Maybe I'm wrong, but I get the impression that some here take my previous post on this matter to mean that I was criticizing or blaming the two Good Samaritans for the tragic outcome of this event. If that is the case, let me clarify: that is NOT he case, at all. I am NOT blaming or criticizing in any way either of the two Good Samaritans for the tragedy that occurred. The fault for all that happened there lies totally, completely, unquestionably at the feet of the two armed robbers who chose to break the law - no one else.
What I was trying to say in my previous post was simply that I believe
if not most, business owners, given the choice, would prefer that a robber make a clean getaway, rather
than a customer or innocent bystander take any action to intervene in (just) a robbery when that intervention may put them at risk of being injured or killed by trying to stop that robbery.
I believe that is the idea behind some businesses posting 30.06 signs. I do NOT believe that most
business owners are so stupid as to believe that posting a sign will prevent them being robbed. I DO believe that most business owners ARE smart enough to know that most armed robbers simply want to get the money and leave, as quickly as possible. That business owner knows that if he can prevent a gunfight between a robber and a Good Samaritan inside his store, that he (the business owner) will come out ahead.
I didn't say I agreed with that idea. I didn't say I thought that was a good idea, or was the right thing to do. It's just my opinion of why some business owners may prohibit legal carry of firearms in their store.
Just sharing ideas. Take it for what it's worth.
I will say again: prayers lifted for those involved in this event.
I hope that clears up any confusion about my previous post, if there was any.