snopes.com  

Go Back   snopes.com > Non-UL Chat > Business Bytes

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 02 July 2014, 10:11 PM
Psihala's Avatar
Psihala Psihala is offline
 
Join Date: 28 February 2001
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 8,268
Tsk, Tsk Target 'respectfully requests' shoppers don't pack heat

Target is "respectfully" requesting that shoppers not bring guns into its stores.

The retailer posted a notice on its website Wednesday and quickly drew attention on Twitter — #ontarget.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/...licy/12014451/
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 02 July 2014, 10:16 PM
Little Pink Pill's Avatar
Little Pink Pill Little Pink Pill is offline
 
Join Date: 03 September 2005
Location: California
Posts: 7,055
Default

I wonder if that's a bit like posting a sign that says, "please do not throw rocks through this window." It ups your likelihood of getting rocks thrown through your window.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 02 July 2014, 10:19 PM
Avril's Avatar
Avril Avril is offline
 
Join Date: 07 August 2002
Location: Princeton, NJ
Posts: 10,547
Default

When such things are announced, I always take vague comfort in the knowledge that I don't live in an area where people tend to want to take guns to Target and won't respect the request not to do it. Even in the "Wild West" of frontier America, people respected the request to not take guns to stores or church or whatever.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 02 July 2014, 10:24 PM
Little Pink Pill's Avatar
Little Pink Pill Little Pink Pill is offline
 
Join Date: 03 September 2005
Location: California
Posts: 7,055
Default

They did? Was that a regular thing? I only know the story of the Earp brothers banning guns from Tombstone. That Wild West request didn't go well.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 02 July 2014, 11:15 PM
rockland6674's Avatar
rockland6674 rockland6674 is offline
 
Join Date: 28 December 2002
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 3,111
Throw Tomato

But...but...it's a Target!
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 03 July 2014, 12:36 AM
Avril's Avatar
Avril Avril is offline
 
Join Date: 07 August 2002
Location: Princeton, NJ
Posts: 10,547
Default

On the Wild West and guns, this article is useful.

Quote:
Guns were obviously widespread on the frontier. Out in the untamed wilderness, you needed a gun to be safe from bandits, natives, and wildlife. In the cities and towns of the West, however, the law often prohibited people from toting their guns around. A visitor arriving in Wichita, Kansas in 1873, the heart of the Wild West era, would have seen signs declaring, "Leave Your Revolvers At Police Headquarters, and Get a Check."

A check? That's right. When you entered a frontier town, you were legally required to leave your guns at the stables on the outskirts of town or drop them off with the sheriff, who would give you a token in exchange. You checked your guns then like you'd check your overcoat today at a Boston restaurant in winter. Visitors were welcome, but their guns were not.
Lots of citations in the article, too.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 03 July 2014, 02:07 AM
Mad Jay's Avatar
Mad Jay Mad Jay is offline
 
Join Date: 19 July 2003
Location: Virginia
Posts: 13,464
Default

This started by an open carry demonstration by the gun toters at a San Antonio, Texas location. In response Moms Demand Action Against Gun Violence organized a stroller jam at the same location. For some reason, Target shut down the stroller jam. Well, this is when it went viral. Here's the story that Moms demand action posted on their Facebook. They organized a viral campaign that was heard by Target

So, yeah this did start in the "Wild West"
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 03 July 2014, 02:14 AM
Avril's Avatar
Avril Avril is offline
 
Join Date: 07 August 2002
Location: Princeton, NJ
Posts: 10,547
Default

I'm not sure you understand what I was saying. I wasn't talking about geography, but chronology plus geography.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 03 July 2014, 03:40 AM
Little Pink Pill's Avatar
Little Pink Pill Little Pink Pill is offline
 
Join Date: 03 September 2005
Location: California
Posts: 7,055
Default

That was an interesting article, Avril, thanks! I'd like to read more statistics on it, but it's a fresh angle (for me).
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 03 July 2014, 05:44 AM
BrianB's Avatar
BrianB BrianB is offline
 
Join Date: 03 March 2000
Location: Camarillo, CA
Posts: 3,565
France I knew it would happen!

