Ohio gun ban lobbyist admits ''no-guns'' signs won't stop criminals
In the wake of the shooting of Officer Bryan Hurst in a "no-guns" bank, and on the heels of a growing number of victimizations in "no-guns" businesses, gun ban extremist Toby Hoover has finally felt the need to make a statement.
Hoover, who fronts what often appears to be a one-woman show at the Ohio Coalition Against Gun Violence, sent a blast email just hours after the latest Fifth Third bank robbery, conjuring up a new list of reasons why businesses should post "no-guns" signs. Perhaps it is what is now missing from her list that is most telling...
OFCC PAC Commentary (by Chad D. Baus) inserted in blue.
From: Ohio Coalition Against Gun Violence
Subject: What are those no weapon signs?
Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2005
WHY POST A SIGN TO PROHIBIT WEAPONS?
Is the sign for the criminals?
Recently a friend asked me if I thought the business she worked for accomplished anything by posting a no weapons sign. She commented that the criminals certainly were not going to care if there was a sign posted.
We have received email from permit holders saying the same.
We have always thought the reason to prohibit was uncomplicated but offer this for clarity.
Posting a sign on any business is:
1. Consistent with most employer's policy not allowing weapons at the workplace
Actually, posting a sign telling customers they must render themselves defenseless in order to patronize the business has nothing at all to do with an policy governing employee behavior.
2. A long standing accepted safety policy to prohibit weapons
The Jim Crow laws were "long standing" and "accepted" policies too. But that didn't make them any less wrong.
3. Intends to prohibit permit holders from carrying in the place of business
Indeed, they deny the human right to self-defense to persons from whom it has been proven the store-owner has absolutely nothing to fear, all the while admittedly doing NOTHING to stop criminals who intend on harming employees and patrons.
4. Does not prohibit employers from having an armed guard, dogs, alarms or other forms of protection therefore is not an invitation to crime
Hasn't she been paying attention? Following the Fifth Third tragedy, the FBI has admitted that even armed guards are not a deterrent to a committed robber. To claim that a criminal will not feel emboldened to learn his intended victims have been rendered completely defenseless is not to be dealing in reality.
5. Has nothing to do with gun ownership, ‘protecting’ one’s family at home, hunting, sports or competition
Or with the size of pants suits Toby wears. But the point is...?
6. Maintains the freedom of the majority to be in places that are weapon free
The prohibition of guns in the workplace and public places allows the majority of us to decrease our risk of misuse, poor judgment or accident by gun carriers. It has nothing to do with criminals not reading or honoring the signs.
This one takes the cake. Were the employees and customers in Fifth Third last Thursday enjoying a freedom to be weapons free? As a long and ever-growing list of "no-guns" businesses are being forced to learn the hard way, a weapons free workplace exists only in Ms. Hoover's delusions.
We doubt that someone intending to commit a crime takes the time to look for a no weapons sign or if so thinks that it has anything to do with security on the premises.
Gone is Ms. Hoover's confidence that these signs are not contributing to criminal attack. Instead, she "doubts" the many historical examples of criminals profiling their targets.
Persons that carry guns make decisions that will affect any of us in their presence. Their judgment of when they will use a firearm puts us all at risk.
Indeed. And as we have learned so tragically in Columbus, when criminals who carry guns make decisions, their effect on those in their presence can be disastrous. Hoover can do nothing to ensure she is never around "persons that carry guns". But in whose hands would you rather put your life - the armed criminal, or the armed citizen?
As difficult as it may be for those that believe they are safer when they are carrying a loaded gun with them at all times to understand: gun carrying is not the norm, not approved by the majority and is socially unacceptable.
Hoover's claims that CCW is "not the norm, not approved by the majority and is socially unacceptable" are further proof that she is not operating in our reality. One year ago, Zogby International conducted a nationwide poll tesing voters' values. Zogby found that voters overwhelmingly favor these self-protection laws by a margin of 79% to 18%. Right-to-Carry drew better than 70% support in every demographic group, with even non-gun owners indicating their backing by 73% to 23%.
A reminder: this law was passed for a small percent of Ohioans. Currently less than 40,000 out of seven and a half million adults in Ohio have permits to carry.
Another reminder: such percentages of armed citizens have been proven time and again in other states to create a downward pressure on violent crime rates.
Gun carriers fight for their so called ‘right’ to be armed everywhere.
Posting a sign is our right to be gun free. The signs are for them.
The right to bear arms for self-defense can be clearly documented in both the Ohio and United States constitutions. Hoover will never be able to document her imaginary "right to be gun free". And the failure of another "no-guns" sign in Columbus, and the death of a police officer, confirms she will certainly never be able to enjoy it.
Related Stories:
Toby Hoover falsely accuses State Representative and Sheriff of law-breaking
CASE DISMISSED: Unanimous Supreme Court sends Toby Hoover packing
- 2872 reads
