Started By
Message

re: If you're afraid for your life at a restaurant, do you stop to pay the tab?

Posted on 1/5/16 at 9:53 am to
Posted by Rex
Here, there, and nowhere
Member since Sep 2004
66001 posts
Posted on 1/5/16 at 9:53 am to
Fear is no longer a justification to skip out on your bill if you knowingly and willingly walk into a restaurant where the likelihood of such an occurrence is substantial.

Posted by CarRamrod
Spurbury, VT
Member since Dec 2006
58281 posts
Posted on 1/5/16 at 9:53 am to
quote:

other private establishments should have the right to deny them service if the restaurant chooses.

do they not?
Posted by Salmon
I helped draft the email
Member since Feb 2008
85370 posts
Posted on 1/5/16 at 9:55 am to
quote:

Fear is no longer a justification to skip out on your bill if you knowingly and willingly walk into a restaurant where the likelihood of such an occurrence is substantial.


so if you knowingly walk into a restaurant that does not prohibit open carry then you no longer have the justification to skip out on your bill?

cool
Posted by LSURussian
Member since Feb 2005
133539 posts
Posted on 1/5/16 at 9:55 am to
quote:

Darth_Vader
quote:

I open carried my pistol in my belt holster.
Instead of your light saber???
Posted by LSURussian
Member since Feb 2005
133539 posts
Posted on 1/5/16 at 9:56 am to
quote:

doesn't seem too moral
That never bothers Rex.
Posted by Rex
Here, there, and nowhere
Member since Sep 2004
66001 posts
Posted on 1/5/16 at 9:57 am to
quote:

but repugnant behavior is illegal and repugnant behavior in response?

The response is not repugnant if you have a legitimate concern for your safety, just as in the fire example.
Posted by Salmon
I helped draft the email
Member since Feb 2008
85370 posts
Posted on 1/5/16 at 9:58 am to
quote:

if you have a legitimate concern for your safety


who gets to decide what is a legitimate fear and what isn't?
Posted by SlowFlowPro
With populists, expect populism
Member since Jan 2004
465626 posts
Posted on 1/5/16 at 9:58 am to
quote:

This whole argument overlooks the fact that private businesses can prohibit the carrying--open or otherwise--of weapons on their property.

no it doesn't

he's trying to have private businesses enforce a "no gun" policy
Posted by SlowFlowPro
With populists, expect populism
Member since Jan 2004
465626 posts
Posted on 1/5/16 at 9:58 am to
quote:

where the likelihood of such an occurrence is substantial.

this doesn't exist, so...
Posted by terd ferguson
Darren Wilson Fan Club President
Member since Aug 2007
113873 posts
Posted on 1/5/16 at 9:59 am to
quote:


who gets to decide what is a legitimate fear and what isn't?


Whomever is paying the bill obviously...
Posted by Rex
Here, there, and nowhere
Member since Sep 2004
66001 posts
Posted on 1/5/16 at 9:59 am to
quote:

you can't slip out the door without paying just because you spot someone with a cigarette lighter or become aware that the kitchen has sources of high heat.

This is why gun control advocates frequently can't respect opposing argument... in your case, it's a ridiculously false equivalency.
Posted by Salmon
I helped draft the email
Member since Feb 2008
85370 posts
Posted on 1/5/16 at 10:00 am to
quote:

in your case, it's a ridiculously false equivalency.


and so is your "someone possessing a gun = the building burning down" comparison
Posted by MSMHater
Houston
Member since Oct 2008
23149 posts
Posted on 1/5/16 at 10:01 am to
quote:

His point is that it's not stealing if you're genuinely concerned about your safety. I agree with him.


But the law doesn't, so he's still a thief.

A couple of well placed cameras and the professors "idea" blows up in his face.
Posted by moneyg
Member since Jun 2006
61932 posts
Posted on 1/5/16 at 10:01 am to
quote:

The response is not repugnant if you have a legitimate concern for your safety, just as in the fire example.



If the simple sight of a gun forces you to have so much fear that you must run from that place to find safety, it says everything about you and why you can't be taken seriously on this topic.

That's simply irrational. And,to be honest, pathetic.

But, a lot of people are prisoners to irrational fear. I'd look into getting some professional help if I were you.
Posted by PokerThere
Uranus
Member since Apr 2014
166 posts
Posted on 1/5/16 at 10:02 am to
Are you more likely to become a victim of bully Bob open carrying a 1911 with his family at dinner. Or ladarius with his sagging pants and gold teef?
Posted by poe tay toes
Member since Jan 2012
326 posts
Posted on 1/5/16 at 10:02 am to
you're the one who made the equivalency to begin with. all i did was expand on it.
Posted by moneyg
Member since Jun 2006
61932 posts
Posted on 1/5/16 at 10:03 am to
quote:

he's trying to have private businesses enforce a "no gun" policy



Correct. The author, and Rex, see this as a social justice way of forcing private business to adopt their preferred policy under the pretense that they are truly deathly afraid.

It's the epitome of a dishonest argument.
Posted by Rex
Here, there, and nowhere
Member since Sep 2004
66001 posts
Posted on 1/5/16 at 10:04 am to
quote:

this doesn't exist, so...

Of course it does. A loaded gun is a danger to anybody within range particularly because fellow customers have no idea of the mindset of the carrier. Although it doesn't cover every possible circumstance, the author's summation pretty much nails it:
quote:

it could be one of two things: either he’s a crazy person intent on killing someone or he’s a crazy person intent on showing his gun off in public and daring someone to ask him to leave it at home.

Posted by AwesomeSauce
Das Boot
Member since May 2015
11164 posts
Posted on 1/5/16 at 10:04 am to
quote:

The NRA* and other pro-gun groups have demonstrated again and again, they are willing to bring down a world of pain on any business that they perceive as going soft on supporting people’s God-given right to carry machine guns wherever they go.

quote:

machine gun - a fully automatic mounted or portable firearm


Yea... when you jump on a political high horse and neglect the fact that FOPA disallowed this nearly 3 decades ago I immediately lose respect for what is about to spew out of your mouth.

Rex this entire article is meant as a political grandstand, there is no fear it is meant to protest establishments for allowing people with differing views to practice their beliefs. It is functionally no different than me running out if someone comes in to a place of business wearing a jihab or a turbin. I question if you even read the article, the UND professor admits that has nothing to do with fear but pushing ones objective.
Posted by NOFOX
New Orleans
Member since Jan 2014
10115 posts
Posted on 1/5/16 at 10:06 am to
quote:

who gets to decide what is a legitimate fear and what isn't?


A jury of your peers?
first pageprev pagePage 4 of 9Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on X, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookXInstagram