Shooters

My hands are registered as lethal weapons. Now, I won't have to keep them in my pockets in public. Originally Posted by unagi

Ha toys hands are registered as lethal weapons too. He didn't tell you?

This statement is naive at best, utterly stupid at worst. Those businesses who chose to disallow firearms on their premises are taking potential insurance, liability, and legal issues/costs into account. These, without a shadow of a doubt, will overshadow and be at the forefront of any 'best interests of employees' considerations. Business/company FIRST, employee(s) ALWAYS second. Always. Originally Posted by TxHarleyGuy

Wrong. Can you imagine the lawsuits if a crazed gunman got into the building and killed a few dozen people inside the building? It would cost the company MILLIONS. Allowing employees to carry handguns has little to no financial impact to the corporation. I think I know a little bit more about IBM company policies than you since I worked there for 45 years.

If what you say is true, why do only a handful of businesses choose to disallow firearms?

Nearly all of Toyz's threads fall into this category... I just hope Toyz doesn't injure himself with his birthday present... that would leave him with way too much time to post here!

z Originally Posted by ztonk

Just bringing a new topic to an ECCIE open forum...

Is your new role to troll my posts & make lame comments? I didn't realize that was a MODS place, but I've been surprised before...

As I mentioned many times to you, if moderating is so upsetting to you, why don't you retire? I don't think you'd be missed.

Now if you have anything ON TOPIC please feel free to join in...otherwise try & follow the rules of the forum when possible.

Thanks PM...

Ha toys hands are registered as lethal weapons too. He didn't tell you? Originally Posted by Noid

You're really bent out of shape about this aren't you Kung Fu Boy?

Chasing me around all over the board with your one-trick-pony line...come on, engage some brain cells & come up with a different line...

. Business/company FIRST, employee(s) ALWAYS second. Always. Originally Posted by TxHarleyGuy

I thought about your last 2 sentences and here are several company policies at IBM that totally benefit employees and are to the detriment of the company bottom line:

Annual company outing for all employees/retirees and family members at Schlitterbahn, Sea World or 6 flags.

Money in the department budget for a "party", usually at a restaurant at Christmas time.

A pension plan that allowed me to retire with 45% of my final year's pay.

Matching 401k program.

Medical and dental benefits.

Money/gifts worth thousands of dollars given to celebrate 25 years with the company.

$3,000 given yearly to each retiree simply to help pay off medical and dental expenses.

All these take away from the bottom line of IBM. Some are certainly benefits that probably all companies offer -- 401k, medical and dental. The others are simply "gifts" given to the employee that would be unexpected. Either way, it defeats your statement that policies are always company first.

lol you are being intentionally dense.

You also have no idea whether or not the rule has kept anyone from being shot inside the building - that's my point! So giving credit to the rule for noone being shot is your spin. There is also probably a rule about not taking items like paperclips home for personal use. That has also been 100% effective in preventing shootings.

The lack of upside is your opinion - you often confuse your opinion with fact.

And you do it again w.r.t. corporate rules. Logic is not your strong point, I can see now why you let your feelings and fear of guns energize your constant spamming of gun related threads.

You are wrong in every statement you just made. You have absolutely no idea whether or not the rule has kept anyone from being shot inside the building. Allowing employees to carry guns inside the building could very well have led to the death of other employees. Since no one has ever been killed inside the building, the rule has been 100% effective.

There is absolutely no upside to allowing employees to carry weapons inside the building when no employee has ever needed a gun. Had an employee ever needed a gun inside the building and did not have one when needed, then I would agree with you.

Corporate rules, at least for IBM, are made in the best interest of the company and the employees. Certainly not all policies are in the best interest of ALL the employees. In this case the company has determined that allowing employees to enter the building with handguns is NOT in the best interest of the employees. Does not affect the bottom line of the corporation. It is simply for the safety of the employees. Whether or not I, or any other employee, supports the policy, is irrelevant. IT WORKS! Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

lol you are being intentionally dense.

You also have no idea whether or not the rule has kept anyone from being shot inside the building - that's my point! So giving credit to the rule for noone being shot is your spin. There is also probably a rule about not taking items like paperclips home for personal use. That has also been 100% effective in preventing shootings.

