Yes, i agree with you on this.
My wife & I will not walk into a place or business that has the signs. We don’t need to do business with them if they make it unsafe to shop or eat. We know there are evil people out there who want to rob and kill. And for a business to put up a NO GUN SIGN will not stop them. They don’t care about laws. The business has set their self up for real bad things to happen. At best if I have my carry piece we have a change . I have a little saying. BETTER TO HAVE & NOT NEED THEN NEED AD NOT HAVE.
2 Likes
I don’t blame you. I try to avoid places like that at all costs unless I absolutely have to go a facility such as a doctors office.
1 Like
Thanks Lakerfan. Been on my mind, as I use Uber and Lyft sometimes.
Understood, but I’m not talking about legal liability. I’m talking about a company that says one of their drivers should had died rather than fight back. I can’t do business with a company that thinks so little of their own people.
7 Likes
No problem. 
I think in all reality places that have no guns allowed signs actually attract violence. It makes sense. And if people have to carry there anyway just to feel safe, they shouldn’t be going there at all.
3 Likes
Our right to self-defense is not about that, just as having a fire extinguisher does not mean we fear fire. We are our own first responders. Obviously none of us would go somewhere that we expect to have a need for self-defense - that breaks the first rule - avoidance.
Yep, that’s true
Twas what I was about to say. Does that also apply to their clients???
But she still has to live with what happened and does it really make a difference if it’s a female or male? What can happen to one can happen to the other. Sounds more like a Male chauvinist saying that.
I am not 100% sure. The summary of bill S44 says any premises owner. That leads me to believe it would apply to both private homes as well as businesses.
Of course since it is only a proposal a lot could change if it were to get approved
Luis, if you read my further post, I made the statement that I hold myself to the same standard. I’m generally not out past midnight, alone, interacting with strangers. It’s not a male/female thing, it’s common sense. Bad judgment aside, the most important thing is she is alive because she carries.
2 Likes
Understood and thank God yes she is alive. Sorry for any misunderstanding. I work for the county so I know what it takes to be out there thru out the night but my job is not more important than my life.
1 Like
While I agree she has the right to defend herself; for me, the most important rule of winning a gunfight is not being in one.
I’m old enough to know for certain that nothing good happens after midnight. Heck that might be 10 pm now lol .
I"m glad she’s safe, and I don’t like Lyft’s policy, but I also wonder why she thought picking up 2 guys at 1 in the morning was a good idea.
1 Like
I’ll go back to my earlier thought that no one should have to choose between a paycheck and safety. By the same token, someone has to work the 24-hour gas stations that are always getting robbed, and someone has to work the late shift at Taco Bell. No one should be denied the right to defend themselves when things go sideways.
4 Likes
Quade,
so you’re the owner of a 24 hour gas station, and you want to provide protection for your employees.
Your attorney tells you that allowing your employees to carry at work opens you up to the risk of civil suits if they defend themselves at work.
Are you willing to risk being tied up in court, legal fees and large settlements (that could take away your business)?
I can’t deny the complexity of the situation, especially when you involve liability claims and lawyers (with apologies to our resident attorneys). But could I live with myself if my employees died because I left them defenseless? Can I afford to make my business completely safe from all crime? Can I hire Clark Kent to work the night shift? Can I afford to close my business when statistics show most crimes occur? Is it right to close all businesses in high crime areas?
Brother, that’s a dilemna that small businesses face every day.
I agree with you, they should be able to defend themselves. But the business also needs to be protected against liability.
I can see how this requires a clause in the Code of Conduct, that prohibits carrying.
It would also require disciplinary action against people who violate code of conduct. This doesn’t automatically mean termination, does it?
The truth is, Lyft acted both lawfully and immorally. They are an immoral company interested in making money while virtue signalling. Nothing new.
1 Like
That seems to be a common theme, lately. Every time some big company does something awful, a lot of people just shrug it off because it’s not illegal. But just because certain actions are legal doesn’t mean that they’re ethical or smart.
2 Likes