Archived Target Waffles on Guns in Stores

[The Dude Abides]

I am referring to public open carry in general. If no one is calling the police until you are already on school grounds then it's too late.

Not to mention, when I was in school at least we had on-campus police not sure why that's such a problem to get done everywhere else.

 

[Barcode]

and for every one instance of self defense five guns are stolen in this country and for every one instance of self defense there are 49 criminal uses of guns.

And the criminals are still going to use guns whether we ban them or not.

Except then they could be arrested and punished simply for carrying the weapon instead of us having to wait until they shoot up an elementary school. One solution is proactive the other is reactive.

Schools are gun free zones! And they still get shot up. And thanks to your "solution" nobody is ever able to stop the shooter until many kids are already shot.

Well, who would carry the guns at the schools? The kids? They already do apparently. I'm sure it's forbidden (like it is at spot) for school employees also.

Gun laws really have nothing to do with making schools more secure, if anything it comes down to having adequate security for our children (on duty police, etc.)

At my high school (which wasn't even a high risk school), we had an on-duty police officer, and yes they did carry their firearm. I've seen several cases where the on-duty police officer put an end to school shootings.
See: http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiep...ce-officer-stops-shooting-in-georgia-n1502907

A good guy with a gun, stopped a bad guy with a gun. We've been hearing anti-gunners mock the National Rifle Association for weeks after Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre suggested putting an armed guard in every school, clearly he isn't far off the mark. The fact is, armed police officers are already in many of the nation's schools and have been for a very long time. They're used at sporting functions, school dances, as a deterrent for bad behavior and more on a daily basis.

I support conceal and carry, but in general disagree with the NRA. They tend to be the idiots who want to make a parade of their weapons for everyone to see. They do have some good points though.

 

[Red Master]

I am referring to public open carry in general. If no one is calling the police until you are already on school grounds then it's too late.

Not to mention, when I was in school at least we had on-campus police not sure why that's such a problem to get done everywhere else.

Yea because making open carry illegal has worked out so well for places like Chicago, which has the highest murder rate in the country.

I'm all for having armed police officers in schools.

 

[kingpin003]

Maybe it was the area I grew up in, but all 3 of our high schools had a policeman that worked solely on campus. We also had regular practiced "lockdowns" where we treated the school as if there was a gunman and focused on protecting the students. We never had any incidents, and I'd like to think it due to that preparation and proactive response. We didn't wait for something to happen before acknowledging it. I believe Target should operate similarly. We shouldn't wait for a string of armed robberies to consider how to most effectively prevent them.

What is the relative danger going to work in a Target store?

I decided to try to look it up. It's difficult because of course Target doesn't want people to know this data. I managed to find a report that focused on Walmart that included data they had obtained from police departments that they used to compare the two retailers. Unsurprisingly, Target was considerably more safe and had less incidents. The 30 Targets closest to the high-risk Walmarts averaged 2 calls to the police per year for violent and serious offenses(assault, robbery, attempted robbery, homicide, kidnapping, rape, and sex crimes) once you factor out the 34% of all calls were to report automotive theft. I wish I could find data straight from Spot about it and get a more holistic view of what Target stores are experiencing. However, I think that looking at areas that Walmart sees the majority of its crime in gives a good sample of where Target might also see that crime occurring.

I'll leave this quote from the study here without comment: "Police reported 8 incidents involving weapons law violations at the 30 Target stores".

 

[Barcode]

Never had a huge incident in my 5 years at spot. Good neighborhoods though.

 

[rns0504]

As for someone's earlier question about team members carrying on duty: I can tell you right now that carrying a firearm on the clock - concealed carry permit or not - is absolutely forbidden. Technically I'm not even allowed to have the pocket knife I keep on me (only Target box cutters) but I would be fired in an instant if I came in packing heat.

I'm the one that started this part. Look at post on the first page quoting the handbook; this is the only thing in the handbook that mentions firearms. Under said policy, I can concealed carry at Target and not break any policies. Now, probably not the best idea and they would find a reason to get rid of you eventually. I talked to the ETLs about it (i know this is over their heads) and they said that if Target were to fire me over it, i could take it to court and win as the way the policy is written I am not breaking any policies. But they strongly recommended against it lol

 

[melvin]

And there are less than 1000 accidental shootings every year. http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybe...he-myths-promoted-by-the-gun-control-lobby/2/

So for every 47 people that use guns for self-defense, only 1 person gets shot accidentally.

