"What Kind of fool are you?"

[Bapak2ja]

Sniper Co in Ft. Wayne has a sign that states "No loaded firearms, unless in a holster". (Or close to that wording)
Sounds like a good policy to me.

Gander Mountain in Fort Wayne has a similar sign. For once, I appreciate something about GM.

 

[Bapak2ja]

Meh.
If you're traveling a little north, come visit us. We don't have that sign, and would appreciate the back up if things went hinky or bad.
Now on the other hand, if you needlessly draw your loaded carry and start fiddling around with it, you will incur MonkeyWrath that hell's fury cannot match.

Well said.

 

[JetGirl]

Just to clarify; That *wink* ^ does NOT mean that I've yelled at Bapak2ja.
Although he may have witnessed it...I am not sure.
He didn't post the "", so I'm guessing maybe not?

 

[Thegeek]

Because that is the same as a gun shop not not supporting your rights.

You do realize you can call the police from OUTSIDE the building right? Ive also never seen a sign posted outside any attourney.

We are talking about a GUN shop, that sells weapons for carry and probably allows their staff to carry, that wont allow the people that patronize them to carry.

Police/courthouses were probably a bad example. So, I suppose you never fly then, or order/use goods from states where you're not allowed to carry. I believe most hospitals have "no weapons" policies as well.

I still have to side with the gun shops on this one. They're the only business with a valid reason to ask patrons not to carry.

 

[Scutter01]

So far, I've only heard three reasons for the signs:

1) Some vague "insurance" boogeyman.
2) Some vague "lawyer" boogeyman.
3) Goobers who can't stop finger-****ing their carry gun in public.

#1 and #2 are obviously non-starters. Gander, Dicks, and a whole host of LGSs do not have signs prohibiting carry, so telling me "the insurance company made them" is baloney. You made up that reason because it sounds logical to you, but it has no actual basis in fact, so please stop spreading that lie.

As for #3, there are plenty of stories RIGHT IN THIS THREAD of people showing unsafe handling of loaded guns in stores (both with and without the sign). That means that the sign is not working. The people who are keeping it holstered ignore the sign, by their own admission. The people who can't handle a gun safely are ignoring the sign, by the admission of the gun store employees. So, I ask yet again, WHY HAVE THE SIGN? The only purpose is serves is to **** off and alienate potential customers. It does NOTHING to make a gun store safer. NOTHING. It makes ZERO logical sense to have a sign up at all.

 

[JetGirl]

It does NOTHING to make a gun store safer. NOTHING. It makes ZERO logical sense to have a sign up at all.

Because...

Right?

 

[indytechnerd]

Here's your sign:

I have carried open and concealed into Bradis I and II, with nary a problem. When last I bought a holster in BII, I ensured that after I fit checked it AT HOME, that I could return it if there was a problem. I would not, EVER, unholster my carry weapon to fit check a holster.

 

[richardraw316]

So far, I've only heard three reasons for the signs:

1) Some vague "insurance" boogeyman.
2) Some vague "lawyer" boogeyman.
3) Goobers who can't stop finger-****ing their carry gun in public.

#1 and #2 are obviously non-starters. Gander, Dicks, and a whole host of LGSs do not have signs prohibiting carry, so telling me "the insurance company made them" is baloney. You made up that reason because it sounds logical to you, but it has no actual basis in fact, so please stop spreading that lie.

As for #3, there are plenty of stories RIGHT IN THIS THREAD of people showing unsafe handling of loaded guns in stores (both with and without the sign). That means that the sign is not working. The people who are keeping it holstered ignore the sign, by their own admission. The people who can't handle a gun safely are ignoring the sign, by the admission of the gun store employees. So, I ask yet again, WHY HAVE THE SIGN? The only purpose is serves is to **** off and alienate potential customers. It does NOTHING to make a gun store safer. NOTHING. It makes ZERO logical sense to have a sign up at all.

I have never heard of any accidental discharges at bradis, and they have been in business for years. That's one way to say the sign does work. I understand your logic on this one, but I have to agree with the lgs. Its worked for years, one person upset, should not change that.

 

[Scutter01]

I have never heard of any accidental discharges at bradis, and they have been in business for years. That's one way to say the sign does work. I understand your logic on this one, but I have to agree with the lgs. Its worked for years, one person upset, should not change that.

