Is the gist of it.
Philosophy professor thinks the way to make a point about open carry is to walk out on bills at salons, restaurants, stores, etc. if someone comes in open carrying.
I'd be a bit more ok with it if it was "go back later and pay" but the whole premise is out and out theft to "punish" the businesses:
And this,
So basically he's saying to commit a crime, possibly cause a panic(he says to run out of the establishment, en masse), to make a political statement, rather than asking what policy is before granting a business your custom. I don't agree with "open carry activists", mainly because they're usually being obnoxious about it, but committing a crime is NOT the way to get support. One wrong and one perfectly legal but needless thing do not make a right, and it makes it easier to dismiss gun control as "panicky drama queens".
He claims the open carry people are being dramatic attention seekers, fleeing en masse at the very hint of a weapon isn't?
Philosophy professor thinks the way to make a point about open carry is to walk out on bills at salons, restaurants, stores, etc. if someone comes in open carrying.
I'd be a bit more ok with it if it was "go back later and pay" but the whole premise is out and out theft to "punish" the businesses:
don’t pay. Stopping to pay in the presence of a person with a gun means risking your and your loved ones’ lives; money shouldn’t trump this. It doesn’t matter if you ate the meal. It doesn’t matter if you’ve just received food from the deli counter that can’t be resold. It doesn’t matter if you just got a haircut. Leave. If the business loses money, so be it. They can make the activists pay.
If they want you to pay, they should do a better job of making you feel positive that you aren’t about to get shot.
He claims the open carry people are being dramatic attention seekers, fleeing en masse at the very hint of a weapon isn't?
Comment