The lack of upside is your opinion - you often confuse your opinion with fact.

And you do it again w.r.t. corporate rules. Logic is not your strong point, I can see now why you let your feelings and fear of guns energize your constant spamming of gun related threads. Originally Posted by endurance

Are you REALLY that stupid??? What I have said is that there is a rule in place that bans guns from the building. Since no one has been shot inside the building, whether or not it is due to the rule, there is absolutely no reason to change the rule and allow people to carry guns inside the building. No upside to changing the rule. FACT!! Will allowing people to carry guns inside the building reduce the number of people killed? NO. You can't have less than zero deaths. FACT!! It is fairly obvious that you are someone who believes that gun free zones simply do not work. That is your opinion. When faced with the FACT that a gun free zone does work, you search for alternative reasons other than the obvious as to why it works.

I have absolutely no fear of guns. I fired an M-16 many times when in the service. People like you immediately jump to the conclusion that if someone does not own a gun they are afraid of them. I simply have no need for a gun.

I would venture to say that most licensed handgun/firearms owners will continue to opt for the concealed carrying of their firearms. But, for those who now choose to open carry, more power to them as that is now their right.

Personally, given the choice of the two, I would always opt for concealed carry over open carry. The benefit - for me - of the new open carry law is that I now don't have to be so overly concerned with total concealment. If I print or if I reach/stretch and a barrel/holster is slightly revealed for a split second, it's now no big deal. Whereas before if those instances were to happen, you would have a problem; a legal one.

What does bothers me about this whole open carry law are the idiots out there who have never owned a gun and who aren't trained and proficient in the use of firearms who go out to places like Red's, Academy or Cabela's - buy a gun without any research or experience and immediately begin totin' it around - because they now can. Ran into a guy just this past Sunday at Cabela's that was out to buy a gun JUST SO HE COULD OPEN CARRY. Didn't know what he wanted, what he was going to buy. All he was concerned about was how good it would look on his hip. No shit. To him, it was more of a fashion statement than anything else. Those are the fuckers you need to be concerned about. As a firearms instructor, that's the type that bother me. Idiots who don't have any respect for the firearm and the responsibilities of gun ownership in general. Originally Posted by TxHarleyGuy

+ 1. That's pretty much how I feel. I worry about idiots that don't know what they are doing and innocent bystanders, including our kids, getting hurt.

I can't help it if you can't reason, it may be frustrating for you. You are shifting your position - but at least finally admit that it might not be due to the rule. Hint: it might actually be because no one decided to go on a shooting rampage there.

How many shootings have happened in gun free zones - as usual your "FACTS" are not facts at all - you think you will get truth through repeated assertion and as usual it is a bunch of crap. This upside business is a figment of your imagination if the number doesn't change at all. And you are defining the upside in narrow terms that fit your argument.

The vast majority of the gun control people really are afraid and ignorant of guns. I don't really care whether you feel like you need a gun or whether you are a vet. The problem is that you are trying to project your needs on everyone else.

You may imagine yourself living in an isolated bubble with only first world problems - hopefully you continue to be lucky and not have to face the realization you could have helped save someone you cared about but you were too attached to your high horse philosophy.

Are you REALLY that stupid??? What I have said is that there is a rule in place that bans guns from the building. Since no one has been shot inside the building, whether or not it is due to the rule, there is absolutely no reason to change the rule and allow people to carry guns inside the building. No upside to changing the rule. FACT!! Will allowing people to carry guns inside the building reduce the number of people killed? NO. You can't have less than zero deaths. FACT!! It is fairly obvious that you are someone who believes that gun free zones simply do not work. That is your opinion. When faced with the FACT that a gun free zone does work, you search for alternative reasons other than the obvious as to why it works.

I have absolutely no fear of guns. I fired an M-16 many times when in the service. People like you immediately jump to the conclusion that if someone does not own a gun they are afraid of them. I simply have no need for a gun. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

I can't help it if you can't reason, it may be frustrating for you. You are shifting your position - but at least finally admit that it might not be due to the rule. Hint: it might actually be because no one decided to go on a shooting rampage there.

