Gun Control Cognitive Dissonance

People who know me know that I am a moderate and someone who rarely likes to touch on delicate subjects. That being said, I saw something pop up on my Facebook feed that I just got to me.

So Panera Bread has this ad going around asking everyone but law enforcement to please not bring guns into their store. In reality, if you have a concealed carry they wouldn't know. But the "unless you are a cop" thing really got me.

This ad is being passed around by liberal organizations as they tend to be the ones who favor "sensible gun control". This is usually along the lines of "we have police to protect us, let the pros do it, we don't need John Q Public going all rambo". But aren't the cops the one violating rights and shooting unarmed people. I mean in the wake of Ferguson are we really afraid of the citizen carrying a gun?

I also wonder if the trust in the police mantra that Panera is putting out there has to do with the suburban demographics of its customers.

 

This add seems pointless besides trying to attract a certain segment of customer that may align with liberal opinions while staying on the line enough so as to not upset those who lean the other way.

If I'm not mistaken, businesses have the right to put up a 'no carry' signs on their buildings in any state. At least in all states I've lived with a concealed carry permit, all have done the posted signs. Thus, if Panera really cared about this, they would just place posted 'no-carry' signs on their stores and skip the ads.

I find this type of add rather annoying personally..

"If you want to succeed in this life, you need to understand that duty comes before rights and that responsibility precedes opportunity."
 
Best Response
TheBigBambino:

This add seems pointless besides trying to attract a certain segment of customer that may align with liberal opinions while staying on the line enough so as to not upset those who lean the other way.

If I'm not mistaken, businesses have the right to put up a 'no carry' signs on their buildings in any state. At least in all states I've lived with a concealed carry permit, all have done the posted signs. Thus, if Panera really cared about this, they would just place posted 'no-carry' signs on their stores and skip the ads.

I find this type of add rather annoying personally..

I agree. It is simply sucking ass to the gun control crowd. I thought it was pretty damn funny though in light of what is going on re: police shooting.

 

I also find it a bit amusing, with all of the stuff that has been going on.

"I mean in the wake of Ferguson are we really afraid of the citizen carrying a gun?"

But I'm not so sure I agree with that entirely. I think responsible citizens should be able to carry a gun, but the answer to this question is yes -- I was a little afraid of the lunatic rioters in St. Louis wielding guns and firing arbitrarily.

 

I believe this was a policy enacted to deal with the gun activists in the south that would (legally) shoulder carry large weapons that looked similar to assault rifles. It scared many customers, and I don't think they're trying to push gun control, just foster an environment where as many customers as possible are comfortable.

I'm in support of more gun control, and Ferguson is a good example of why irresponsible people with guns can cause a shit storm.

 
The Real Max:

I believe this was a policy enacted to deal with the gun activists in the south that would (legally) shoulder carry large weapons that looked similar to assault rifles. It scared many customers, and I don't think they're trying to push gun control, just foster an environment where as many customers as possible are comfortable.

I'm in support of more gun control, and Ferguson is a good example of why irresponsible people with guns can cause a shit storm.

Sadly you are correct on the idiots who open carried rifles in those restaurants. Obviously based on my SN here I am pro 2A, but I wish those idiots never existed. Those are the fools that make us sound conceal carry holders look bad because the anti-gun crowd assumes everyone is like that, but that is not even close.

Get your facts first, then you can distort them as you please.
 

Former military officer here, and specifically my deployment experience was on an embedded advisor team....basically security consultants to the Afghan militia/police.

Most of you guys have no clue how heavily armed the police are. They've got gear that even troops in a combat zone don't have access to. Furthermore they ROUTINELY get away with stuff that, in a combat zone, would end the careers of both the soldier who performed the act and the leader(s) who allowed that act to occur.

And yes, you read that right. You could expect a dishonorable discharge if you shot someone just because you "felt threatened", yet cops do that to American citizens routinely and rarely face any significant consequences.

 
Easy C:

Former military officer here, and specifically my deployment experience was on an embedded advisor team....basically security consultants to the Afghan militia/police.

Most of you guys have no clue how heavily armed the police are. They've got gear that even troops in a combat zone don't have access to. Furthermore they ROUTINELY get away with stuff that, in a combat zone, would end the careers of both the soldier who performed the act and the leader(s) who allowed that act to occur.

And yes, you read that right. You could expect a dishonorable discharge if you shot someone just because you "felt threatened", yet cops do that to American citizens routinely and rarely face any significant consequences.

I don't know what's worse, the fact that this is true or that it's not even shocking to read this. I've read this type of thing multiple times.

