Target's Request That Stores Be Gun Free Misses the Bullseye

Apparently Target has not had enough to do in dealing with one of the greatest data security breaches in history.  Now, they have decided to create some more excitement by insulting lawful gun owners and possibly creating a physical security breach in their stores. 

Here is the the July 2, 2014 announcement from Target.

"Target Addresses Firearms in Stores"
Every day at Target, in everything we do, we ask ourselves what is right for our guests? We make all of our decisions with that question in mind. Questions have circulated in recent weeks around Target’s policy on the “open carry” of firearms in its stores. Today, interim CEO, John Mulligan, shared the following note with our Target team members. We wanted you to hear this update from us, too.

The leadership team has been weighing a complex issue, and I want to be sure everyone understands our thoughts and ultimate decision.

As you’ve likely seen in the media, there has been a debate about whether guests in communities that permit “open carry” should be allowed to bring firearms into Target stores. Our approach has always been to follow local laws, and of course, we will continue to do so. But starting today we will also respectfully request that guests not bring firearms to Target – even in communities where it is permitted by law.

We’ve listened carefully to the nuances of this debate and respect the protected rights of everyone involved. In return, we are asking for help in fulfilling our goal to create an atmosphere that is safe and inviting for our guests and team members.

This is a complicated issue, but it boils down to a simple belief: Bringing firearms to Target creates an environment that is at odds with the family-friendly shopping and work experience we strive to create.

Now, Target stores are private property, so Target is well within its rights to ask that guns not to be brought into their stores, but this is a bad business move.  To appease some irrational hoplophobic customers, Target is angering others by treating gun owners like deviants.  At the moment, we still have a Second Amendment in America, and, in states where that right is acknowledged, people are allowed to legally carry firearms.  Trying to curb these rights has the potential to alienate a great number of people Target needs as customers.  Given Target's business struggles lately, they do not have the luxury of alienating large groups of people.

Target is also being myopic by creating policies that are unfriendly to gun owners.  A gun owner could very well stop a horrible crime from occurring in a Target store.  Also, is it a good idea to publicize to the criminals of the world that Target may be a place that is likely to not be protected by armed people?  Additionally, how likely is it that a crazy person will honor Target's polite request and not bring a gun into a Target store?  In a sense, Target is making itself an actual target for armed criminals. 

Also, surely Target must have realized this maneuver is likely to actually encourage gun owners to protest Target policies by walking around their stores with guns just to make a point.  This whole policy is just a bad plan.  Given the poor management decisions being made at Target, it is no wonder the company has been having financial problems.  Perhaps Target's goal is to become the next Kmart.     

By the way, here is another thought.  Target, if you do not like gun owners, you should have not made your logo a giant red bullseye.  Seriously.

The Police Loophole

The Police Loophole is maintaining a list of the growing number of firearm companies who are rebelling against encroachments on the Second Amendment by placing restrictions on the government agencies and employees that are passing laws that infringe on civilian gun ownership. See the Nice (and Naughty) list at  www.thepoliceloophole.com.

How to Prevent Most School Shootings with a Proper Defense

Each time a school shooting occurs, people get terribly emotional and lose their common sense. They start demanding all sorts of new gun laws, thinking that will fix the problem. Ironically, none of the laws they demand would have prevented the past tragedies and have no substantial chance of preventing any future tragedies.

Here is a fact of life. Some people are killers. They like to kill people. They may be angry. They may be disturbed. They may be insane, but they like to kill, and they will kill. People have been killing other people since the beginning of time. Long before we had guns, people found ways to kill each other. Even if you take away the guns now, people will still find ways to kill each other.

Since some people are so passionate about killing, we have numerous strict laws against it, but killers disobey those laws. If a person is not going to obey laws against murder, why would that same person obey laws regarding to guns? Since killers do not obey laws, the answer is not more laws. The answer is defense.

The most effective way to prevent the vast majority of school shootings is to allow teachers with proper firearm training to carry secured (locked) weapons in the school. That way, when a shooter penetrates the school's defenses, the teachers will be armed and able to engage the shooter in a fair fight.

People will argue that a teacher might snap during class and shoot a child, but that is a flawed argument. If a teacher is angry enough to shoot a child, the teacher is certainly angry enough to beat a child to death. If a teacher is prone to violence, the teacher is dangerous to the children armed or not. If you cannot trust a teacher to be armed around the children, then you should not trust that same teacher to be unarmed around the children. By the way, just because administrators tell a teacher he/she cannot bring a weapon into the school, that does not mean the teacher will obey. Remember, only the law-abiding care about the rules.

For those who cannot get past the idea of armed teachers, a more politically correct solution is to station a police officer in every school whenever students are present. Since this would require an officer to be present around seven hours each day for around one hundred and eighty days each year at each school, the costs would be significant, possibly up to $100,000 per year.

All of this money does not have to be wasted, however. The officer does not need to just sit in an office or the parking lot. The officer can be around the school teaching the students during the regular school day. The officer can give lessons in traffic safety, gun safety, drug education, anti-bullying, abduction prevention, self-defense, conflict resolution, emergency preparedness, Internet safety, etc. Cops have a lot of training, and a lot of that training could translate to helpful lessons for small children. We live in a dangerous world. Why not prepare our children to survive it?

Yes, it would be expensive to station an officer in every school, but when you think about the safety of the children, would the costs be that severe? Let's say you can protect five hundred little kids for $100,000 or less each year. That works out to only $200 per year per student. In larger schools, the costs would be even less per child. When you factor in that each officer could actually be serving a legitimate educational role, the costs are really not that steep.

We do not even need to hire new officers to do the job. Just pull them from less important duties like busting massage parlors, pulling over people with expired tags or no seatbelts, and catching soccer moms in speedtraps on the way to the grocery store during the day. Which is more important: keeping the minivans from going five miles over the speed limit or protecting a campus full of little kids from a psychopath?

Well, even if people are not willing to pull cops off of non-essential duties or spring for the extra money to hire more officers, we still have the option of allowing teachers to carry weapons responsibly. The bottom line is we do not need fewer guns in school, we need more guns in the right hands in school. Think back to any school shooting that comes to your mind and ask yourself how things might have been different if some responsible adults in the school had been armed and able to properly protect the kids.

Don't ever forget, schools are one of the few places that have a full ban on guns. In theory, schools should be absolutely free of gun violence, but, in reality, how is the whole gun-free zone concept working? It seems to work perfectly for the shooter, because when he comes, he is the only one armed, and he knows it. Imagine how quickly the balance of power would shift if the shooter knows that when he starts shooting, someone is bound to start shooting back.