I put very little credence into studies like that one. When gun advocates bring up this or John Lott's infamous studies, I often ask, "Tell me, what would you think of a headline tomorrow that reads: '90% of African-Americans have experienced job discrimination' based upon a poll that asks them if they've been discriminated against?" Of course, they dodge the question, but the point remains: Before drawing any sort of conclusions without any kind of third party verification of the facts is foolish. I had someone in my family who was armed and was very fearful and I've known others like this. If you ask them if their guns have prevented crimes from being committed against them, they will almost always answer in the affirmative, because that is their skewed perception. Now, if you have a police report that confirms this, that is a different story, but just asking people if they think their guns have prevented crimes is a very poor means of trying to find out whether guns actually serve as that sort of deterrent. There are certainly many instance in which guns prevent crimes, but I don't buy those numbers for a second, and in the case of John Lott, I think much of that has already been debunked.

 

[melvin]

and for every one instance of self defense five guns are stolen in this country and for every one instance of self defense there are 49 criminal uses of guns.

And the criminals are still going to use guns whether we ban them or not.

That may be true or it may not be true. Right now, it's strictly speculation, as any attempt to ban particular classes of guns in certain states or municipalities is mitigated by the fact that there is invariably a state or city right next door that has no such limitations. A classic example is Chicago, with Indiana (Gary, Hammond) a few miles away, not to mention Wisconsin to the north.

You may indeed be correct, but as of right now in the United States, that's just an oft-repeated slogan by gun interests.

 

[Barcode]

Mods, can we close this thread? This forum is about Target, not politics.

As the OP I also request that this thread be closed. It has been interesting to see the various viewpoints, and I think the discussion has been generally civil and thoughtful, but positions are starting to harden and this could turn into a slugfest.

I second this. Enough is enough

Ditto on this.
It's run its course.

Since this thread has been constructive/respectful debate (for the most part), and remains so, I will be leaving it open. If anyone decides they do not want to participate in this thread any longer, they can bow out individually.

I encourage everyone to utilize the report post feature whenever necessary.

 

[Guest]

Evil people do evil things. If they want to cause death and destruction, they are going to so whatever it takes to succeed. It's but true. I think America should do a better job when it comes to mental health. American society shuns and plays dumb when it comes to the mentally ill. If someone is sick mentally, they need help ASAP.

 

[melvin]

I haven't seen any bubbas carrying any weapons into the store. I honestly don't know why anyone would try to commit a crime at the store I work at. The cops are right down the road, not even 2 blocks away.

I think people that are hardcore when it comes to gun control just don't think their argument through. I mean if you ban all guns then you have to ban anything that can be a weapon which is everything and anything. Anything can be used as a weapon.

Jack, this is at least the second time you've done this, so let me explain what you're doing and why it's terrible way to debate. What you're doing is engaging in what's called a "strawman argument." It's a logical fallacy. A strawman argument is when you invent something that no has argued and then knock it down. In this case, exactly no one has called for all guns to be banned. In fact, I don't know of a single person of any consequence in the United States who has called for all guns to be banned.

Let me illustrate this for you: Suppose I wrote to you, "Why do you want mentally unstable people to carry guns into Target stores?" You would shortly respond that you never argued that such people should be carrying guns into Target stores. That's how others feel when you make up an argument they haven't made and then assign it to them. It's not a productive way of arguing and it ends up undercutting your own case.

 

[Guest]

It's pointless. I will probably get arrested by the thought and word police again. Already happened in another thread. One day, I am going to leave Target behind and never look back. It will be the best day of my life. To finally be out of this hole and be rid of all the pain that this hole has caused me. FYI, the hole is the Target where I work at.

 

[melvin]

and for every one instance of self defense five guns are stolen in this country and for every one instance of self defense there are 49 criminal uses of guns.

And the criminals are still going to use guns whether we ban them or not.

Except then they could be arrested and punished simply for carrying the weapon instead of us having to wait until they shoot up an elementary school. One solution is proactive the other is reactive.

Schools are gun free zones! And they still get shot up. And thanks to your "solution" nobody is ever able to stop the shooter until many kids are already shot.

We also have instances of people sneaking guns into courts and police stations and firing. Does that mean we should lift bans on carrying them into those places?

