Why property owners post 30.06 or gunbusters

[mr.72]

I am starting a new thread instead of hijacking the old one, but this was in the "Active Shooter Response" thread:

The other interesting thing was that the mall was posted as a "gun free" zone, so law abiding CHL holders would not have been able to carry. The only folks who could were LEO's and the shooter, who, as usual, didn't find the signs to be a significant impediment.

Many commercial establishment owners have yet to realize that posting their property to prohibit CHL carry actually decreases safety on their premises.

I think these property owners actually think they are increasing safety on their premises because, like most people, they don't understand why a person would want to carry a gun if they don't already have plans on using it. You know the typical response we all get when someone we know who has not really considered gun ownership or CHL: "Why do you need to carry a gun?!?!" Well I think property owners are no different. They don't see the need for someone to have a gun with them at all times, they only realize the need to have a gun if you are up to no good, or you are presently under some kind of threat. The fact that you cannot predict when that threat might arise is something they have not considered.

The other thing is, I think most business or commercial property owners who have no-guns policies get hung up on one simple piece of math: if no guns are on our property, then no gun can be shot accidentally or under negligence. No person who might use a gun for malicious purposes can find or steal a gun if nobody has one with them. So they figure, the fewer guns on the property, the lower the likelihood of anyone ever being shot. Now, of course this is rooted in the same idealism as my first argument above. That is, they don't really consider that a CHL holder or other regular citizen may be able to safely carry a gun without creating a risk that an accident is more likely.

Anyway, I think trying to understand what is really going on and learn to communicate or message better is more useful than simply labeling these people or businesses as "anti" and being hostile towards them. We need to be able to educate people that armed citizens do not increase the risk of accidents.

But still some business owners will fire an employee who thwarts a robbery or shoots a bad guy to defend their life if that business has a no-guns policy. It's kind of like, they'd rather not have the standing issue of armed employees and take on the risk of armed gunmen or armed robbery etc. They view the risk or consequences of accidents from law-abiding citizens (employees or customers) as being greater than the risk or consequences of crime. There is a common refrain that normal people don't really trust non-LEOs with guns.

Thoughts?

[WildBill]

It's hard to say why "most" business owners post. I think you would have to ask them. I would think that "most" are owned by a corporation and that the local managers and business operators don't really have a choice. Just go to any mall in the country and you see the same faceless soulless businesses cut out from cookie cutters.

What if you assume that property owners have the same knowledge, data and understanding that you have and aren't just ignorant or ill informed? Regardless of any statistics or safety data, maybe they just don't want guns on their property? By law, that is their right.

For a small independently owned business, think about armed people coming into your house. Do you want someone you don't know coming into your home with a concealed weapon? If they are a stranger to you, does it matter if they have a CHL?

Maybe the ghostbuster signs give customers a sense of security. Is that not a legitimate purpose?

Maybe a ghostbuster sign will prevent some people from illegally carrying on their business. Isn't that a legitimate purpose?

It is like putting up a no trespassing sign on your property. Some people will obey it and some won't. I can't believe that you wouldn't post the sign just because some people will ignore it. Whether or not the sign makes your property "safe from trespassers" is not relevant. You are just stating your desire that uninvited people "Keep Out."

[SlowDave]

I think it's pretty simple in their minds. If I post that guns are not allowed, then there will be no guns here, and no one will ever get shot. The ridiculousness to me is that if the Bad Guy (BG) is considering a crime in a no-guns zone, for example armed robbery or murder, then there's already a law against that. And the penalties for those crimes are much higher than for carrying a gun in a gun-free zone. So it is of course insane to think that someone is walking up to a business establishment with their gun in their pocket to commit armed robbery, but they then see the 30.06 sign and they turn around and go home mumbling, "Dang that 30.06 sign!"

There may be additional thought behind this, like "if I don't allow guns here, no (well-meaning) person will come in with a gun and then fly off the handle because of some event and start shooting." Of course, the statistics on crimes by CHL holders don't back this up, but I think most people putting up these signs aren't doing a lot of study but rather basing decisions on emotion.

I think if you just talked to individuals who had the power to do something about their signs and asked them, "Do you think your sign is going to deter a person who is planning to commit an armed crime from bringing a gun in here?" they might at least consider the insanity of that line of thought.

[atxgun]

For a small independently owned business, think about armed people coming into your house. Do you want someone you don't know coming into your home with a concealed weapon? If they are a stranger to you, does it matter if they have a CHL?

Sure, I'd always prefer to be the one that's better armed. But if for some reason I knew they had a CHL I would not care as I would not they are not a felon, yada yada yada.

Maybe the ghostbuster signs give customers a sense of security. Is that not a legitimate purpose?

Legitimate purpose? A false sense of security and be worse than a sense of insecurity. However I'm sure some would use the "sense of security" "logic" anyway.

Maybe a ghostbuster sign will prevent some people from illegally carrying on their business. Isn't that a legitimate purpose?

I would imagine anyone that would be deterred by one of those signs is someone that would not cause any harm to begin with.

[WildBill]

Maybe the ghostbuster signs give customers a sense of security. Is that not a legitimate purpose?

Legitimate purpose? A false sense of security and be worse than a sense of insecurity. However I'm sure some would use the "sense of security" "logic" anyway.

Does putting up a sign that says "This Premises Protected by ABC Alarm" promote false security? Probably, but I don't see a problem posting it.

Maybe a ghostbuster sign will prevent some people from illegally carrying on their business. Isn't that a legitimate purpose?

I would imagine anyone that would be deterred by one of those signs is someone that would not cause any harm to begin with.

That's not my point. If the goal is to deter people from illegally carrying that has nothing to do with whether or not they are likely to do harm.