How many shootings have happened in gun free zones - as usual your "FACTS" are not facts at all - you think you will get truth through repeated assertion and as usual it is a bunch of crap. This upside business is a figment of your imagination if the number doesn't change at all. And you are defining the upside in narrow terms that fit your argument.

The vast majority of the gun control people really are afraid and ignorant of guns. I don't really care whether you feel like you need a gun or whether you are a vet. The problem is that you are trying to project your needs on everyone else.

You may imagine yourself living in an isolated bubble with only first world problems - hopefully you continue to be lucky and not have to face the realization you could have helped save someone you cared about but you were too attached to your high horse philosophy. Originally Posted by endurance

Got a reading comprehension problem??? No I'm not shifting my position at all. I believe there have been no shootings in my building because people are not carrying handguns into the building. What I said was even if I was incorrect, which I don't believe I am, the results merit no change.

In almost every shooting in gun free zones there is a valid reason why the shooter or shooters chose the location and it had NOTHING to do with it being a gun free zone. Pure speculation on your part vs. facts.

I support your right and decision to carry a gun.. What I have observed over the years is that people like you just can't accept the fact that people disagree with you over the need for a gun in order to get through life. It's your way or the other person is wrong.

You think I'm full of crap and I think you're full of crap. Let's end it there.

And I'm saying (and you are missing) that no killer ever had the thought process "damn, if only that rule wasn't there I woulda gone in and shot that guy"

Whether shooters are targeting gun free zones specifically or not - shootings are happening there plenty - that was my point. Gun free zones do NOT deter shootings.

You say you support my decision to carry - but I have a feeling anywhere you could curtail it you would.

I'll certainly agree to disagree - the only reason I feel like I had to respond to you was because you seem insistent on constantly chiming in on any gun related thread when clearly no minds are being changed on this.

Got a reading comprehension problem??? No I'm not shifting my position at all. I believe there have been no shootings in my building because people are not carrying handguns into the building. What I said was even if I was incorrect, which I don't believe I am, the results merit no change.

In almost every shooting in gun free zones there is a valid reason why the shooter or shooters chose the location and it had NOTHING to do with it being a gun free zone. Pure speculation on your part vs. facts.

I support your right and decision to carry a gun.. What I have observed over the years is that people like you just can't accept the fact that people disagree with you over the need for a gun in order to get through life. It's your way or the other person is wrong.

You think I'm full of crap and I think you're full of crap. Let's end it there. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

You say you support my decision to carry - but I have a feeling anywhere you could curtail it you would.
Originally Posted by endurance

We definitely differ as to whether gun free zones save lives. A few years ago two guys got into an argument in a strip club in NE Austin where obviously guns are banned and neither was carrying a gun. The argument recurred in the parking lot where there was no such ban and one of the guys went into his vehicle, got his gun, and killed the other guy. Gun free zone worked. The only way we would know if a gun free zone worked is under such a scenario. Your opinion seems to be that if no one is killed in a gun free zone it is simply a coincidence and has nothing to do with the policy. I disagree.

Yes, I do chime in on gun control issues because there is so much crap put out on the issue by certain groups, some of which is outright lies and some of which is simply misleading. One such past stated compared Honduras against Switzerland, stating Honduras had a very high homicide rate and guns were banned, and Switzerland had a very low homicide rate where gun ownership was required. Guns are not banned in Honduras and guns are not required in Switzerland. Another had a "quote" by Hillary Clinton that she wanted all guns banned. She never said anything like that. So yes, when I see posts like that, I react.

Let's put it this way. I prefer to be in gun free environments. But when I am in public places I simply don't think about who may or may not have a gun on them. I do not search out establishments that ban handguns. 99.99999% of the law-abiding citizens who carry guns will never commit a crime with those guns. On rare occasions people run into criminals who have guns whose intents are to commit a crime. I honestly do not worry about either. Earlier this week I read an article about several establishments in Austin that either have or are planning to post 30.07 signs in their windows. I definitely favor that policy. Out of sight, out of mind.