As to your other contention, let me just share what I've observed over the several decades of my life. I have many faults. I could fill an entire thread. Fortunately, one of them is not reacting poorly in pressure/crisis situations. Unfortunately, I have observed that the vast majority of people do not react well in such situations. They usually freeze or panic. The idea that people who are completely untrained in crisis situations will stop spree shooters and others is one that simply doesn't mesh with what I've observed. We train our law enforcement officers to react properly in such situations. We do not train concealed carry folks. Some may have such training and a small number may be able to respond well in such situations, but I believe the vast majority will not. Someone else in this thread mentioned the poor sod out in Las Vegas who decided he was going to be a hero versus those two nuts, and he ended up dead. He undoubtedly had no training in how to handle such situations. As I've said many times, the very last place I would have wanted to be in that theater in Aurora is next to some wannabe hero.

As a final point, I don't think anyone associated with the school system who has a spot of objectivity and sense wants personnel, be they administrators, teachers, custodians, cooks or anyone else to be walking around with loaded guns. Talk about a recipe for disaster.

 

[melvin]

It's pointless. I will probably get arrested by the thought and word police again. Already happened in another thread. One day, I am going to leave Target behind and never look back. It will be the best day of my life. To finally be out of this hole and be rid of all the pain that this hole has caused me. FYI, the hole is the Target where I work at.

That's fine, but you will again sometime be involved in a debate about a particular issue. Try to remember to avoid using the type of fallacious argument you're using in this thread.

 

[melvin]

Maybe it was the area I grew up in, but all 3 of our high schools had a policeman that worked solely on campus. We also had regular practiced "lockdowns" where we treated the school as if there was a gunman and focused on protecting the students. We never had any incidents, and I'd like to think it due to that preparation and proactive response. We didn't wait for something to happen before acknowledging it. I believe Target should operate similarly. We shouldn't wait for a string of armed robberies to consider how to most effectively prevent them.

What is the relative danger going to work in a Target store?

I decided to try to look it up. It's difficult because of course Target doesn't want people to know this data. I managed to find a report that focused on Walmart that included data they had obtained from police departments that they used to compare the two retailers. Unsurprisingly, Target was considerably more safe and had less incidents. The 30 Targets closest to the high-risk Walmarts averaged 2 calls to the police per year for violent and serious offenses(assault, robbery, attempted robbery, homicide, kidnapping, rape, and sex crimes) once you factor out the 34% of all calls were to report automotive theft. I wish I could find data straight from Spot about it and get a more holistic view of what Target stores are experiencing. However, I think that looking at areas that Walmart sees the majority of its crime in gives a good sample of where Target might also see that crime occurring.

I'll leave this quote from the study here without comment: "Police reported 8 incidents involving weapons law violations at the 30 Target stores".

Your last sentence is key. A rational person would weigh the chances of being a victim of crime at Target versus the risks of carrying the gun to Target in the first place.

Do you recall about ten or twelve years ago when Oprah started a virtual panic among suburban moms with an episode about gas tanks being ignited at gas stations when a spark was somehow generated? It turned out to be a couple cases in several million. In other words, there was really no risk. We do a very poor job of assessing risks in our lives. Some of the same people who will lose sleep over their gas tank exploding at the gas station or being attacked at Target will be oblivious to the actual risks in their lives. For instance, they will choose to drive to that Target on a two-lane highway rather than a little longer trip on a four lane highway, increasing their chances of death perhaps tenfold. Now, most people are rational. This is why so few of them carry guns out in public in the first place. They've weighed the small chance of needing a gun in the vast majority of public settings against the costs and risks of carrying the gun to such places and judged it not worth it.

 

[Red Master]

Maybe it was the area I grew up in, but all 3 of our high schools had a policeman that worked solely on campus. We also had regular practiced "lockdowns" where we treated the school as if there was a gunman and focused on protecting the students. We never had any incidents, and I'd like to think it due to that preparation and proactive response. We didn't wait for something to happen before acknowledging it. I believe Target should operate similarly. We shouldn't wait for a string of armed robberies to consider how to most effectively prevent them.

What is the relative danger going to work in a Target store?