See, what the liberals don't understand is that they voted for this. They wanted big government, here it is. But now all of a sudden they don't like it. However their answer is still not directed towards the government. I don't get it.

"When you stop striving for perfection, you might as well be dead."
 
MBA_Junkie:

sorry.. but this is pure BS.. you are saying that it is easier for law enforcement to shoot an american citizen in the US than an army personnel to shoot a "possible bad guy" in Afghanistan.

What are you talking about? I was simply making a point that cops protecting us is used as a reason that people don't need to have conceled carry, etc and recently these protectors have come under fire. That was my entire post.

I support the cops but I think we can agree that recently we've all been having a conversation about their overzealousness.

This was really a commentary on cops and their role protecting us Vs a die hard gun rights argument.

 
MBA_Junkie:

sorry.. but this is pure BS.. you are saying that it is easier for law enforcement to shoot an american citizen in the US than an army personnel to shoot a "possible bad guy" in Afghanistan.

No, you don't know what you're talking about. As stated before I WAS one of those Army personnel serving on an embedded adviser team to the ANSF. Been there, done that, and all I got was the lousy purple ribbon.

While I would hesitate to make a nationwide generalization there are some departments who's officers are regularly involved in use of excessive force and in which said officers usually face no long term consequences. I can also testify secondhand that DHS policy is actively encouraging an aggressive, militarized police posture.....although I understand that many will be skeptical on this, and it would be extremely difficult for me to explain why I believe this without compromising my sources(current DoD and DHS employees).

 

I've done a fair bit of traveling, and I find the answer to be fairly self explanatory. My (brief) time in NYC made me understand that point of view a lot better. Their aggressive policing succeeded in pushing most of the crime out of mid and lower Manhattan where the upper class live and work. As a result, they feel that the police state is a good thing: it keeps them safe from the savages that live in the slums of New Jersey and Queens.

In other words the love of it is predicated on the assumption that you're always going to be the ones behind the police barricade, rather than the one staring down a police-issue AR15 loaded with live ammo. What they don't understand is that they all it takes is a prank call, carrying a few ounces of pot, taking video/pictures in the wrong place, or a comment on social media that someone thinks is "suspicious" before they're on the wrong side of those guns.

 
Easy C:

I've done a fair bit of traveling, and I find the answer to be fairly self explanatory. My (brief) time in NYC made me understand that point of view a lot better. Their aggressive policing succeeded in pushing most of the crime out of mid and lower Manhattan where the upper class live and work. As a result, they feel that the police state is a good thing: it keeps them safe from the savages that live in the slums of New Jersey and Queens.

In other words the love of it is predicated on the assumption that you're always going to be the ones behind the police barricade, rather than the one staring down a police-issue AR15 loaded with live ammo. What they don't understand is that they all it takes is a prank call, carrying a few ounces of pot, taking video/pictures in the wrong place, or a comment on social media that someone thinks is "suspicious" before they're on the wrong side of those guns.

This is always how it goes. So long as it's the "other guy"...it's fine. And, in theory, you'll gladly skirt the law when you can so long as they prosecute the "other people" to the fullest extent and keep you safe. Meanwhile, they don't care about you either, and you will absolutely suffer at their hand eventually. Our current system has very quickly (less than 250 years) turned into the beginnings of a dangerous police state.

"When you stop striving for perfection, you might as well be dead."
 

I've lived in two places (Australia, Hong Kong) where laws are strongly against civilians carrying guns. I'm now living in the US.

I don't think you can argue "why can't the US have gun control like [insert low gun culture Western place here]", because it's not the culture here in the US and there already so many guns out here in the US, replicating the low civilian gun ownership is impossible.

All that said, I'm interested to know what the US pro-gun view is of largely Anglo/Western cultures like Australia and how that compares to the US. Do Americans feel like there is more of a need for guns here in the US (if so, why?), given civilians aren't as armed in other countries and crime rates in those countries aren't horrendous?

Is it a case of the gun genie is out of the bottle here in the US and, regardless of the historical reasons why that may be, you feel that "good" civilians need to have guns as protection against criminals?

Or is more the philosophy that partly prompted the American revolution ie distrust for a government with a permanent standing army and fear that the government is oppressive, hence the need for civilians to bear arms as a check on the risk for oppression.

Or something else?

I remember reading in "Deer Hunting With Jesus" (great book, http://www.amazon.com/Deer-Hunting-Jesus-Dispatches-Americas/dp/0307339…) that there's a strong sense of gun hunting being a central part of a lot of US culture. I can understand how that applies to hunting rifles, but it seems the rationale for non-hunting firearms doesn't fit well into that.

