Couple that with whatever internal memos probably come to her being in the inner circle of Brady and Joyce gun-banning.

      There is no way she doesn’t know that she’s advocating anti-freedom and more violence.

      This is why I have no issue branding her as “Evil”.

  7. Kristopher says:

    Actually, I do have an intelligent answer to Joan’s question … I don’t think she’ll like it, though.

    If lack of training scares her, then we need to spend some more money training children how to effectively shoot.

    I’m not totally heartless, however. If she wants her kids to be helpless, she can apply for a religious exemption, and pay for a permit to not carry. Of course, people who are so unstable as to not trust themselves with firearms should be carefully monitored by the police.

  8. Cargosquid says:

    One common thread is that she demands guarantees. Since 100% of CCW isn’t accident or criminal free, then ALL of it is bad. Since any bad thing MAY happen with a firearm, even if the outcome WAS positive, then it shouldn’t be allowed.

    Even when we have stated again, and again, and again, that guns are not magical and that all we want is the OPPORTUNITY to defend ourselves, she repeatedly states that we think that guns will keep us safe. NOT SAFER, BUT SAFE.

    I can only conclude that she thinks that if she can just get enough control over guns, whatever that might be, because she doesn’t want to ban guns, oh no…. she’ll be safe in her cocoon.

    Sad, really.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *