Can someone help me understand...

[sarisataka]

This quote against concealed carry came up in a GD thread about a teacher having a negligent discharge

have a good reason for carrying, like for example people transporting bags of money

Now we have seen many arguments that people should not have guns outside of the home. We have also seen some state that they should not have them in the home. If a person does have a gun n the home there is always the question of "will you kill someone who is walking out with your TV", implying a gun should not be used to protect "stuff".

Now what puzzles me is, if the risk of crime outside the home is paranoia, protecting yourself is not a good reason to carry, and protecting your "stuff" in the home is not a good reason to use a gun on an intruder, why it is so acceptable to protect business property with arms?

Arguably the corporation/business is better able to handle the loss of money or material goods than an individual (their assets usually are fully insured and are greater than an individual or family's assets), but there is almost no opposition to armed security protecting money or business property. It is considered a reasonable, even necessary, response to the risk of crime. Yet if an individual makes the same choice, they are paranoid, cowardly, bigoted, gun humping, have tiny genitals...

Can someone solve this conundrum?

[NYC_SKP]

1. Can't explain what is in the tiny minds of some folks, but will say this much, my opinions.

Even on the outs, with a permit, an armored car driver cannot use their weapon to protect property exclusive of their being a threat to his/her life and safety.

The same is true within the home, generally, with some variability by state.

The grey area is the question of what constitutes "the threat".

I feel that in-home crimes are more threatening because the perp has already broken at least one law by being there so it's not unreasonable to fear that they'll take it further and there's significantly less hope of anyone coming to assist you.

A smart guard protecting property as part of their duty is wise to let the property be taken, as are homeowners, generally, but homeowners have more to fear, IMO, and should act accordingly.

I was robbed on a major street in NYC by a group of four individuals who came up from behind me. One had a knife to my throat, another went through my wallet, the other two search each side of me, left and right.

I insisted I had not drugs or hidden money and lived in the neighborhood, not there buying drugs, and I asked if they wouldn't mind letting me keep my wallet and ID.

The knife wielder told his gang, "give him back his papers", and we were done with our business.

In my home, if armed, I'd have shot every one of them unless they turned tail and made it clear they were not going to confront me.

[upaloopa]

2. The people with guns that carry money are

employees who are paid to do what they are told to do. Even a gunner should be able see the difference!
But then the right to carry a gun is a real mental thing to get your head around and leaves not too many brain cells for much else!

[Nuclear Unicorn]

3. Why is a corporation allowed to empower employees to carry a gun?

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

4. So the 1%ers can continue to do it

Only a professional can be trusted to handle a gun.

Sometimes pro-control will argue for mandatory training and government licensing to permit one to carry. This gives those issuing the license something to revoke if you misbehave. Personally, I've not seen the presence of a piece of paper or plastic in one's pocket make a measurable difference in his skill with a gun.

[upaloopa]

6. Must be some law in place.

I'd have to look for what ever law there is but I guess it is the same law that gives homeowners the right to guard their stuff with a gun.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

8. It might be the same legal principle but definitely not the same law.

msanthrope is a lawyer by trade and very accommodating to legal questions for the sake of discussion. I'm sure she might entertain a polite inquiry.

[NYC_SKP]

14. The corporation can not override state and local law, so not sure that "empower" is the right word.

A company, like a bank or armored car service, can, as part of the job, allow the employee to carry a weapon but everything still has to conform to state and local law.

An individual is equally fee to provide that service as an independent contractor, so I don't know that "corporation" has much to do with it.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

15. I understand. I was asking uploopa to clarify her point. nt

[NYC_SKP]

16. Thanks.

I figured. Sometimes insulting replies about brain power say more about the author than the target.

Happy weekend!

[sarisataka]

5. That makes no sense

It is ok to hire people and arm them to protect corporate assets because they are paid and do what they are told. (That is a whole can of worms I can't adequately open as I am typing on my phone)

But a private person carrying a gun takes up all their brain power

[upaloopa]

7. No that is not what I was saying.

Seems to me a lot of brain power goes into supporting the right to carry a gun. It seems to me it's like the only thing occupying some folks' mind.
So much so they can't get that guarding corporate money is a job as opposed to guarding your stuff at home.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

9. The point of the OP is that the private citizen cannot absorb the losses as a corporation can.

Corporations have cash reserves, insurance, security, etc. People live paycheck to paycheck. A robbery of the domicile is an invasion of their personal space -- often when the residence is physically occupied unlike a corporation vacated at the end of the work day -- and that which is stolen required a significant portion of their effort to accumulate.

[sarisataka]

12. Less brain power

Than you think.

My point is why does a corporation have more right to protect its assets and personnel than an individual has to protect their property and person.

Is it a matter of resources? Some seem to think so. If you can afford to hire guards then you can have security. If not then you must take your chances while living in a more predatory environment.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

10. I'm confused

I own an S-corp that I run from home.

[NYC_SKP]

13. No need to be rude in this group.

Your comment adds nothing to this discussion.

[appal_jack]

11. Gun control ideology is deeply rooted in authoritarianism.

Gun control ideology is deeply rooted in authoritarianism. This ideology accepts that the existing social order is just and proper. Corporations are a linch pin of society; if they have assets that need protecting, then by g-d that's NECESSARY. Very wealthy people like Bloomburp are also clearly important; by possessing sufficient wealth to hire armed bodyguards (as opposed to carrying a gun on their persons), they demonstrate their own goodness.

But you as an individual actor, with your measly house and stuff? Without a uniform and a badge (even of the rent-a-cop type), your motives are suspect. Better to cower in the corner while thieves remove your stuff, hoping that harm is not also in their plans.

-app

[NYC_SKP]

17. I guess it's like Bloomberg, who can have bodyguards but we can't defend ourselves.

.

But, because he's so magnanimous, he probably doesn't have a problem with us hiring bodyguards, so long as we have the millions to pay for it!



What a great guy!

So, yeah, don't expect to see much resistance to gun as used to protect the very wealthy and connected.



Photo credit: http://noarmycanstopanidea.com/

[Eleanors38]

19. I swear he looks like Putin.

[NYC_SKP]

20. Separated at birth? Pretty near the same brain, eh? nt

[ileus]

18. evidently only money is worth protecting....