Like most here I tend to avoid the comments. However, I wanted to see if anyone believed the silly myth about Target's owners.
Quote:
Marie Parish Weathers · Top Commenter · Lower Lake, California
It is really funny that I don't carry most of the time. I am however a lot disturbed to think that a French company can come here and try to change our way of life. I don't shop there and never will now.
.


Brian
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 03 July 2014, 10:42 AM
UrbanLegends101 UrbanLegends101 is offline
 
Join Date: 24 November 2010
Location: Florida
Posts: 1,386
Default

I thought the major French sales outlet in the US was Jacque Pennet.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 03 July 2014, 12:43 PM
Avril's Avatar
Avril Avril is offline
 
Join Date: 07 August 2002
Location: Princeton, NJ
Posts: 10,547
Default

Maybe all those people who pronounce it "Tar-jay" have confused Marie Parish Weathers.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 04 July 2014, 06:51 AM
Skeptic's Avatar
Skeptic Skeptic is offline
 
Join Date: 16 July 2005
Location: Logan, Queensland, Australia
Posts: 1,802
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Avril View Post
Maybe all those people who pronounce it "Tar-jay" have confused Marie Parish Weathers.
Target in Australia plays on that pronunciation in their ads.

Quote:
I don't shop there and never will now.
Yeah, that's the way to get back at a shop. Keep not supporting them as you haven't done already. (Did that make sense, my head hurts).
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 04 July 2014, 01:50 PM
Lainie's Avatar
Lainie Lainie is offline
 
Join Date: 29 August 2005
Location: Suburban Columbus, OH
Posts: 74,587
Default

Yes, I'm sure they'll be heartbroken, having rested all their hopes of financial success on that one guy changing his mind and shopping there.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 05 July 2014, 04:05 PM
LadyLockeout's Avatar
LadyLockeout LadyLockeout is offline
 
Join Date: 09 May 2004
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 7,178
Default

This blog has an interesting take on the whole deal. I tend to agree with it, personally.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tomyou...b_5548906.html
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 05 July 2014, 06:09 PM
erwins's Avatar
erwins erwins is offline
 
Join Date: 04 April 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 12,375
Default

It both confuses and scares me that these people get angry at someone saying they recognize the right to carry guns exists, but they respectfully ask people not to do so on their private property.

I mean, if I invited people to an event at my house but said please don't bring any guns, would that make them angry? Isn't it a pretty important right for people to control what happens on their own private property?
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 05 July 2014, 06:43 PM
crocoduck_hunter's Avatar
crocoduck_hunter crocoduck_hunter is offline
 
Join Date: 27 May 2009
Location: Roseburg, OR
Posts: 13,157
Default

The problem is that you're expecting the people here to respect the rights of anyone else. If they cared about the opinions of other people, they wouldn't be inclined to carry their guns everywhere in the first place.

Speaking as someone who's seen just how little respect all the "Private Property: No Hunting" signs in my dad's field have gotten when there's a 4 point (or 3 point, or forked horn) buck there.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 05 July 2014, 06:48 PM
Avril's Avatar
Avril Avril is offline
 
Join Date: 07 August 2002
Location: Princeton, NJ
Posts: 10,547
Default

It's similar to when they cry "First Amendment Rights!" when a private company fires or suspends someone for saying something said company does not appreciate. For some reason people want government rules to apply to all of life.

And this cuts both ways, I think, although I see it more from the right than from the left. You've got your Mike Huckabees screaming about Phil Robertson and your Thomas Meninos saying Chick-fil-a can't sell sandwiches in Boston. (You have way more of it on the right than the left--which I know--I just mean that there's a certain cultural trend here that even liberals seem to sometimes get carried away with.)

If I had a private fortune, I'd start a PSA campaign about what counts as the government, why private corporations go by different rules, and you can't do everything you want all the time even if it isn't the government telling you you can't.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 05 July 2014, 07:06 PM
Little Pink Pill's Avatar
Little Pink Pill Little Pink Pill is offline
 
Join Date: 03 September 2005
Location: California
Posts: 7,055
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by crocoduck_hunter View Post
The problem is that you're expecting the people here to respect the rights of anyone else. If they cared about the opinions of other people, they wouldn't be inclined to carry their guns everywhere in the first place.
I think that's the problem. The sign is aimed at a segment of the population who probaby already aren't too concerned about intimidating people.

