Here's another victim zone!!

[RoundRock_Gun_Fan]

Everytime I drive by this location ( Round Rock off 79 ) I always have a good laugh. Why do people think this works? I guess all the businesses in the strip mall agreed to the feel good ban. Crazy

RR

[TXGLOCK23]

May as well put the all robbers and BGs welcome sign on there too. Easy pickins!

[Snake Doctor]

Everytime I drive by this location ( Round Rock off 79 ) I always have a good laugh. Why do people think this works? I guess all the businesses in the strip mall agreed to the feel good ban. Crazy

RR

Never ceases to amaze me...

[DoubleJ]

whaddya think? HiPower, or a Beretta?

[Big Calhoun]

whaddya think? HiPower, or a Beretta?

If you ask me, I'd say Beretta. Most signs, to me, look like Beretta 92s.

[Bevotex]

Isn't that the same strip with the 7-11 at the east end?? I haven't been there since the tamale factory closed...

[Sangiovese]

Seems to me that depending on criminals to voluntarily follow the law (or in this case... a legally meaningless sign) is an exercise in futility.

But then again, I'm a "gun nut" - and I hear that common sense is a fairly common side effect of the affliction.

[stevie_d_64]

whaddya think? HiPower, or a Beretta?

I say No Habla...

There is better "e. coli" down the road...

[RoundRock_Gun_Fan]

Bevotex,

Yep that is the place! I guess since the police station is about a block away, they think the cops will get there fast enough.

[AEA]

How far is the donut shop?

Either way, they cannot get there at 850fps!

[TX Rancher]

I’m with you and agree the sign is useless, but not because BG’s will ignore it. I think it’s useless because it’s not effective against who they are actually targeting, which is the law abiding citizen who wants to carry.

I think the distinction is important since we law abiding citizens who believe in the 2nd amendment tend to use the argument “But the criminal will not abide by the sign� argument to debunk the signs.

But when I have stopped and talked to the folks that have posted the signs, and they have been willing to discuss it, I typically get one of the following general categories as the answer:

“It’s a liability thing� …Very hard to verify since the person I’m talking to at the time has never actually seen the clause in their insurance, it’s more a perceived thing. Of course they could just be using this as an excuse to avoid a real discussion.

“I’m just following corporate policy�…Without knowing the reason behind why the corporation is anti-gun, this is a dry well type discussion. I suspect if you pushed the HR folks, it would probably degrade to the liability argument, but I freely admit I don’t know. By the way, not all “corporations� are anti. My ranch operations are under the corporation umbrella, and not only do we encourage carry, we allow paid time off to get and maintain a CHL.

“I don’t want anyone else other than me armed�… This one was at Red’s Guns in Austin and we’ve had folks say the same thing here on this forum. To me this is another case of the “Us vs. Them� mentality.

And last, but not least, the “Guns are dangerous and no one needs to carry them� argument. Suffice it to say, I don’t buy into that argument at all.

But the point is I have never had anyone allude to the belief the signage will have any impact on criminals. The folks putting up these signs are not that stupid.

If their intent was to stop criminals, they would post “No Criminal Activity Allowed� type signs, just like they do for “No Soliciting�, in other words they target the specific activity they want to bar, and I believe their target is “guns� and not “criminals� in this case.

When we have discussions with these folks, I think we would get a lot farther if we kept that in mind. Attacking their intelligence by implying they’re too stupid to realize a guy who is willing to shoot a cashier for $100 from the register is not going to be deterred by a sign is not conducive to changing their point of view…How do you respond when folks imply you’re stupid? Do you immediately open your mind up to listening to their point of view?

Address the concern, which I believe is they feel a gun in your possession is dangerous…I'm not saying they will listen, but the odds you get through to them will improve.

[AEA]

Interesting thoughts and I agree with all.......

However, personally I just drive on. I don't have the time or patience to deal with them.

Maybe after someone gets shot and killed in the parking lot or in one of the stores, they will reconsider their sign.

[OnTexasTime]

“It’s a liability thing�

I wonder whether the strip center owner or the businesses decided it was a good idea to advertise it to everybody driving by that guns should not be on the property? Are we free to assume they provide security? Are we free to hold the property owner and the businesses liable if we are injured because they did not insure that people were obeying their sign?

[TX Rancher]

“It’s a liability thing�

I wonder whether the strip center owner or the businesses decided it was a good idea to advertise it to everybody driving by that guns should not be on the property? Are we free to assume they provide security? Are we free to hold the property owner and the businesses liable if we are injured because they did not insure that people were obeying their sign?

I’m not a legal eagle, but I suspect you would have a very hard time making that stick, especially since I don’t believe they are inferring any additional level of safety or protection from the criminal element.

It would be kind of like you posting your property No Trespassing and while someone is visiting your home a BG enters the property and robs them. I think they would have a hard time holding you responsible just because you posted it…Others on the forum disagree with me.

[TX Rancher]

“It’s a liability thing�

I wonder whether the strip center owner or the businesses decided it was a good idea to advertise it to everybody driving by that guns should not be on the property? Are we free to assume they provide security? Are we free to hold the property owner and the businesses liable if we are injured because they did not insure that people were obeying their sign?

I’m not a legal eagle, but I suspect you would have a very hard time making that stick, especially since I don’t believe they are inferring any additional level of safety or protection from the criminal element.

It would be kind of like you posting your property No Trespassing and while someone is visiting your home a BG enters the property and robs them. I think they would have a hard time holding you responsible just because you posted it…Others on the forum disagree with me.