Be sure you are signed up for JPFO's periodical Email Alerts.
JOIN JPFO TODAY
Get a very aggressive defense of your rights.
Click on the above.
Help us avoid errors.
Should you prefer a full page of JPFO’s main links, then
Read these classic
rebuttals to "Gun Control"
A few weeks ago, the hoplophobic Mommies Against Gun Rights were doing a little happy dance, claiming they were the ones responsible for Chipotle asking its customers to leave their guns out of their restaurants, after being essentially neutral on the issue and welcoming gun owners into their establishments.
Well, you know that old adage, don't you? How do you know Shannon Watts is lying? Her lips are moving. OK, OK... maybe that's an old joke about politicians, or lawyers, or something, but it's certainly applicable here – ESPECIALLY since the Mommies' shrill shrieks had nothing to do with the restaurant changing its policy.
Despite the Mommies' screeching, it was unfortunately our own that shot us in the proverbial foot. A restaurant that previously welcomed everyone onto its premises decided guns were no longer wanted, because it was dragged kicking and screaming into a political issue – one it obviously wanted no part of. This happened again and again – at Starbucks and Jack in the Box. Every time open carry advocates showed up at a place of business with their rifles in tow (and sometimes at the ready), taking photos and strutting around showing off their hardware, the establishments, apparently averse to attention, politely decided guns weren't welcome.
This, of course, didn't stop the Mommies from claiming credit where credit wasn't due.
It would be surprising if the gun-grabbing mommies didn't take the opportunity to crow about their alleged "victory," but we wonder if they will claim credit for contributing to Jack in the Box's dreadful luck subsequent to the restaurant's decision to ban guns on its premises.
Now, far be it for us to claim causation, but it is a bit of unfortunate coincidence, Jack in the Box was robbed not once, not twice, but three times after asking its customers to leave their tools of self-defense out of their restaurants.
A young man was robbed and shot outside the Jack in the Box restaurant in north Harris County just a few weeks after the restaurant asked its customers not to bring their guns with them when patronizing their establishments.
A few days later another Jack in the Box restaurant was robbed - this time in Houston.
Another Jack in the Box was robbed – also in Houston – shortly afterward, making it the third time in approximately 10 days.
Since the Mommies were so anxious to claim credit for Chipotle, Jack in the Box and other restaurants' decision to disallow guns on their premises, we wonder if they will claim responsibility for the subsequent robberies that took place there.
We wonder if they will accept accountability for the robbery at The Pit Authentic Barbecue in Durham, North Carolina, after that store was robbed at gunpoint after they placed a "NO WEAPONS" sign in their window.
Joking aside, it would be disingenuous for us to claim that the stores' very public, very known policy of banning self-defense on their premises caused these robberies. But it is quite coincidental and unlucky that these stores were robbed so shortly after they openly advertised their gun-free zoneliness to the world.
It's also quite a shame no one was around to stop these armed thugs. It would be unfair to assume that even if the restaurant allowed armed self-defense, there would have been someone on the premises who was armed and ready to stop the criminal. But at the same time, these restaurants ensured that no such person would be present at all.
It is a fact that robberies increase when guns are banned. In England and Australia, robbery rates skyrocketed when gun ownership was banned. In Sydney alone armed robbery rates increased by 160 percent in 2001 over the previous year, according to press. In 2004, England saw a 22 percent increase in robberies.
It makes sense that criminals would be hesitant to commit crimes and increase the risk of getting hurt if there's a possibility that someone inside the establishment they are about to rob could be armed. Even the dumbest of thugs would be forced to perform a cost-benefit analysis, given the likelihood of getting shot.
Without that possibility, it is no surprise that the robbers are emboldened to do what they do, and the establishments become magnets for such activity.
And we doubt the Mommies would claim credit.
Nicki Kenyon has been an avid gun rights advocate since she returned to the United States from an overseas Army tour in Germany. She began writing about Second Amendment issues in 2001 when KeepAndBearArms.com published her first essay, "The Moment.". She holds a Bachelor of Science degree in International Relations from the Johns Hopkins University and a Master of Arts degree in National Security Studies from American Military University. Her area of expertise in those fields is European and Eurasian affairs. When not writing about gun rights or hanging out with her husband and son, she practices dry-firing her M1911 at the zombies of "The Walking Dead."