Indiana mass shooting cut short by armed citizen

For the second time this year, a potential mass shooting has been stopped short by a legally armed citizen.

Contrast that with the failure at Uvalde. The best defense against these tragedies, once they have started, is a good guy(or gal) with a gun who is already there.

The best defense before they start is properly sending data to the NICS database.

115 thoughts on “Not-so-mass-shooting

    1. And when the full story comes out, we will almost certainly find the maniac was “known to police” but still not prevented from legally buying his weapon.

      That’s why I divided the issue in to before and after the shooting starts.

      Regardless of the failures that led to this guy getting a weapon, once the shooting starts, the good guy with a gun already there is consistently the only way the shooting is stoppped with lives saced.


        1. Absolutely

          Figure, of those who can get firearms, perhaps:

          Madmen 0.001%

          People with CHPs 14% of those:
          Competent within 15 feet 10%
          As good or better than police, 4%

          Police as a percentage of population 0.01%

          The madman is roughly 400 times more likely to run into a skilled citizen than a policeman and thousands of times more likely to be evenly matched


        2. Sorry, but your analysis is ridiculous.

          100% of Madmen can get a gun. Legally or illegally.

          There are about 20 million concealed carry holders in the population.
          There are about 700 thousand active-duty LEOS.

          Leaving aside that CHPs are not all “good guys,” do not carry ALL the time, and often choose not to intervene in a crime situation as police are generally required to do, and are overly concentrated in certain areas, that ratio is NOT 400x. More like 29x.

          Also, your analysis raises the question … If this is the solution, why are there so many mass shootings with very few being ended by these hypothetical good guys who are far more numerous than police?

          Finally, and most damnably, your “solution” leaves out the statistical fact that an increase in guns correlates directly with increases in gun deaths.

          Liked by 2 people

          1. “If this is the solution, why are there so many mass shootings with very few being ended by these hypothetical good guys who are far more numerous than police?”

            A reasonable question with an obvious answer. 97% of mass shootings take place in “gun free zones” where legal carry by CHP holders is not allowed.

            If you want more mass shootings successfully terminated, eliminate “gun free zones.” If I ran a mall, I’d offer free donuts to concealed carry patrons.


          2. “A reasonable question with an obvious answer. 97% of mass shootings take place in “gun free zones” where legal carry by CHP holders is not allowed.”

            Yeah, I know, that is what Trump says so it must be true. But it isn’t.

            The flawed Lott study this claim is based on excluded approximately 80% or mass shooting incidents to get what it wanted to get. His study famously included the incidents at Fort Hood and the Washington Navy Yard as being in gun-free zones in spite of their both having armed security on site. He also included the incident at Umpqua Community College where there was no restriction on CHP holders. Books cooked. Thoroughly.

            A competing study by Everytown included ALL mass shootings – including domestic and criminal – found that 13% occurred in so-called gun-free zones. Another competing study (Klarevas) found 88% of 111 incidents where 6 or more were killed occurred at sites with either armed security or no gun restrictions.


            Liked by 1 person

          3. Conflating domestic and gang shootings with the random mass shootings Lott measured provides no useful information.

            Also, defining ‘gun free zones’ to exclude places where police can be armed but citizens cannot is deliberately deceptive. There are very few places the police cannot be armed.

            For the kind of public mass shootings we are discussing, Lott is spot on.


          4. “ Conflating domestic and gang shootings with the random mass shootings Lott measured provides no useful information.”

            You have held this position before. Not just with shootings, but with healthcare outcomes, etc.

            Sur, if we eliminate these Americans or those Americans, crime seems lower and everyone is healthier.

            Consider this: are they Americans or not? Do they live in our country and under our laws or not? Do they earn or spend and pay taxes as Americans, or not?

            Those gang shootout impact innocent bystanders as well as intended victims. And each victim had family, employers, businesses, friends who were also impacted greatly.

            In Ukraine, the random bombings and missile attacks in the west are terrorism. People try to maintain some normalcy, but there is the constant underlying threat and stress of an attack.

            We have the same problem with these mass shootings. Not many deaths or injuries compared to the annual totals, but the impact is huge. Dozens if not more people are affected by having friends, relatives, employees, congregants etc., killed or maimed because they went shopping or showed up for work or a spouse who flipped.

            All this bloodshed and stress so some feel they can stop the military from confiscating voting machines? (Or help them, in a recent close call.)

