HankT
State Researcher
MEMBERS: Please take action on this Post!
...
In our discussion, Mr. Wright fully agreed with me that this policy will have absolutely no impact on criminals, but he stated that Corporate Officers had made the decision due to actions by armed customers who were not criminals or of criminal intent. Their decision, he stated, was based on legal matters that result from allowing armed customers.
Mr. Wright sounds like a reasonable man. He understands that corporate policy doesn't really affect bad guys with guns, so he is not being fooled by the usual lib/lefty/anti GFZ-ideal mentality. He (corporate) is being logical.
And corporate is relying on the appropriate evidence--actions by legally armed customers in WF--to justify the corporate policy.
Kind of hard to argue WF's corporate logic. And kind of hard to support selection of boycott as the appropriate response. A boycott, by itself, doesn't make much sense, really.
The intelligent and productive thing to "take action" about is regarding what those "armed customers" (non-badguys) did. Whatever they did is hurting the public image of lawful gun carriers (OC and/or CC). And if that information is communicated to, say, IHOP, it may soon follow suit.
It's possible that the evidence that corporate is relying on is wrong. Or old, or improperly analyzed. Need to get a look at that before any retaliatory action.
Boycotts are almost always bad strategy. If they are based on simplism, they are always bad strategy.