A sign won't stop an accidental discharge and it changes nothing about what I said. Bradis employees have said numerous times that they witness dangerous gun handling in their store on a regular basis. The sign clearly does nothing. Your argument does not refute (or even address) any of my points.

 

[grasshopperlegs]

So what is the big Deal ?

 

[Scutter01]

So what is the big Deal ?

There are 189 posts in this thread that explain what the big deal is.

 

[cosermann]

... The only purpose [a sign] serves is to **** off and alienate potential customers. It does NOTHING to make a gun store safer. NOTHING. It makes ZERO logical sense to have a sign up at all.

QFT.

 

[chezuki]

Then why have the sign?


Why will no one answer this question?

Ok, here's is my opinion of why they have the sign. AANAL, I don't work at/own a gun shop, and I did NOT stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.

It's a CYA move on the part of the shop. Its usually not enforced because, come on, its a gun shop and that would be ridiculous.

With that said, if there ever were an incident involving a N/D causing injury or damage, the sign could be used as evidence to the liability to the person who violated a conspicuously posted company policy rather than the buisness where the incident occurred.

 

[Scutter01]

With that said, if there ever were an incident involving a N/D causing injury or damage, the sign could be used as evidence to the liability to the person who violated a conspicuously posted company policy rather than the buisness where the incident occurred.

Ah, the "lawyer" boogeyman again. Not buying it. Show me case law that the sign will have some effect on reducing liability and maybe I'll start to believe it. The fact that the sign is not enforced in any way pretty much destroys that theory. Any good attorney could bring up witness after witness who could say that they were allowed to carry in spite of the sign.

 

[reesez]

Why doesnt someone just ask the shop? lol

 

[richardraw316]

A sign won't stop an accidental discharge and it changes nothing about what I said. Bradis employees have said numerous times that they witness dangerous gun handling in their store on a regular basis. The sign clearly does nothing. Your argument does not refute (or even address) any of my points.

i believe my arguement does.
their is alot of dangerous gun handling in their store. with out the sign, quite often those weapons would be loaded and handled that way. the sign is not going to stop everybody, but hopefully people will read it, and at least make a mental note to leave their loaded weapon in the holster. if they want to show it off, then it had better be empty.
the sign says No loaded firearms. if they changed it to keep all firearms holstered, someone would break that rule, they would ask them to leave, and then we would have another person on here crying about they were mistreated, and all butt hurt because some one asked them to follow the rules.
lgs cant please everyone. they change the sign, someone wont like the new one. no sign and someone will try to sue when something bad happens and they will blame the lgs.

 

[richardraw316]

Ah, the "lawyer" boogeyman again. Not buying it. Show me case law that the sign will have some effect on reducing liability and maybe I'll start to believe it. The fact that the sign is not enforced in any way pretty much destroys that theory. Any good attorney could bring up witness after witness who could say that they were allowed to carry in spite of the sign.

would that be like no tresspassing, beware of dog, or ford parking only?
ok maybe not the last one, but there have been cases where someone breaks into a house, the dog eats them, and they sue, and win.

we are talking about a country were mcdonalds gets sued because the coffee cup did not say caution coffee hot. These moron are the reason the sign is there.
dont blame the gun store, blame stupid people.

 

[MikeDVB]

Scutter,

Your question has been answered and quite frankly you simply don't like the answer. I don't think further discussion is going to change your mind or make it any clearer for you.

At the end of the day it's up to you to obey the sign [or not] and to discuss the sign with the owner of the shop [or not] as well as to patronize [or not] any shop that has the sign.

If you believe what they tell you, that's fine. If you choose not to believe it - that's fine too but I really don't see an epiphany being posted where suddenly it all makes sense and all of your questions are unequivocally answered.

All of that said ... /me unsubscribe

Best of luck.

 

[IndyGunSafety]

Gander Mountain, Dick's, and Indy Gun Safety all have acceptable signs as well. If it were really an insurance issue, you can bet stores like Gander Mountain would have different signs.

It's not a lawyer OR an insurance issue. It's a FREEDOM issue! We choose to let people carry and warn them to keep it in the holster. In fact out sign says:

Scutter01 Says:

Keep your loaded handgun in its holster you goober!

 

[actaeon277]

What kind of fool are you?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x0ow4X8tiMI