            Liked by 2 people

          5. Simple question,

            Do gang shootings, domestic shootings, workplace shootings and random mass shootings all have the same cause?

            Clearly they do not. So, why would you expect to have a single solution to them?


          6. “So, why would you expect to have a single solution to them?”

            Because there IS a single solution – better control access to the guns that are the common element. And the first EASY step is to require detailed background checking and character references for EVERY gun transaction or transfer. This, of course, requires guns be treated more like cars starting with registration.

            Liked by 1 person

          7. These killers are certainly sociopaths or psychopaths. You don’t shoot your spouse unless you can’t or won’t control those tendencies.

            Actual causes or triggers may vary, but the disregard for others health and safety is sort of requirement A.

            (Consider the seemingly constant variable is indifferent, toxic, absent, or resentful parenting, the abortion ban might just increase the crop of screwed up people.)

            Requirement B is the other irrefutable fact that all the shootings were done with guns.

            Liked by 2 people

          8. BTW, only those over 21 can get a CHP in most places, so your calculations should only include that part of the population over 21.

            I suspect my guesstimate is going to be a lot closer than yours.

            Correlation is not causation.

            And in this case, we aren’t talking about suicides or criminal shootings, we are talking about the random mass shootings. Those seem to be happening mostly in places with restrictive gun laws.


          9. “I suspect my guesstimate is going to be a lot closer than yours.”

            Or, you are simply unable to think rationally about guns, don’t like having an absurd calculation challenged, and are incapable of admitting even obvious error.

            Your calculation makes zero sense. Here is a hint – it does not matter AT ALL how many armed maniacs there are, the chance that one of them encountering a “good guy” vs a LEO is a function of the ratio of “good guys” vs LEOS in the population. You are calculating the ratio of skilled “good guys” to armed maniacs to get your 400x. Buzzz! False.

            My calculation yielded 29x. If I had limited it to skilled “good guys” as you tried to do, it would be more like 10x. Your comment about the 21-Year age-limit only shows how confused you are.

            Liked by 1 person

          10. Including those under 21 in your calculation makes it meaningless by diluting the pool of possible good guys with children who have no possibility of contributing.


          11. “Conflating domestic and gang shootings yadda, yadda”

            The problem of mass shootings is far broader than the narrow definitions and questionable classifications Lott used. But even so, if you want to talk about just those shootings the statistic is nearly meaningless since most places where people gather in numbers are not welcoming of guns except for police. Maniacs go where the people are, not where the guns aren’t.

            You seem to run around with a hidden gun – do you really respect no gun signs? Do you really think that other CHP holders do?

            Liked by 1 person

          12. ” most places where people gather in numbers are not welcoming of guns except for police.”

            Well, there’s your problem.

            Had the young man in Indianapolis not been there and armed, a lot of people would be dead.

            Disarming the good guys does not help.


          13. “Disarming the good guys does not help.”

            Do you really believe this “good guy with a gun” bullshit? The problem is TOO MANY GUNS. Not too few. Anecdotal evidence and your wishes do not come close to the evidence that more guns leads to more gun violence on every scale. . . home, town, city, state, country.

            Liked by 1 person

          14. “Including those under 21 in your calculation makes it meaningless by diluting the pool of possible good guys with children who have no possibility of contributing.”

            Uh, what are you talking about? None of this is based on age. In any way. Have you never formally studied elementary probability? Try again.

            Liked by 1 person

          15. “Evaluating the impact of concealed carry by including those(children) who are not eligible distorts your statistic.”

            What statistic is disorted?

            I have used two statistics to evaluate your claim that “The madman is roughly 400 times more likely to run into a skilled citizen than a policeman.”

            The number of CHP holders. (About 20 million).
            The number of LEOS. (About 700 thousand).

            Whatever the total population, whatever their age, the relative probability of a madman encountering a “good guy” vs a Leo is a function of those two numbers.

            I guess it must be that whatever math you once knew, you have forgotten. Senior moment? This is elementary probability.

            Liked by 1 person

          16. Actually it is 22 million and after Bruen that will grow substantially in coming months.

            But there are 340 million Americans of which 194million are over 21.

            So, concealed carry permits are 6.5% of the total population but 11% of those who are old enough. in VA it is 14%.

            I see what you are getting at by simply comparing raw numbers but that ignores that not all of the police are on duty or in public all the time.