Those who can, do. Those who can't, post threads about how to do it on WSO.
 

The "gun culture" that exists in the USA stems not from a desire to protect ones self from criminals. Rather from the government itself. The idea is that if a government becomes oppressive the people can rise up and take it down. An idea that many people consider "radical" but is actually the founding principle of the country. The freedoms many think are the founding principles of this country are actually just checks to prevent government from reaching a level of oppression that requires the people to rise up in arms against their own government.

Ask yourself this, what does any power hungry group do first after they get into power? The limit the ability of their competition. In the words of many of the founding fathers it is the government that should fear the people not the other way around. How does the government limit the peoples ability entact change if it becomes totally necessary? Simple take away their choices. Hence a two party system, whats the next step? Take away their guns so they can't force change at the end of a gun barrel.

Follow the shit your fellow monkeys say @shitWSOsays Life is hard, it's even harder when you're stupid - John Wayne
 

Do you feel there's a greater risk of a government oppressing the people in the US? Or do you think the risk is significant everywhere and, in countries with more restrictive gun ownership (eg Australia, UK), they've just been lucky enough to avoid the risk materialising so far?

Those who can, do. Those who can't, post threads about how to do it on WSO.
 

There's a cold war mentality in play. People know that criminals have guns, and that gun control is largely ineffective. This one I can testify to secondhand. Most of my military experience was in a town that is also home to the headquarters of one of the largest outlaw motorcycle clubs in the world, and since I enjoy riding a large V-twin motorcycle and the odd beer at a dive bar I met an interesting variety of characters.

Without naming names (very bad form in both the biker world and IB world), I was informed in no uncertain terms that if you know the right people that you can obtain any military grade weapon you want. It's actually easier for felons than non-felons to obtain those weapons because if they can verify that you have a felony conviction it reduces the risk that you're a cop.

 

@"TNA" .. something is really wrong with you if your "freedom" is threatened if you cannot carry a gun into panera bread.. How many times have you been held at gun point to justify you carrying a gun everywhere? When was the last time you heard "Random man with gun saves lives"? What world are you living in?

Most... no ... ALL civilized societies and most developing ones limit gun access to civilians. If you could just take your eyes off your prized gun (no euphemism intended) for a few minutes and research this you would know that it has led to lower instances of gun violence.

Lastly, the one and only argument I have ever heard against gun control is "2nd amendment".. and that is the complete argument.. there is no follow up or further explanation.. Seriously folks, don't tell me that you believe that you are still living in the wild west where the natives are gonna attack at any minute.

grow up and live in the real world.

 
MBA_Junkie:

@TNA .. something is really wrong with you if your "freedom" is threatened if you cannot carry a gun into panera bread.. How many times have you been held at gun point to justify you carrying a gun everywhere.

Most... no ... ALL civilized societies and most developing ones limit gun access to civilians. If you could just take your eyes off your prized gun (no euphemism intended) for a few minutes and research this you would know that it has led to lower instances to gun violence.

Lastly, the one and only argument I have ever heard against gun control is "2nd amendment".. and that is the complete argument.. there is no follow up or further explanation.. Seriously folks, don't tell me that you to believe that you are still living in the wild west where the natives are gonna attack at any minute.

grow up and live in the real world.

This is an old ass thread, but sorry, growing up doesn't mean you just forget about fundamental constitutional rights. If you don't like guns, cool, don't own them, but law abiding Americans have every right to own guns for hunting, self defense, target shooting or just because.

We already limit guns. You can't own (generally) true military type machine guns. You can't own fully automatic weapons.

Additionally, my post was more on the recent commentary about police violence and how Panera made a statement like this. Liberals support restricting law abiding Americans from their constitutional rights under the argument that we have cops to protect us now, yet at the same time are recently protesting the police for their over reach. Hence the cognitive dissonance title.

I'm not going to comment anymore on this thread. It's old, topic is tiring and reality is gun control isn't going to happen.

 

People are just emotionally irrational regarding guns. The US would have gun violence stats on par with Europe if it wasn't for inner city violence. People in the suburbs read these gun violence numbers and think it is evenly distributed across the country. Fact is we have concentrated areas that have high gun violence that is largely contained.

If you want to cut gun violence in half you don't need to ban guns. You need to provide an education and opportunity to inner city African Americans. Instead you have gun control advocates simply fight for the guns to be taken away rather than improving people's lot in life.

