Does anyone really think concealed carriers are going to stop carrying their firearm at Target because their interim CEO asked law-abiding Americans to leave their guns at home? For one thing, why should they? Target’s request does not have the force of law. The big box retailer continues to abide by local gun laws. If you can carry a firearm legally in your jurisdiction, you can carry a firearm in Target. For another, Americans who carry a concealed firearm into Target are practical people. While the ever-strident Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America and the odiously condescending MSNBC make fun of “guns in the toy aisle,” people who carry into Target understand that they may actually need a gun during their shopping trip. True story . . .
Man arrested in robbery and shooting at Aurora Target store [via denverpost.com]
Aurora police have arrested a 33-year-old man in a robbery at a Target store Friday night in which a gunman fired a bullet into the ceiling. John Robert Pomeroy was being held Saturday for investigation of aggravated robbery involving a controlled substance, felony menacing, robbery and attempted homicide, said Cassidee Carlson, Aurora police spokeswoman.
Two Men Admit Roles in Armed Robbery of New Jersey Target Store on Black Friday 2012 [via fbi.gov]
Two New Jersey men admitted this week to participating in an armed robbery of a Target Store in Union, New Jersey, on Black Friday in November 2012, U.S. Attorney Paul J. Fishman announced today. Maryland Liggins, III, 29, of Newark, pleaded guilty today before U.S. District Judge Anne E. Thompson in Trenton federal court to an information charging him with conspiracy to commit a Hobbs Act robbery. On May 20, 2014, Darrell A. Carter, 24, of Irvington, New Jersey, pleaded guilty before Judge Thompson to an information charging him with one count of Hobbs Act robbery and one count of using a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence.
Suspect identified in High Point Target armed robbery [via myfox8.com]
A man was arrested in connection with an armed robbery of Target in High Point, according to police.Officers arrested Nigel Moore, 39, following a traffic stop on Eastchester Drive shortly after 8 p.m. Monday.
This is a snapshot of dozens of armed robberies at Target stores. In most cases, no one is injured or killed. But not in every case. And certainly not in every potential instance. But that’s hardly the whole picture. If you Google “shooting target parking lot” you’ll find dozens of examples of people shot to death within shouting distance of the retailer’s doors.
There’s no getting around it: Target is a target for robbery and a magnet for violence. Given the amount of cash each store collects on a daily basis, given the neighborhoods in which some of these stores are located, it’s no surprise that Target cashiers sometimes find themselves at the wrong end of a gun, or that patrons are mowed down in the store’s parking lots. Kidnapped and killed, too.
The antis’ argument against carrying a firearm in Target: fat lot of good that’ll do you! The death of Joseph Wilcox – the armed civilian who tried to intervene at a Las Vegas Wal-Mart when two cop-killers entered and announced the beginning of a revolution – gives the gun grabbers not-so-secret satisfaction. See? You’re safer without a gun.
Have these antis ever Googled “concealed carrier stops robbery“? The search engine serves-up hundreds of stories of average Americans who used their firearms to stop armed robberies. Even if gun control proponents did their homework, they’d remain unconvinced. They see concealed carriers who intervene in criminal activity as dangerous wanna-be cops…regardless of successful outcomes. To their way of thinking, armed Americans don’t stop violence, they escalate it.
Common sense and actual, factual reality tell us that they’re dead wrong. Check out this fact check from actionarmerica.org:
Only 2% of civilian shootings involve an innocent person being shot (not killed). The error rate for police is 11%. What this means is that you are more than 5 times more likely to be accidentally shot by a policeman than by an armed citizen. But, when you consider that citizens shoot and kill at least twice as many criminals as do police every year, it means that, per capita, you are more than 11 times more likely to be accidentally shot by a policeman than by an armed citizen.
Regardless of the stats, the Moms who insist that so-called “gun-free zones” are safer than places that welcome armed Americans are seriously deluded. They can’t (or won’t) see the truth: when bad guys set out to rob, rape or kill, everyone’s a target. Some refuse to be victims. Many of those are armed. Most of those will not enter a Target without firearm – regardless of the political or economic implications. They just won’t do it. And who can blame them?
I saw the announcement from Target as a not so subtle statement to those that would do open carry in their stores. I’m sure those people will now be asked to leave immediately per the CEO’s “request”
Essentially, they don’t want to be in the middle of this political struggle.