            Getting a precise number would be a difficult task, but whether it is 29X or 400X or somewhere in between, the likelihood of being saved by a citizen compared to a policeman is far higher.


          17. “I see what you are getting at by simply comparing raw numbers but that ignores that not all of the police are on duty or in public all the time.”

            And all those CHP owners are out and about all the time?

            However you want to refine the numbers your proud and stubborn estimate of 400x is off by at least an order of magnitude.

            Frankly, I find your inability to admit when you have obviously made a boneheaded error kind of laughable. But, to be fair, it is quite a common trait among people who really do not care much for evidence or the truth if it does not support what you really want to believe.

            Liked by 1 person

          18. Even if we accept your number of 29X as likely, is it not correct that the chances of a citizen saving the day many times higher that a policeman? Especially considering that a uniformed policeman is easy to spot?

            But then you do have a habit of missing the point and obscuring the principle by haggling over details.


          19. “Even if we accept your number of 29X as likely. . .”
            Still laughable. Still cannot admit being ridiculously wrong.

            Leaving aside your mathematical obtuseness, you are once again ignoring the evidence. Hypothetical calculations are one thing. Reality is something else. CHP holders have stopped very few public mass murders. Since they are so ubiquitous and so much more skilled than police, why not? As a matter of fact, for every active shooter stopped by an armed citizen, four were stopped by unarmed citizens according to an FBI study of active shooter situations.


            Liked by 1 person

          20. Um, are you saying that unarmed citizens are more effective?

            Do you think it might be that since most of these shootings are in “gun free zones” the higher number is because there were more opportunities? It would be interesting to see the ratio of successful armed and unarmed interventions and how many unarmed interventions failed.


          21. “Um, are you saying that unarmed citizens are more effective?”

            No, but it is an indication of how seldom this army of CHP holders (who go everywhere in spite of signs) actually does any good.

            But, I am happy to agree that in the instance where an armed civilian has the ability and the courage to take down a maniac and does so is a good thing. But, it rarely happens and, more importantly the cost in blood of trying to get more people to carry guns is too high. More guns means more gun deaths.

            Liked by 1 person

          22. Because you say so?

            Are CHP holders committing significant numbers of crimes that would outweigh their benefits, including the deterrent effect of the possibility that one of them might be there. whether they are or not.


          23. “Chicken or egg?”

            It does not matter what motivates people to acquire guns. It is an irrefutable fact that there is an extremely significant correlation between increases in guns and increases in gun violence. For obvious reasons.

            Your belief that somehow CHP holding nullifies the correlation may have some truth in it given the usually higher standards for that privilege. Perhaps EVERY handgun owner should have to meet those standards and be licensed to acquire their gun. Some states, with much lower rates of mayhem, already have such requirements. Why not nationwide since their “experiment” shows good results?

            Liked by 1 person

          24. But then again Indiana’s Constitutional Carry seems to have worked out well.

            After all, good guys greatly outnumber criminals and crazies, so anything we can do to facilitate arming the good guys should have a net positive benefit.

            But considering that there ARE some criminals and crazies out there, and they will find some way to arm themselves. why are you so afraid of the ones who are not criminals and crazies bearing arms?

            After all, you might be in the wrong food court some day, and wouldn’t you then want a Mr Dicken to be there?


          25. “Why are you so afraid of the ones who are not criminals and crazies bearing arms”

            The more guns there are in ANY location, the greater the probability of gun violence. There are crazies in this world, but they are few and far between. I am at far greater risk driving to Barnes and Noble than the risk of being murdered by a crazy once I go in. So, unlike you, I do not organize my life around the threat of boogie men.

            I believe – based on the evidence – that the more we increase the possession and carrying of weapons – even by people who think they are “good guys” – the greater risk to everyone of gun violence.

            The best way to protect everybody everywhere from the crazies is to keep the gun out of their hands in the first place. That means better and universal background checks and character references for every gun transaction and transfer. And that requires gun ownership registration for every gun. This is common sense, but you won’t support it for fantasy reasons. In other words, you are not seriously interested in stopping the mayhem.

            Liked by 1 person

          26. We don’t have enough experience with Constitutional Carry yet, but with CHP holders we have plenty.

            CHP holders are less likely to commit crimes of violence with a firearm than policemen or elected officials.

            So, what is your evidence that CHP holders represent a net threat, that is violence in excess of their protective value?