I decided to try to look it up. It's difficult because of course Target doesn't want people to know this data. I managed to find a report that focused on Walmart that included data they had obtained from police departments that they used to compare the two retailers. Unsurprisingly, Target was considerably more safe and had less incidents. The 30 Targets closest to the high-risk Walmarts averaged 2 calls to the police per year for violent and serious offenses(assault, robbery, attempted robbery, homicide, kidnapping, rape, and sex crimes) once you factor out the 34% of all calls were to report automotive theft. I wish I could find data straight from Spot about it and get a more holistic view of what Target stores are experiencing. However, I think that looking at areas that Walmart sees the majority of its crime in gives a good sample of where Target might also see that crime occurring.

I'll leave this quote from the study here without comment: "Police reported 8 incidents involving weapons law violations at the 30 Target stores".

Your last sentence is key. A rational person would weigh the chances of being a victim of crime at Target versus the risks of carrying the gun to Target in the first place.

Do you recall about ten or twelve years ago when Oprah started a virtual panic among suburban moms with an episode about gas tanks being ignited at gas stations when a spark was somehow generated? It turned out to be a couple cases in several million. In other words, there was really no risk. We do a very poor job of assessing risks in our lives. Some of the same people who will lose sleep over their gas tank exploding at the gas station or being attacked at Target will be oblivious to the actual risks in their lives. For instance, they will choose to drive to that Target on a two-lane highway rather than a little longer trip on a four lane highway, increasing their chances of death perhaps tenfold. Now, most people are rational. This is why so few of them carry guns out in public in the first place. They've weighed the small chance of needing a gun in the vast majority of public settings against the costs and risks of carrying the gun to such places and judged it not worth it.

For me, what are the risks of me carrying a gun into Target? As I have said before, gun owners are not paranoid. They do not lose sleep over what they think may happen to them at Target the next day. They are simply prepared just in case something bad does happen. I think most of us would agree that there is almost no risk in going to a movie theater, yet one in Aurora still got shot up and people died. No I don't think that someone is going to walk in my store tomorrow and shoot up the place, but I can guarantee you that the victims in Aurora didn't think that was going to happen there either, but it did. All it takes is one homicidal mania. People that carry do not do it because they are paranoid or want to be heroes, they carry because they believe that it would be better to have a gun and not need it, than to need a gun and not have it.

 

[Barcode]

Maybe it was the area I grew up in, but all 3 of our high schools had a policeman that worked solely on campus. We also had regular practiced "lockdowns" where we treated the school as if there was a gunman and focused on protecting the students. We never had any incidents, and I'd like to think it due to that preparation and proactive response. We didn't wait for something to happen before acknowledging it. I believe Target should operate similarly. We shouldn't wait for a string of armed robberies to consider how to most effectively prevent them.

What is the relative danger going to work in a Target store?

I decided to try to look it up. It's difficult because of course Target doesn't want people to know this data. I managed to find a report that focused on Walmart that included data they had obtained from police departments that they used to compare the two retailers. Unsurprisingly, Target was considerably more safe and had less incidents. The 30 Targets closest to the high-risk Walmarts averaged 2 calls to the police per year for violent and serious offenses(assault, robbery, attempted robbery, homicide, kidnapping, rape, and sex crimes) once you factor out the 34% of all calls were to report automotive theft. I wish I could find data straight from Spot about it and get a more holistic view of what Target stores are experiencing. However, I think that looking at areas that Walmart sees the majority of its crime in gives a good sample of where Target might also see that crime occurring.

I'll leave this quote from the study here without comment: "Police reported 8 incidents involving weapons law violations at the 30 Target stores".

Your last sentence is key. A rational person would weigh the chances of being a victim of crime at Target versus the risks of carrying the gun to Target in the first place.

Do you recall about ten or twelve years ago when Oprah started a virtual panic among suburban moms with an episode about gas tanks being ignited at gas stations when a spark was somehow generated? It turned out to be a couple cases in several million. In other words, there was really no risk. We do a very poor job of assessing risks in our lives. Some of the same people who will lose sleep over their gas tank exploding at the gas station or being attacked at Target will be oblivious to the actual risks in their lives. For instance, they will choose to drive to that Target on a two-lane highway rather than a little longer trip on a four lane highway, increasing their chances of death perhaps tenfold. Now, most people are rational. This is why so few of them carry guns out in public in the first place. They've weighed the small chance of needing a gun in the vast majority of public settings against the costs and risks of carrying the gun to such places and judged it not worth it.