It's like posting a sign that says, "We respectfully ask that you don't rev your engine at people in crosswalks."

Now said driver get to be even scarier by defying the sign.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 05 July 2014, 08:36 PM
Hero_Mike's Avatar
Hero_Mike Hero_Mike is offline
 
 
Join Date: 06 April 2005
Location: Phoenix, AZ & Hamilton, ON
Posts: 7,267
Default

Arizona has some pretty liberal gun laws, but a lot of businesses here quietly put up signs which say "no firearms, and a cite state law which allows private establishments from barring firearms. Now there is some very small - I would even say "fringe" element of society which protests this, advocates the boycott of these businesses, and even maintains websites with lists of "gun friendly" and "gun hostile" businesses. I have only encountered these people at gun shows, where one can expect to find a number of very strongly opinionated proponents of the 2nd amendment.

I honestly think that Target should have chosen that route - prohibit weapons on their private property if it is allowed by law. It then becomes a safety issue - anyone bringing a weapon into the store is already breaking a law, and can be assumed to have criminal intent since they have already disregarded criminal law.

However, even though there is not a constitutional right to private property, I cannot think of any strong proponents of the 2nd amendment who do not believe in it. They consider their home, car, and other property to be inviolate and warn trespassers that they will use deadly force (not specifically to the letter of the law). Some are also up front in not welcoming any government "agents" without due process, and a few of them even warn the public at large (including the government) that they will defend themselves to the death, if people were to come to their property, legally or not, to take their guns. So it seems quite clear to me that 2nd amendment proponents value private property. I don't disagree with that, and I am quite happy to extend them the courtesy of doing whatever they want on their property, as long as I get to do the same on mine.

So why should that allow their rights to trump mine, with respect to personal property? On their property I am threatened with being shot on sight, as a trespasser, even if I have no criminal intent, and yet I am to tolerate them bringing weapons to my property? Now instead of me, personally, think of that statement as said by a business owner. Business owners have much more to lose by patrons bringing in guns to their private property - risk of robbery, intentional violence between patrons, accidental shooting of patrons - than I do with a guest coming to my house. So why are their property rights invalid, but the 2nd amendment proponent's property rights remain? Sounds a bit unfair...

People don't realize that there are similarities between the private property of a store or restaurant, and the private property of a house. The owner's rules apply, and they have the right to decide who they let in. Just because there are no doors and everyone comes in, doesn't mean that there are no conditions upon patrons and visitors.

Many stores have signs posted - no distribution of flyers, leaflets, literature, and so on. People who do that will be asked to leave, then arrested for trespassing if they do not. Bars will refuse service and eject drunken, violent or antisocial patrons. This has been going on for years. Distributing literature could be defended as "freedom of expression" or even "freedom of the press", so there is a possible constitutional defense here.

This doesn't even get in to places of business where not only weapons, but cell phones and cameras can (and frequently are) banned because the business owner has "trade secrets".

Nevertheless, 2nd amendment proponents need to understand their notion of the solemnity of private property extends to places of commerce, and with a noted recent SCOTUS ruling, there's little difference to expect if the owner of the place of commerce is an individual, or a corporation. If I ask a visitor to check their gun at the door, as does a corporate entity like Costco, then both are equally valid.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
eBay hacked, requests all users change passwords erwins Business Bytes 8 22 May 2014 06:46 PM
The Best Way to Handle the Coming Cicada Invasion? Heat Up the Deep Fryer A Turtle Named Mack The Bad Gastronomer 8 23 April 2013 02:22 PM
Cherry Hill and Franklin Mills Mall Shoppers warning snopes Crime 4 06 November 2007 11:02 AM
Take a cold shower after being out in the heat and you'll sweat more? zman977 Old Wives' Tales 13 09 August 2007 11:46 PM
Keep your heat below 69 degrees and you'll get in trouble with DCFS zman977 Crime 40 11 July 2007 09:20 PM


All times are GMT. The time now is 09:38 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.