Taken to Task?

I was just contacted on Twitter with this reaction to my last AmmoLand piece. Since there just isn't enough of me to field all the stuff that comes my way AND do one-on-one detailed responses to everyone, I'm sharing this one here. 

I wrote a short thread about some of the history behind 7-11's ban on armed clerks. Thought you might be interested. https://t.co/q5okvETL1W

— carl von spooky claws (@killfile) October 11, 2020

So "Circle K uses off duty leo's"? Ah, the old "Only Ones" argument! I see that's working about as expected.

Followed by:

"This issue has nothing to with gun rights. It is simply a counterintuitive decision that recognizes that attacks are not static. Attackers will escalate violence to overcome defenses. This is about perverse incentives and effective tactical strategies.  "

Anything or anyone that denies another human being from exercising his or her rights has everything to do with that. Besides, don't tell me, tell these guys.

Since when is surrendering to monsters "an effective tactical strategy"?

As for cameras, everybody's wearing masks now, and as for "drop-boxes," I can't help but note the stores are still being robbed. Besides, if somebody is threatening my life, your money isn't what I intend to protect.

What this has nothing to do with is an employee acting as a de facto security guard but with the ability to defend his life from a predator. It has nothing to do with stopping a robbery or chasing after a shoplifter, neither one of which that are paid and trained and steeped in legalities enough to do. It has everything to do with a person having an absolute right to stop someone else from threatening to kill them. No one can morally deny them the choice to make what is their call. 

That doesn't mean they will all be armed, as I'm sure many will be idiots who believe the grabber bs, but if Mr. VonSpookyclaws wants to challenge More Guns, Less Crime, I'd like to see his creds and his research. 

Sure, Col. Cooper cautioned us that being armed does not mean you're proficient. That said, many do more shooting in a weekend than police are required to do for qualification. Unsourced anecdotes about old Southland policies before that evidence was in and not providing copies of those policies, their context, and all results, including successful DGUs, hardly constitute an overwhelming dataset to justify one-size-fits-all. It speaks more to corporate CYA. 

And there's plenty of reason to presume most sub-80 IQ morons knocking over convenience stores don't do any practice at all because that's too much like discipline and work. Don't assume that just because someone works behind a counter they don't have the training -- and most importantly, the will -- to prevail. 

The argument this person is making, that if you are armed robbers will just take you out first, is a phony "rationale"  used to disarming everyone anywhere. 

So no, I'm not really interested in hearing the same old whiny rationalizations and excuses masked as informed rebuttals that I've heard for 30 years. Especially when they ignore a fundamental question raised that we've seen enacted many times: WHAT IF WHAT THEY WANT IS YOU?