The fact that people can't differentiate gun control from the decision making process of why Autozone made the policy that they did and stuck by it is absurd. It is not a question of gun control at all.
But the lack of reason, and inability to reasonably discuss from that point of view, is why everyone gets labeled as a joe shot 'em up, and the gun control people end up pushing their agenda more and more.
And then when 300k guns are stolen per year, because the gun owners did not properly protect them, and they go into the hands of thieves, the situation propagates. That's not a justification for gun control, that's a justification for gun owners to take their heads out of the sand and recognize that they aren't living up to their responsibility, which propagates the problem... Which apparently doesnt happen, and again works in favor of those pushing gun control.
If this was a discussion of how to deal with the tactical situation if someone was shopping in the store, it would be one thing. It isn't. It's a question of why AZ sets the policy they did, based upon cost, which is directly related to outcomes. I've posted the basis for it as best as I can see. I've seen nothing but unfounded d knee jerk responses that may actually be more endangering than the AZ approach. This doesn't mean anything to the contrary of the premise that an armed society is more polite, that thieves will think twice if people who are armed are present, etc.
But that's not the situation we have here and now, so while getting to that point is a good goal, it's not reality for now. Less gun control, unhampered by localities and states is a good thing, but must be coupled to far more responsibility on part of the owners, so that the armed, safe society can be achieved (200-600k gun thefts per year is unacceptable).. I hope we get there in a reasonable time. All the statistics and basis for lower crime indicate that it should be the case, but again, it's not the situation that we have yet.
I fault az for their decision, but can understand, especially based upon study of millions of outcomes, why they set policy how they do, and believe they made the right decision from a business perspective, which does indeed minimize loss of life to the greatest extent.
But since nobody is capable of discussing that point in a reasonable manner with actual basis to support what has been stated to the contrary, which is all purely speculation or some calling to teach thieves a lesson, this is nothing but a waste of time.