          27. I actually believe that CHP holders are human beings. As such they are subject to a variety of emotions, mental illness, depression, delusions, hatred, greed, etc. just like everyone else. Because they are screened (but not in places like Indiana) they may be a bit better than average. But they are still human. And are subject to all the pathologies and emotions that lead to gun violence.


            Don’t bother to attack this evidence because you do not think suicide is a problem. It is. Gun owners are many times more likely to die of suicide than non-gun owners.

            Liked by 1 person

          28. From 2014, an account of the massive statistical malpractice of the VPC. Many cases are triple counted.

            And suicide, though I do not generally approve of it, is a right.


          29. “More on VPC dishonesty”

            Okay, I see that the Heritage Foundation has some quibbles. I have some too.

            1. The VPC database of incidents goes back many years and HF tries to relate it to the current level of holders. Lott proudly talks about the exponential growth of permit holders. It was MUCH smaller during the time frame that VPC has been collecting incidents.
            2. HF poo poos suicide being included in the VPC data. It shouldn’t.

            3. Here is a bit of “logic” that throws all of the HF comments into disrepute. . .

            “The Violence Policy Center includes many fatalities where the shooter’s concealed-carry permit was irrelevant because he or she did not carry a concealed weapon in public while perpetrating the crime”

            They then cite examples of spousal murder by CHP holders and claim that VPC should not have included them!! Good grief.

            Liked by 1 person

          30. “More on VPC dishonesty”

            In researching the link that you provided I came to a Lott paper about the growth of CHPs and learned that the state with the highest percentage of adults carrying guns is Alabama – about 1/3. And one of the lowest is California with about 1%. Alabama is near the top on gun death rates. California is one of the lowest.

            I could not help wondering how you would address this compelling evidence against your theory that more CHP holders makes everyone safer. Any comment?

            Liked by 1 person

  1. This is truly the theater of the absurd.

    We have gotten to the point where we are supposed consider success in public safety if a shoot out stops a mass shooter after fewer Americans are slaughtered than planned.

    And this “success” is now touted as proof that more guns makes us safer.

    Next up is to increase mileage of cars by making all roads downhill in both directions.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. I purposely divided the problem into before the shooting starts and after.

      After it starts, someone armed and already there is the only remedy that saves lives. Such shootings are nearly always over in minutes so unless someone already there intervenes the police will be too late.

      Fixing the problem before the shooting starts is more complicated but it is the liberal left that obstructs fixing that problem. Including juvenile records in NICS and prosecuting crimes against person by the mentally ill would block nearly all of our recent mass shooters.


        1. The guy who stopped the shooter was only 22.

          And no, magazine restrictions would not help much, Even with ARs, the Parkland shooter used only 10 round magazines because they were easier to conceal.

          And yes, shotguns. Until you have an answer for that that would get by the courts, restrictions on firearms are moot.


          1. It takes a lot longer to reload 8 shells into a shotgun that it does to swap out a 10 (or 30 Round) semi-auto clip. And by my math 8 is less than 10 (and a lot less than 30).

            Shotguns are SITABLE for actual hunting. An AR-15 is NOT. Even you have claimed that it is a “sport rifle” that is used for target practice. The only REAL use of an AR-15 (or similar) is to put as many rounds downrange (and into bodies) as quickly as possible.

            Liked by 1 person

          2. A shotgun can be replenished on the go in a natural pause in shooting, so effectively its magazine is limited by how many shells you can carry.


          3. I have spoken with shotgun owners I trust who also have military backgrounds and have used weapons similar to the AR-15. These are well versed gun owners who understand the concepts and they told me to tell you. HORESHIT!!! Their words, not mine.

            Liked by 1 person

          4. I have no idea what questions you asked them or what situation you presented.

            Did any of them say that if a person intent on a mass shooting couldn’t get an AR he would just give up and go home rather than use a shotgun?

            I suspect the horseshit lies in how it was presented.


          5. I asked them what they would rather have if they were considering shooting a whole bunch of peole. Pretty sratight forward, no ambiguity.

            And if he can’t get an AR, then he would resort to a shotgun, or more likely, a handgun with an extended magazine.

            The bottom line is a semi-automatic weapon would be their weapon of choice. More damage, more quicker.

            Your implication of my question being “horseshit” is noted with the usual “meh” some of your digs and slights deserve.

            SO their reply of horsehit was accurate.