Very well thought out and presented....

Just like some people (me) are scared of flying, yet it is safer than getting in my car everyday and driving to work lol

 

[Red Master]

And the criminals are still going to use guns whether we ban them or not.

Except then they could be arrested and punished simply for carrying the weapon instead of us having to wait until they shoot up an elementary school. One solution is proactive the other is reactive.

Schools are gun free zones! And they still get shot up. And thanks to your "solution" nobody is ever able to stop the shooter until many kids are already shot.

We also have instances of people sneaking guns into courts and police stations and firing. Does that mean we should lift bans on carrying them into those places?

As to your other contention, let me just share what I've observed over the several decades of my life. I have many faults. I could fill an entire thread. Fortunately, one of them is not reacting poorly in pressure/crisis situations. Unfortunately, I have observed that the vast majority of people do not react well in such situations. They usually freeze or panic. The idea that people who are completely untrained in crisis situations will stop spree shooters and others is one that simply doesn't mesh with what I've observed. We train our law enforcement officers to react properly in such situations. We do not train concealed carry folks. Some may have such training and a small number may be able to respond well in such situations, but I believe the vast majority will not. Someone else in this thread mentioned the poor sod out in Las Vegas who decided he was going to be a hero versus those two nuts, and he ended up dead. He undoubtedly had no training in how to handle such situations. As I've said many times, the very last place I would have wanted to be in that theater in Aurora is next to some wannabe hero.

As a final point, I don't think anyone associated with the school system who has a spot of objectivity and sense wants personnel, be they administrators, teachers, custodians, cooks or anyone else to be walking around with loaded guns. Talk about a recipe for disaster.

If places like courts and police stations are still getting shot up, then what's the point of the ban?

I'm sorry, but your "observations" do not line up with the facts.

Schools get shot up all the time. Why would you not want someone armed in the school to defend the kids?

 

[The Dude Abides]

because people don't want schools turning into the OK Corrall. It's one thing to have a police officer on a school campus, but I don't think having the janitor packing heat is a great idea.

 

[Red Master]

The fact is that gun bans of all kinds have been tried, and they haven't worked. They haven't worked in individual buildings like schools or courts, they haven't worked when put in place in cities like Chicago, and they haven't worked when instituted in entire countries like Australia. So why does anybody think that a gun ban would work any better in Target?

 

[The Dude Abides]

The fact is that gun bans of all kinds have been tried, and they haven't worked. They haven't worked in individual buildings like schools or courts, they haven't worked when put in place in cities like Chicago, and they haven't worked when instituted in entire countries like Australia. So why does anybody think that a gun ban would work any better in Target?

Australia is demonstrably false. Since the government started pushing major gun legislation through in the mid-90s gun deaths in Australia has fallen roughly 75% and has been steadily declining over the years. The others you have mentioned were addressed very clearly by Melvin.

 

[Cel]

Schools get shot up all the time. Why would you not want someone armed in the school to defend the kids?

I would. A police officer who is (hopefully...) trained to use their weapon, but also to minimize risks to bystanders, verbal de-escalation techniques, possibly equipped with less-lethal weapons such as a taser, and is trained to utilize a weapon judiciously and as safely as possible when faced with an armed gunman. Not a janitor who took a 2 week concealed carry class and has never shot anything but targets and animals. I don't necessarily begrudge people their right to carry weapons, as in my state it's well within their legal rights, but that doesn't necessarily mean that I think it's a great idea.

 

[Red Master]

because people don't want schools turning into the OK Corrall. It's one thing to have a police officer on a school campus, but I don't think having the janitor packing heat is a great idea.

So institute a program In schools where school employees such as janitors, teachers and principles can carry at the school, but first the must go through mandatory firearms training similar to what cops go through.

 

[The Dude Abides]

because people don't want schools turning into the OK Corrall. It's one thing to have a police officer on a school campus, but I don't think having the janitor packing heat is a great idea.

So institute a program In schools where school employees such as janitors, teachers and principles can carry at the school, but first the must go through mandatory firearms training similar to what cops go through.

Or just do what my and many other schools did and have a police officer on campus. My high school had an on-campus police officer every single day of the school year. We never had any problems with weapons at school.

 

[Guest]

I know some of you will hate this being said but you can't stop evil. The only way you could do that is you could take away human emotion.