And anyone who studies history knows that you don't need tanks and aircraft to subdue and defeat an advanced military.

re Afghanistan, Iraq, Vietnam, revolutionary war,etc.

If we are going to get rid of constitutional amendments because they are old and out dated can we remove freedom of speech also? That's caused more damage in the hands of the press and politicians than any gun could.

 
TNA:

If we are going to get rid of constitutional amendments because they are old and out dated can we remove freedom of speech also? That's caused more damage in the hands of the press and politicians than any gun could.

I don't agree with your last statement. Our ability to have this conversation is based on our freedom of speech. How has it caused "more damage in the hands of the press and politicians"?

Do you mean to say that what we hear isn't necessarily the truth, and that the press and politicians have the freedom to do so?

>Incoming Ash Ketchum, Pokemon Master >Literally a problem, solve for both X and Y, please and thank you. >Hugh Myron: "Are there any guides on here for getting a top girlfriend? Think banker/lawyer/doctor. I really don't want to go mid-tier"
 
Red3:

If we are going to get rid of constitutional amendments because they are old and out dated can we remove freedom of speech also? That's caused more damage in the hands of the press and politicians than any gun could.

I don't agree with your last statement. Our ability to have this conversation is based on our freedom of speech. How has it caused "more damage in the hands of the press and politicians"?

Do you mean to say that what we hear isn't necessarily the truth, and that the press and politicians have the freedom to do so?

Words can and do cause violence or lead us to war. Remember the Maine go us in to the Spanish American war. Freedom of speech can and has incited riots and killings. Plenty of negative consequences by giving every idiot a right to speak their mind and historically there has been plenty of times where politicians have tried to restrict the right to freedom of speech.

All of our conditional rights are important. None are out of date or should be removed. Let's focus on the government giving us more freedom, not less.

 

Illum ea suscipit id dolorum. Omnis nulla eos ut facilis. Excepturi et quae minus error ad eum ex fugit.

 

Aspernatur aliquam velit rerum blanditiis odit omnis enim architecto. Magnam non laboriosam non omnis similique reprehenderit qui.

Dolorem aut quas dolorum consectetur doloremque. Numquam rerum qui voluptatem illo fugiat aut. Voluptatem quam explicabo dolorum non esse autem. Quia distinctio sunt itaque sequi numquam. Ab aut fugiat officiis mollitia doloribus.

Minima quia totam enim rerum ex ipsum eaque. Nihil voluptatem ut ut qui.

Omnis ipsam velit quia voluptas earum voluptatem. Nulla non provident expedita dignissimos perferendis eum illum.

Career Advancement Opportunities

March 2024 Investment Banking

  • Jefferies & Company 02 99.4%
  • Goldman Sachs 19 98.8%
  • Harris Williams & Co. (++) 98.3%
  • Lazard Freres 02 97.7%
  • JPMorgan Chase 03 97.1%

Overall Employee Satisfaction

March 2024 Investment Banking

  • Harris Williams & Co. 18 99.4%
  • JPMorgan Chase 10 98.8%
  • Lazard Freres 05 98.3%
  • Morgan Stanley 07 97.7%
  • William Blair 03 97.1%

Professional Growth Opportunities

March 2024 Investment Banking

  • Lazard Freres 01 99.4%
  • Jefferies & Company 02 98.8%
  • Goldman Sachs 17 98.3%
  • Moelis & Company 07 97.7%
  • JPMorgan Chase 05 97.1%

Total Avg Compensation

March 2024 Investment Banking

  • Director/MD (5) $648
  • Vice President (19) $385
  • Associates (86) $261
  • 3rd+ Year Analyst (13) $181
  • Intern/Summer Associate (33) $170
  • 2nd Year Analyst (66) $168
  • 1st Year Analyst (202) $159
  • Intern/Summer Analyst (144) $101
notes
16 IB Interviews Notes

“... there’s no excuse to not take advantage of the resources out there available to you. Best value for your $ are the...”

Leaderboard

1
redever's picture
redever
99.2
2
Secyh62's picture
Secyh62
99.0
3
Betsy Massar's picture
Betsy Massar
99.0
4
BankonBanking's picture
BankonBanking
99.0
5
kanon's picture
kanon
98.9
6
DrApeman's picture
DrApeman
98.9
7
dosk17's picture
dosk17
98.9
8
CompBanker's picture
CompBanker
98.9
9
GameTheory's picture
GameTheory
98.9
10
numi's picture
numi
98.8
success
From 10 rejections to 1 dream investment banking internship

“... I believe it was the single biggest reason why I ended up with an offer...”