            Liked by 1 person

      1. We are awash in guns. An AR-15 bought from a dealer or from the streets is equally deadly.

        We have the technology to track every gun and every bullet made or sold in the US. Just visit Amazon once and you can see how well it works to gather data in the “private” sector.

        Add in thorough background checks, along with a NICS that is improved and effective, and you might have a chance to stop a few. I mean thorough as in it could take a few weeks or more to vet a person for a permit to own a gun.

        But the demand for anonymity is killing us.

        Liked by 2 people

        1. And the lack of anonymity could kill us by the millions. In order to work, deterrents have to be effective, and the uncertainty of where those guns are keeps us safe from our government.


          1. In the 20th century, 250 million people were murdered by their own, legal governments.

            Distrust of government is not paranoia, it’s awareness of history.


          2. “Distrust of government is not paranoia”

            Yes, it is. This is our Constitutional government we are talking about. You exhibit paranoia combined with delusions of grandeur. And you constantly promise to use your guns against “tyranny.” These are red flags for legal gun ownership in ANY rational system to keep the mentally unwell from acquiring mass murder weapons. Obviously.

            Liked by 1 person

          3. “Don’t understand the question?”

            Really? It seems straight-forward.

            I think it CLEARLY implies that even with all our faults we remain a strong Constitutional and democratic republic where the government has never even considered turning on us as did the governments of Hitler, Mao or Stalin.

            And, by the way, there were PLENTY of guns available for citizens in both Germany and Russia. Europe was awash with them after WW1. Those guns were not used to protect the people from the government. They were used by the tyrants to seize power.

            Liked by 1 person

          4. This is what you stated: “In the 20th century, 250 million people were murdered by their own, legal governments.”

            If you don’t understand the question of “What was the number of people killed by the government in THIS country” (Ya know, the good ol’ USofA), then you are starting to show signs of aging.

            Liked by 1 person

          5. Any case of “legal governments” killing those who did not necessarily deserve it.

            Police shootings, especially of unarmed individuals, are a blight on our own LE community. But if you consider that the cops know that there are 400 million guns amongst the population, they tend to err on the side of caution. Incorrectly or not.

            But then again, the Uvalde LE community failed miserably when they KNEW an individual had a gun.


          6. Our problem is not how to keep us safe from our government, but rather keeping our government safe from our would be insurgents.

            Hypothetically, if the government had sent the military to confiscate voting machines, what would have been your response. This was a plan put forth by some advisors close to the president. White House counsel squashed that after much acrimonious arguing. But it could have been implemented.

            Liked by 1 person

          7. “Our problem is not how to keep us safe from our government, but rather keeping our government safe from our would be insurgents.”


            And for the “originalists” out there, the Constitution granted the new government the explicit authority to “suppress Insurrection.” It also deliberately defined treason and its punishment. In short, the kind of bullshit these gun-toting pinheads spout about threatening the government is exactly ass backwards. The “well-regulated militia” is to protect the government from people like them. Period.

            Liked by 2 people

  2. As in a lot of areas throughout our history, California leads the way. It has far stricter gun laws than most states and it has one of the lowest gun homicide rates in the country. It has now added an important new dimension – civil liability for gun manufacturers, distributors, and dealers.

    Thanks to the NRA there is federal legislation protecting the merchants of death from the liabilities that every other industry must deal with. However, there is a loophole in that law which California’s new law takes advantage of. New York has a similar law.

    Maybe the insurance industry can do what the government cannot – force gun sellers to take reasonable care to keep guns out of the wrong hands.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. One obvious question. . .

    Why is a 22-year-old carrying a hidden gun into Greenwood Park Mall which is explicitly a gun-free zone? Is it typical of CHP holders to ignore the wishes of property owners? I think there may be more to this story when all is revealed.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. I do not know if that mall was a gun free zone or not.

      In Virginia, a sign does not carry weight. If the owner asks you to leave, you must comply, but you are not trespassing until he does.

      I don’t know what the law in Indiana is or if there was a sign. But keeping the good guys out is stupid.

      The bank next to my office in Norfolk had a “No illegal guns” sign for years but it was placed with a wordless graphic circle / gun decal. I told the manager I had a problem with walking over the same time every day to make my deposit unarmed. He told me that the sign had changed but the policy had not. And that since i carried concealed there was no issue.

      So, signs don’t mean much.


      1. I do not know if that mall was a gun free zone or not.”

        I do. I checked it before asking the question. You should try it sometime.