Personally never shop @ target. Sent a preapproved CC a few years ago @30% interest cut it sent it back. May start visiting them now.
I conceal carried in Target on Saturday. Nothing happened.
Fascinating…
How did you keep your gun from going off?
A stern talking to and promises of treats for good behavior usually work for me.
I just do what my dad always did: knock it upside the head and tell it that that’s for any trouble it was thinking about committing. Warning, do not do this with a Japanese pistol, it only makes them worse.
No, no one thinks that people won’t carry in Target. Nor do I think Target minds. They probably just don’t want people open carrying AKs, in spite of not drawing that distinction in their letter – but open carry was the controversy, not CCW. That hardly seems an unreasonable thing
My guess is that when I visit my son in Loveland, Colorado and visit the local target while open carrying I will not get a second look from the staff. I open carry in Colorado because they don’t honor my Virginia permit.
Than they should have made that clear. Instead, they made a blanket statement saying no customers bring in firearms, conceal or otherwise.
Plus I am offended at the name and Target logo. They need to change both.
They clarified afterwards their request that NO firearms be brought into Target. If they meant openly carried then they would’ve said as much. When asked about licensed concealed firearm carriers, Target repeated that they request no firearms be brought into the store and they included concealed firearms. They have had multiple opportunities to state that they are referring to openly carried guns. They have clarified that they mean all firearms, regardless of open or concealed.
I don’t shop there much, but when I do, I carry concealed. All things being equal, I can usually find the things I need that Target would carry are available at Walmart at the same or better prices. Plus, on my last few visits to Walmart where I needed assistance from the floor staff, they’ve been unfailingly courteous and have gone out of their way to be helpful. When I’m in Target, it’s damned near impossible to find someone to help.
Target just loudly trumpeted to the world that they are gun free. Sure, their new policy may not have the force of law depending on which State a particular store is in. Do you want to put your faith in the criminals and crazies attracted to gun free zones to make the distinction? Avoid doing stupid things with stupid people in stupid places, right? Just skip Target and shop at a better store. As a bonus, your financial information will also be safer.
Seems like people got into a tizzy of nothing…just keep conceal carrying…no big deal !!!
I believe the CEO’s request was targeted (no pun intended) at those desiring to open carry in their stores – most importantly the open carry political activists. C’mon…If I were the CEO and an activist group made a spectacle of my store without my desired participation, I’d have done the same and asked them not to do it again. Don’t drag the neutral businesses into a political debate and there’s little opportunity for backlash. Businesses are trying to make a buck and to do so want to keep as many people as possible happy. Consider concealed carry for this and so many other reasons.
I thought this whole thing was started by Mom’s talking about demanding action? Or whatever they’re called.
MAC
That ship has sailed. Sure if no one had ever open carried in their stores in such a… flamboyant manner, this might not have happened. But it has. And now you and your gun are not welcome there–even if concealed.
Target went out of their way to slap the People of the Gun in their corporate level statement, while saying nothing about the MDA demonstration (the demonstrators were tossed off the property by someone acting at the store management level).
That tells me whose side they are really on. And it’s not mine.
Their own side. Their message: Please come and spend money.
MAC][ said, “I believe the CEO’s request was targeted (no pun intended) at those desiring to open carry in their stores – most importantly the open carry political activists.”
I believe his request was targeted (pun intended) at the MDA activists who were doing all the complaining. Target waited a couple weeks, until MDA was beginning to think they had lost this battle. Then Target issued a statement that said just enough to give Shannon Watts the opportunity to tell her minions, “We won! Target did what we demanded.”
However, that very same day, Target also issued a follow-up statement, which targeted the Gun Rights crowd, and clarified their first statement, while making it clear that Target’s policy was not changing. Of course, MDA will never tell their minions about this follow-up statement. (Use only the facts that support your cause, and ignore the rest.)
In other words, Target did what they needed to do to “make the problem go away”, without making any real changes at all. They could not have handled it better, in my opinion.
I carried at Target a couple times last month. The wife had some coupons in conjunction with some deal for things I like so the combination of getting things I want, not paying Target for them, and carrying while doing it works for me. Normally Target isn’t worth the time.