[ForTehNguyen]

ask them why do they need to carry an airbag in their car. Would you leave your house without your airbags?

[WildBill]

ask them why do they need to carry an airbag in their car. Would you leave your house without your airbags?

Federal law requires airbags in cars. I have no idea what you are talking about.

[fredtubbs]

Since getting my CHL I have started paying close attention to every business that I enter. I have yet to see a single 30.06 sign (except at the Houston gun shows). I've seen a lot of 'unlicensed possesion of a firearm is phrohibited' signs. I know the 30.06 signs are out there, and I've looked at the 30.06 postings website a few times, but I just don't see a lot of them.

Are there more than I think?

[Oldgringo]

... Are there more than I think?

Check 'em out:
http://www.texas3006.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I expect that the list could grow exponentially if "Open Carry" passes.

[tarkus]

There are a couple of reasons property owners post 30.06 signs.

1. They have a bias against guns.

2. They have a bias against people who passed a background check.

3. They were tricked into posting the sign by hate groups like the Brady Campaign.

4. They were told to post the sign by somebody who has authority or influence over them.

[srothstein]

I think many of you are making the classic mistake of attributing to evil that which is truly caused by ignorance.

Some property owners (either as individuals or corporations) may truly have a bias against guns. My opinion is that many more have a bias in favor of profit. One of the bigger threats to profit is a lawsuit based on negligence. Tort cases are based on what is a foreseeable event and what action you took to prevent it. Is it foreseeable that a person may be injured in a shooting on your property? What action, if any, did you take to prevent this injury? It really is that simple.

If I post banning guns, I have taken a reasonable action that will help prevent any accidental injury by firearms. This will also prevent injury by employees who lose their temper since I have some control over them. It will not prevent the injury by people who are not obeying my rules, but I have no way to do that so I took all of the reasonable action I could.

This is why malls have security guards but most individual smaller stores do not. The larger the business, the larger the chance of a criminal doing something. Thus, the more they need to show as preventative actions.

This is why I think the best answer to private property postings is to make changes to the tort law. If we explicitly state that a person is responsible for any injury to a CHL that might have been prevented if he had been allowed to carry on his own, businesses would post less frequently. This is why they fight this type of law - they do not want explicit liability given to them and they can argue the liability with the law the way it is now.

[mr.72]

I think many of you are making the classic mistake of attributing to evil that which is truly caused by ignorance.

BINGO!

If we keep on insisting that they are biased or "anti-gun" then we will never be able to communicate in a meaningful way.

You are right on, Steve. Thanks for the thoughtful reply.

[boomerang]

I think many of you are making the classic mistake of attributing to evil that which is truly caused by ignorance.

Some property owners (either as individuals or corporations) may truly have a bias against guns. My opinion is that many more have a bias in favor of profit. One of the bigger threats to profit is a lawsuit based on negligence. Tort cases are based on what is a foreseeable event and what action you took to prevent it. Is it foreseeable that a person may be injured in a shooting on your property? What action, if any, did you take to prevent this injury? It really is that simple.

We know robberies and rapes and murders happen. That's foreseeable. If a business posts 30.06 and someone with a CHL disarms and is unable to fight back, that was foreseeable. Therefore the business owner should be held liable for intentionally and knowingly disarming the victim.

This is why I think the best answer to private property postings is to make changes to the tort law. If we explicitly state that a person is responsible for any injury to a CHL that might have been prevented if he had been allowed to carry on his own, businesses would post less frequently. This is why they fight this type of law - they do not want explicit liability given to them and they can argue the liability with the law the way it is now.

Yes. That's one of the things that would be great for 2009. Businesses have the right to prohibit someone with a CHL from carrying a handgun but they should be held responsible for doing so, just like they should be held responsible if they ban someone with asthma from carrying an inhaler.

[Oldgringo]

I think many of you are making the classic mistake of attributing to evil that which is truly caused by ignorance.

Some property owners (either as individuals or corporations) may truly have a bias against guns. My opinion is that many more have a bias in favor of profit. One of the bigger threats to profit is a lawsuit based on negligence. Tort cases are based on what is a foreseeable event and what action you took to prevent it. Is it foreseeable that a person may be injured in a shooting on your property? What action, if any, did you take to prevent this injury? It really is that simple.

If I post banning guns, I have taken a reasonable action that will help prevent any accidental injury by firearms. This will also prevent injury by employees who lose their temper since I have some control over them. It will not prevent the injury by people who are not obeying my rules, but I have no way to do that so I took all of the reasonable action I could.

This is why malls have security guards but most individual smaller stores do not. The larger the business, the larger the chance of a criminal doing something. Thus, the more they need to show as preventative actions.

This is why I think the best answer to private property postings is to make changes to the tort law. If we explicitly state that a person is responsible for any injury to a CHL that might have been prevented if he had been allowed to carry on his own, businesses would post less frequently. This is why they fight this type of law - they do not want explicit liability given to them and they can argue the liability with the law the way it is now.

The subject is money and lawyers; it is not about guns and it certainly isn't about public safety.

[WildBill]

This is why I think the best answer to private property postings is to make changes to the tort law. If we explicitly state that a person is responsible for any injury to a CHL that might have been prevented if he had been allowed to carry on his own, businesses would post less frequently. This is why they fight this type of law - they do not want explicit liability given to them and they can argue the liability with the law the way it is now.

Just on legal principle, I just can't see how this is possible. How can you hold a person liable for an injury that is caused by a third party that you could not be reasonably predict? It would be like suing the government because you got attacked in a post office and you couldn't defend yourself.

I think that because this topic boils down to a discussion about guns, it is hard to be logical and objective.