        “Signs do not mean much.”
        As I suspected, you and other CHP owners think you are special.
        So, how should a property owner or proprietor communicate that guns are not welcome? And what gives you the right to ignore the owner’s policy?

        Liked by 1 person

        1. Do you have a cite for the policy?

          I am telling you what VA Law requires, not what I do .

          If a sign says ‘no illegal guns,’ mine is legal so it doesn’t matter. If it’s a graphic with no words, I don’t ask don’t tell.

          If it says no concealed carry, I take my business elsewhere.


          1. Ah, so signs carry no weight there either.

            Good thing the citizen either didn’t see or ignored the sign.

            But certainly those license plate readers would have saved the day had he not.


          2. Property rights? But isn’t that an individual right? I mean the same kind of right that those on the right stand and shout about from the rooftops? Unless THAT property owners rights infringe on their rights to do whatever THEY believe is the only right that matters.

            Liked by 1 person

          3. Who said that?

            I said if they really mean to disarm me, I take my business elsewhere.

            But I do want to know their real intent. Businesses, especially national chains, are pressured to post those signs, whether the local franchisee wants them or not.

            I suspect many would take the same view as my banker, don’t ask, don’t tell.

            But if they ask me to leave, I will. Forever.

            I wish I could do that with the DMV.


          4. “But I do want to know their real intent.”

            What the fuck is wrong with you? If they have a sign saying no guns, that means they do not want guns on their premises. Simple. Whether the owner is a national chain or not has NOTHING to do with it. You seem to think that if they really knew what a hero you want to be, they would want you. Not too ridiculous. But again typical of the violence and lawlessness that is now at the core of “conservative” politics.

            Liked by 1 person

          5. The owner of the East Coast Gas station on Butts Station Rd(Now a 7-11) told me that the Chain required him to post a no-gun graphic but he welcomed CHP himself.

            So, who has the property rights? The chain or the franchise owner?

            Business owners are often pressured to post such signs by MDA and Brady groups with threats of boycotts if they don’t, so who is violating property rights?


          6. If you ignore the signs and carry concealed, into an establishment that asks that no guns be brought in, your are violating their rights to maintain a safe and friendly establishment.

            “But I do want to know their real intent.”

            Their real intent is more than likely to keep guns out of their place of business. It is their right to do so and if you infringe on that right by ignoring their request, you are telling them that their rights don’t matter to you. Which you have proven many times on several topics.

            Liked by 1 person

          7. “But you stated it was legally binding and it isn’t.”

            Uh, I stated no such thing. I stated that it was the policy of the mall owners that guns were not allowed. I also stated that decent people respect their property owner’s rights and shitheads don’t. Where you got that I called it legally binding to respect their policy is a mystery.

            Liked by 1 person

          8. You said it was a “gun free zone” but by their state law, and Virginia’s, it isn’t until they ask you to leave.

            Nonetheless, I will respect their wishes once I know what they are.


          9. “You said it was a “gun free zone” but by their state law, and Virginia’s, it isn’t until they ask you to leave.”

            So, you only have to respect their no guns policy if they catch carrying and ask you to leave? Me. Me. Me. What you want is the only thing that matters to you. Consistent at least. That is your stance on every issue.

            And you still have not explained where you got that I said that such gun-free zones are legally binding. All I have said is that it is a matter of respecting the property rights of others.

            Liked by 1 person

        2. “The owner of the East Coast Gas station. . .”

          So, you are saying that this property owner (according to you) is willfully violating his franchise agreement and does not really mean what his sign says. And his property rights are being violated by having to post a no-guns sign. And therefore, the real villains are people who do not want guns in stores they might visit and might not trade there if guns are openly welcome. About right?

          Good grief. The twisted logic some people will use to justify their bad behavior.

          The answer to your question is obvious. The good name of the franchise is the property of the Chain. The individual store owner FREELY agreed to the franchise agreement to benefit from that good name. If he conspires with you to break his contract, he is in the wrong. As are you.

          Liked by 1 person

          1. Absolutely, the real villains are indeed those who seek to disarm good guys by harassing businesses.

            Consider an armed citizen going about his daily errands. If he goes to a half dozen shops and the post office, it is impractical for him to carry in some of them and leave his handgun in his car, where it can be stolen, at other stops, Further, many, if not most, armed robberies take place in parking lots, so he is being exposed to risk in the worst possible place.