If target is such a target for robberies, assaults, etc, why not shop someplace a bit more friendly to gun rights that isn’t?
Because nearly every big box store carries the same risks.
The lesson of the Great Target Security Breach is: if you really want to be safe at Target, carry your gun there and leave your credit card at home.
+1
Correct.
> Does anyone really think concealed carriers are going to stop carrying their firearm at Target because their interim CEO asked law-abiding Americans to leave their guns at home?
Actually, yes I do. But I don’t expect the CCers to be without their firearms during that time, either.
Fun fact: Target does not sell targets, or any shooting equipment at all (as far as I’ve seen).
I don’t carry at Target anymore. Since they politely asked me to keep my gun out of their store, I also chose to keep my money out too.
“Only 2% of civilian shootings involve an innocent person being shot (not killed). The error rate for police is 11%. What this means is that you are more than 5 times more likely to be accidentally shot by a policeman than by an armed citizen. But, when you consider that citizens shoot and kill at least twice as many criminals as do police every year, it means that, per capita, you are more than 11 times more likely to be accidentally shot by a policeman than by an armed citizen.”
I am SHOCKED, SHOCKED that you would stoop so low as to report the facts on this web site!!!!
Don’t you understand that this whole gun control debate is about the FEEEELINGS of the Bloomberg Mommies and Their Brady Bunch Friends? PLEASE stop confusing them with the facts!
Why should I not shop at Target?
Because they don’t welcome my piece, concealed or otherwise.
John
If anyone bothered to read what Target has said, it does not want OPEN carry in it’s stores…the same response as Chipotle, and others who have been put in this situation…
I *did* read it, as did many others, and they did NOT specify open carry. They are using open carry as the excuse to make their request that guns be left at home, but they didn’t say open carried guns, they just said guns. Requests for clarification have resulted in them making it clear they do not want ANY firearms in their store.
Sorry, but you have this wrong.
(This should’ve been under WI Patriot’s post above)
They stated that firearms were incompatible with a family atmosphere. They have since reinforced that they request that no firearms be brought into Target. They include concealed carry.
Since Target made a very public anti-gun statement, my family and I won’t be spending any money with Target and won’t demonstrate agreement with their statements by our presence.
+1000. I wish all those people saying they’ll just conceal would figure this out.
I think it could be a combination of things. For one, some don’t like open carry so they consider marginalizing open carriers as an acceptable thing to do. Another might be that they don’t want to stop shopping at Target so it’s easier on their consciences to misplace their ire onto open carry than it is see Target’s statement for the anti-gun message that it is.
This type of gun owner is not unlike some of the hunters in the 1990s. As long as government wasn’t coming after their bolt gun or shotgun, they were fine with gun control and anti-gun statements. Unfortunately, this way of thinking will “conceal” the expression of the right to bear arms straight into a government privilege thus gleefully ignoring shall not be infringed. Elmer J. Fudd is alive and well only he is not longer hunting wabbit. He’s carrying concealed while giving money to corporations that publicly make anti-gun statement. Same ol’ mindset, different century.
Did you bother telling them? If enough people did, it might change their attitude. They want money, you know.
I did.
Yep. And I am planning on typing up a letter on my personal stationary to send via snail mail to corporate this week or next.
I noticed that the first snippet used the term “gunman”. When do we ever read about a “knifeman”?
Honestly given that Target has gone to this trouble to say your gun isn’t welcome regardless of carry mode, I can’t understand why any Person of the Gun would want to darken their doorway or spend a single copper-coated zinc cent there.
And it matters not one bit whether the request is legally binding or not.
Sure you can conceal then walk around with a smug look on your face like you are putting something over on them… but they are laughing all the way to the bank with the money you spent there.
+1
Hey, concealed means concealed. How are they going to know? Just sayin’. 😉
Here’s what they WILL know. That they can enunciate this policy and it doesn’t matter to you because you keep spending your money there.
You’re not being clever, winky face or not. You are being incredibly short-sighted. You’re handing your money to a declared enemy. He will think it’s perfectly OK with you for him to be anti gun. Why should he change when you continue to spend your money there? He has no way of knowing you are pro gun because you are hiding!
The money is how they will know. Also, if a gun owner is present in their stores then that alone says the individual condones the anti-gun statement put out by Target.
