Target Corp is no longer listening

[Thunder71]

Just as I was afraid of - now it's time for damage control, as the media headlines read: Target Bans Guns

Example:
http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/ ... endly.html

This is what the general public will believe, hopefully it won't result in my 'man with a gun' calls.

[Ghost]

Yeah, I'm sure Target's new policy would have stopped him from carrying a firearm into their store when being a prohibited person under Federal law and being in violation of a felony wouldn't.....

Yep, just like a background check kept him from getting one in the first place.

[s4oak]

This was a ridiculous over-reaction to less than a dozen people at one location in Texas. All they had to do to solve the problem was to trespass the people who were actually causing the problem. Their new policy effects millions of people to presumably solve a problem with a very small handful at one location in Texas.

Also, those people are not gun rights activists, they're gun rights antagonists, they're gun rights idiots. Someone needs to shut that group down before they do any more harm, talk some sense into them or something. At this point it comes down to this:

Incidentally, OCT had stopped going to Target long before that image was ever yoinked by MDA and paraded through the media because they were informed they might jeopardize Target's license to sell liquor and didn't want to cause trouble.

And by condemning them you are only perpetuating the perception that OC is weird or wrong or shouldn't be allowed. Join or die, as they say.

[jshuberg]

Openly carrying a long gun at Target is a ridiculously stupid thing to do. Just because it's legal doesn't make it right.

I'll acknowledge that there may be times and places where openly carrying a pistol would make sense. There are also times and places where it doesn't, and I personally believe that the vast majority don't make sense. People who open carry in order to instigate, or antagonize, or to flaunt their "rights" in other peoples faces are reckless, wrong, and need to get off our side.

The people in Open Carry Texas need to pull their heads out of their a$$es and realize how much they're actions are setting back gun rights.

[jgalt]

And by condemning them you are only perpetuating the perception that OC is weird or wrong or shouldn't be allowed. Join or die, as they say.

1 - there is nothing wrong with OC, where legal
2 - OC should be legal everywhere
3 - there will always be those who are freaked out by the sight of a gun
4 - those folks are, especially in major metro areas, significantly more numerous than those of us who want to carry for self-defense - let alone those who want to open carry
5 - OC in those areas where doing so will never persuade a large enough percentage of the population to change their minds is, at the very least worthless, and at worst is incredibly damaging to the very cause they claim to support...

My opinion - these OC "activists" are more concerned with carrying a firearm than they are with self-defense, and their flawed attempts at activism (which are not actual activism (i.e. an attempt to persuade), but rather are simply confrontational / bully tactics) are affecting my ability to lawfully carry the most effective tool available to me for the purpose of self-defense. It is in no way contradictory to believe points # 1 & 2 above, while still condeming Open Carry Texas (and any other individual or group more concerned with the gun itself than with its purpose) for their failed / incredibly stupid tactics and their affect on me.

You do see that, don't you?

[jshuberg]

The presence or absence of a pistol should never change how a person behaves. It exists as a contingency should all mitigating actions to prevent a violent assault fail.

OCT is making it all about the gun by using in your face, reckless, antagonistic practices. I condemn their practice and condemn the group as being incredibly foolish.

[Ghost]

Protesting in or at places that depend on making money does not make sense when you are on the wrong side of making money, if you're on the right side of it there's usually no need to protest. Most people don't feel comfortable shopping in a place with people carrying guns therefore Target will not side with guns. Protests should be held in parks and other public venues where nobody is forced to respond by taking a side.

If I had my choice of shopping in a store where everybody had a slung or holstered AR (see below) vs a store where I was the only one that I knew had a gun I'd probably shop at the later because to me there is less risk, the only safe gun is the one I'm personally in control of.

[Squib Joe]

The best response by Target would have been no response at all.

The Moms still look at this as a victory, even if it wasn't. It encourages them to continue.

[Vashjir]

Sounds to me like 'Concealed is concealed' still applies. Target basically said 'idiots with something to prove are not particularly welcome'. Since I'm not one of those idiots, I'll continue to shop their as needed, although aldi, amazon and wally world have been getting an increasing share of my shopping dollars for reasons others have pointed out.
Target's position is intentionally meaningless, they have not banned guns, yet they've given the 'concerned mom' crowd enough lip service to shut them up. Its probably the best form of doing nothing for the bottom line.

[Thunder71]

They say it's not a ban, but it's being perceived as one by many... Why does that matter? If people think guns are not ALLOWED, common sense says they will be more likely to turn in people they see carrying.

Time will tell if this is a real issue or not... but there sure are a lot of people cheering on Target's decision to 'ban firearms' and glad they will not be shopping next to someone with (gasp) a loaded gun.

I'm quick to remind them that violent criminals will carry a firearm wherever they please... regardless of signs, laws, and policies.

[jshuberg]

There are no less than 3 stories about this at the strib:

http://www.startribune.com/business/265535731.html
http://www.startribune.com/business/261914391.html
http://www.startribune.com/politics/nat ... 37251.html

In the first article they spoke with Joe Olson, chairman of GOCRA:

Some gun rights activists emphasized though that Target is not banning guns. The “policy will have no practical impact,” Gun Owners Civil Rights Alliance, a Minnesota group, said in a statement. It also said the mom’s group gets financial backing from Michael Bloomberg, the media billionaire and former New York mayor who campaigned for stiffer gun laws and started a group called Mayors Against Illegal Guns.

“Target is trying to have it both ways,” Joseph Olson, the group’s founder, said in the statement. “They want to stop Bloomberg’s social media attacks, but they don’t want to alienate millions of Target customers who legally carry, so they call it a ‘request,’ one that carries no enforcement.”

It added that gun owners and permit holders will have to decide whether to keep shopping at Target.

The first article I read portrayed the "request" as their deciding to ban firearms. It looks like that's not what they're actually doing, but some in the press are trying to give that impression. I'm going to hold off on deciding whether I'm ever going to shop at Target again and take GOCRA's lead on the issue. I understand that they were being pressured pretty hard, but their new stance does make a political statement, whether they intend it to or not.

Edit:

From a GOCRA Email blast:

We see this as the most realistic action that Target could take to stop the social media attacks from Bloomberg's checkbook activists. Target is saying, "Hey, we just want to sell soap. Don't drag us into your political fight."

This being the case, I withdraw my statement that I will be boycotting Target stores in the future.

[Rip Van Winkle]

So Target issues a non ban gun ban, both sides claim victory and everybody is happy.

[DoxaPar]

They learned well from Starbucks.

Edit: Oh, and the folks that pulled that BS in Texas are idiots.

[sprigfan]

I got the GOCRA email as well. They are pretty much considering this a clear victory for permit holders. The email title is, "Target Says NO to Bloomberg Bullies."

[jshuberg]

Target could have banned firearms, they didn't. They did give Bloomberg and his cackle of anti-gun cultists something to propagandize on which really sucks, but in the end they didn't ban guns.

If you open carry a long gun at Target, expect to be asked to leave. And expect me to call you an idiot as well.......