            So, you have given me a good idea, I will write to my legislators and firearms organization to see if we can’t get legislation protecting 2nd Amendment rights in places of public accommodations.

            That would greatly simplify exercising our rights in a practical manner and will no doubt save many lives.


          2. “And, will no doubt save many lives”

            Of course, the opposite is supported by the evidence. Your fantasies are not evidence.

            Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that exercising your rights is always convenient. But go ahead, try to get legislation passed that will force every bar, restaurant, mall, grocery store, church, bowling alley, and cinema to tolerate the presence of guns and the people who are afraid to be in public places without one or two.

            As one of your villains, I do not buy that you are a reliable “good guy.” I think there is something really wrong with people who exhibit the irrational weapons fetish that you seem to be proud of. When I go to a venue that excludes guns, I don’t want you there. I think most people agree with me on that.

            Liked by 1 person

          3. No where in the Constitution does it say bathroom doors have to be a certain width, but the Americans with Disabilities Act requires such in every public accoommodation.


          4. “No where in the Constitution does it say bathroom doors have to be a certain width”

            Maybe the lamest analogy ever.

            You want the law to force people to allow you to go armed in their public accommodations. But you have decried the law that forbids racial discrimination in such places based on your belief that the market would sort it out. A black family could always drive to the next inn, you have said. Can you explain this inconsistency?

            Liked by 1 person

          5. Sure.

            I disapprove of the Public Accommodations concept, as I believe the marketplace can deal effectively with discrimination, though it moves slowly.

            But, it is settled law, and so it is reasonable to offset its negative unintended consequences by putting it to good use to protect the public.


          6. …”as I believe the marketplace can deal effectively with discrimination”

            If that truly were the case, there would be a lot of people in wheelchairs soiling themselves while shopping at WAL-MARTT.

            Liked by 1 person

          7. You don’t think that WalMart would not accommodate people just for the PR?

            You might see some small shops which simply can’t afford the square footage decline to have a handicap accessible bathroom, but big stores would just to not offend people.

            But really, why must a bicycle shop have a handicap restroom?


          8. So, the marketplace cannot “protect the public.” Those inconvenient gun-free stores that make you put your gun in the glove box just won’t go out of business fast enough, so the government has to put its thumb on the scales? I thought the government made everything it touches worse?

            I know. I know. Consistency is the Hobgoblin of little minds.

            Liked by 1 person

          9. Well, you seemed to like the Public Accommodations concept yesterday. What happened?

            If we had a level playing field in the press, I’d happily do without it, but with the deck stacked against us, using your tools against you makes sense.


          10. “Well, you seemed to like the Public Accommodations concept yesterday. What happened?”

            You CHOOSE to go around with a gun under your coat. You can always choose to leave it behind or in your car. Black people, Hispanics, Jews, Gays, do NOT choose to Black, Hispanic, Jewish, or Gay. That is simply who they are. They cannot simply leave that in the glove box.

            This is a very easy to understand difference. If you actually wanted to understand which, obviously, you don’t. All those people get protection, why not poor little me? Bwaaaah!

            Liked by 1 person

          11. Actually I don’t have a choice whether I have the right to bear arms, I have that right regardless of whether I exercise it.

            Simply leaving a handgun in your glove box is an effective way to get it into the hands of criminals.


          12. ?

            No, I’m saying that lots of guns are stolen from parked cars in parking lots of places that ban guns while the owner is inside

            Even if you spend a grand building in a lockbox in your car, thieves will do hundreds if not thousands of dollars of damage trying.

            Liked by 1 person

          13. …” I’m saying that lots of guns are stolen from parked cars”…

            If a gun is stolen due to the inability of the owner to properly secure his weapon in his car, that is on the “responsible” gun owner. Yes, the bad guy breaking into the car to steal it is on the hook for that crime. But if a firearm is not properly secured by the owner, he or she should be liable for any crime committed with the stolen weapon.

            Your attempt to blame the business owner who does not want guns in his store is a smoke screen to cover up for the lack of responsibility of the gun owner.

            Liked by 1 person

          14. So, we should spend $1000 on each car for a welded in lockbox, and accept thousands of dollars damage from thieves trying to defeat it?

            I would say at the least, if a business owner wants to exclude legal firearms from his property, he should be required to provide secure storage at the door.


          15. “So, we should spend $1000 on each car for a welded in lockbox, and accept thousands of dollars damage from thieves trying to defeat it?”

            Obviously, YES. How much do you think the lives of innocent people should be worth?