No money and no adding to the number of bodies in the store for me. 😉
I have a question. What is a “Hobbs Act robbery?” Is that where they rob you with a stuffed tiger? And are stuffed tigers illegal in NJ too now?
“To their way of thinking, armed Americans don’t stop violence, they escalate it.”
I think this is a big part of the problem: they don’t understand violence. Sure, violence should be avoided (like turning a flat head screw with a knife blade), but sometimes you just have to do what you must.
They refuse to admit that violence has a place in a civilized society, even when they have armed security 25 hours a day.
Be a grownup and face the world as it is. Fur da Chillunzâ„¢.
Target proved themselves not to be ‘family friendly’ to my family.
“. . .They can’t (or won’t) see the truth: when bad guys set out to rob, rape or kill, everyone’s a target. . .”
On the other hand maybe that’s it, Robert. I think there’s a twisted mindset among liberals that it’s better for everyone to be a victim as a way of sharing the collective guilt of living in an unfair society that exploits poor people. When people rob and steal, it’s just a form of street-justice visited upon those who have more. Certainly, a lot of the criminals feel that way. They’ll happily tell you they were just trying to feed their families. Shooting them or even resisting just seem so . . . unfair to liberals.
I actually saw this happen once. I caught a guy trying to break into my neighbor’s house. He ran but I ID’d him and the cops caught him shortly afterward. When they brought him back, the homeowner started making excuses for the guy and wasn’t going to press charges. You can’t fix stupid.
That’s why the liber/progressive identifies with the criminal; they already support the “legal” theft by taxation of other peoples money. The criminal just steals the money in a more direct and personal fashion. It is what Many liberals would like to do but are to afraid of the consequences; in their hearts they are criminals but are to afraid to be what they already are. This why they glorify the criminal and Gang banger but hate the military and police.
Don’t shop at target!!!!
“Target’s request does not have the force of law.”
This. I don’t care what a corporation asks me to do. A company doesn’t deserve moral consideration the way another person does.
Target said don’t bring your gun to are store.
I will not bring my money to Target any more. Thats how it should work with gun owner. I don’t understand why you would continue to spend money with a company that tells you to your face they don’t want your kind in there stores.
+1
Apparently Texas’ own Todd Locey got the message and has volunteered to pick up the slack for Open Carry Texas:
http://www.examiner.com/article/target-gun-poser-photo-provokes-angry-backlash?cid=rss
When he’s not in Target illegally open carrying, brandishing, and pointing a gun at his daughter’s head, he’s trying to rap:
Hopefully he earned himself some criminal charges and maybe some prison time to enhance his street cred for his rap career. At the very least, I think he deserves an IGOTD award. For his rap career.
Its concealed carry: who the heck is gonna find out? Just dont carry a 1911 under your wife beater and youre good.
It’s not only about being armed or not. It’s also about supporting a public anti-gun statement by Target.
+1
“For one thing, why should they? Target’s request does not have the force of law.”
Defying their request is just going to make gun owners look bad. The proper response is to no longer shop at target.
“Only 2% of civilian shootings involve an innocent person being shot (not killed). The error rate for police is 11%. What this means is that you are more than 5 times more likely to be accidentally shot by a policeman than by an armed citizen. But, when you consider that citizens shoot and kill at least twice as many criminals as do police every year, it means that, per capita, you are more than 11 times more likely to be accidentally shot by a policeman than by an armed citizen.”
Although there is insufficient information to obtain actual percentages, I think that the actionamerica.org selection has a math error.
– For every 100 police shootings of criminals, roughly 11 innocents are shot (11%).
– For every 100 police shooting-and-killing of criminals, there are 200 non-police shooting-and-killing of criminals (“twice as many”).
Let’s presume that the number of shootings and the number of shooting-and-killing are roughly proportionate in the two groups.
– For every 200 non-police shooting-and-killing of criminals, there are 4 innocents shot (2%).
Therefore, for every 100 incidents of police shooting-and-killing of criminals,
– 11 innocents are shot by police;
– 4 innocents are shot by non-police (in the 200 non-police incidents).
Therefore, an innocent person is 2.75 (not 11) times as likely to be shot by police than by non-police.
What, if any, error am I making?
Comments are closed.