          16. “And those around us will be safe too.”

            Delusional. As always.

            In my opinion, you do not get to pass the buck on keeping your guns secure. If you think it takes a $1,000 lockbox in your car and you are afraid to leave home without a gun, then you have a moral obligation to get one. It ought to be a legal obligation. You should be held financially liable for the damage done by a gun you failed to secure. I am sure the free market would quickly offer insurance if that were the law. Maybe the government cannot force you to keep your guns secure. I’ll bet the insurance industry could.


          17. “Or the US as a whole.”

            According to your favorite gun academic, Lott, the highest rate of gun carrying is in the state of Alabama where about one third of adults carry. Alabama is in the top three on the rate of deaths, second only to two more gun-loving states, LA and MS. Again, according to Lott, California is one of the lowest carry states (1%) and it is near the bottom when it comes to gun death rates. Alabama does not have any of those giant urban areas you want to exclude, while California has several. It appears to me that your theory is bullshit based on, you know, EVIDENCE.

            I asked you the other day to address this EVIDENCE as it relates to your statements about the safety benefits of guns and CHP holders. You did not even try. Care to try now?

            As for your silly “poll tax” analogy, rich or poor no one should be immune from the consequences of their actions or carelessness.


          18. “Actually, I don’t have a choice whether I have the right to bear arms, I have that right regardless of whether I exercise it.”


            1. You have NO right to bear arms on private property where the owner refuses you permission to be armed.
            2. We are not talking about whether you can choose to have a right or not. That is nonsense.

            3. You CAN choose to not go around armed. That puts you in a different category from people who cannot change the color of their skin. This is the simple fact of the matter which – for some reason – you cannot just accept gracefully.

            As for the glove box, lock it and your car. Or leave your gun at home. It will be okay. I promise.

            Liked by 1 person

          19. You can’t have it both ways.

            Either property rights have limits or they don’t. If the legislature can require a gymnasium to have bathrooms with enough clearance to turn a wheel chair around, then it can require a restaurant to allow me to carry a firearm, at least in those parts of the building open to the public.

            Sure, I can, and do, choose to take my business where carry is allowed, but that paraplegic can choose to go to a different gym.


          20. “You can’t have it both ways.”

            Not trying to.

            I do see the compulsive need to carry a gun as a disability, but the law would not agree. A handicapped person cannot become unhandicapped at will. An armed person can easily become an unarmed person. This is the difference you simply refuse to admit. There is a compelling public interest in public accommodations being accessible to all. Open to gun-totters? Not so much.

            Liked by 1 person

          21. “You seem to think your choices should be law.”

            That is what you always say when you have no reasonable counterargument. It is kind of pathetic.

            Besides, I encouraged to act on your idea of getting a law passed that would FORCE businesses to allow you to bring your guns where they are not wanted. I just happen to believe it is a dumb idea that would not get much support. Get over it.

            Liked by 1 person

  4. Update

    Indiana has Constitutional carry, no permit is required to carry concealed if you are legally allowed to own a firearm.

    Posting a sign is not sufficient for a charge of trespass.


    1. “Posting a sign is not sufficient for a charge of trespass.”

      Your link says nothing about that, but Yes, so what?

      You seem to think someone is accusing the “armed shopper” of breaking the law. No one is. The point is that he is a person who does not respect the property rights of others. That is not, generally speaking, the behavior of a “good guy.” IMHO.

      As I said at the beginning, the lede has been buried. The real story is that once again a homicidal maniac has had no trouble acquiring weapons of war to unleash on innocent people.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. I don’t know yet if the shooter’s firearms purchases would have been blocked by the recent compromise bill as I don’t know what was on his juvenile record or if it was disqualifying.

        I don’t really like the “public accommodations” principle, but it does restrict how private businesses open to the public can restrict the rights of the public. Perhaps it is time for the legislature to protect the 2nd Amendment rights of people entering public accommodations.

        In any case, we are fortunate that Mr Dicken was armed.


        1. ” Perhaps it is time for the legislature to protect the 2nd Amendment rights of people entering public accommodations.”

          So contact your representtive and tell him/her that is what you want. If you think consensus can be found on it.

          But when it comes to ZEALOTS of the 2A, unlike supporters of the basic tenets of it, there is no compromise. And you just proved that to be true.

          …”we are fortunate that Mr Dicken was armed.”

          And when did you move to Indiana?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s