HankT
State Researcher
imported post
Tidewater wrote:
The individual business location, or the corporatepolicy-making department, simply decideson different conceptualmodel of acceptable (and manageable) behavior in their stores than you or I would use. One,not the only one, factor is that the behavior of OC inside a store at its simplest level is a behavior that is done by a tiny percentage of itscustomers. So, if it is deemed objectionable (byemployees, managment,other customers, etc.) then it can be "safely" prohibited. The "safe" prohibition, of course, could notdeny some fundamental right of citizens,because that would likely cause blowback and badpress.If there would betoo much blowback, or the wrong kind, then the prohibition would not be "safe" anymore.
There are probably 4to 6 main factors that go into the conceptualmodel that retailers use to decide whether to give OCthe OK or the boot in their stores. Even if they don't do a formal analysis of the problem, they stillmust use a model of somekind to aid in their consideration of the aspects of the problem.
It would be interesting for a business location owner/manager or a corporate policy-maker to come on OCDO to have a discussion about what goes into the decision to ban OC. Or to allow it, for that matter.
It would be educational for both sides. Right now, it is evident that the pro-OCers don't really understand the prohibiting stores/chains and the stores probably don't really understand the OCers. A good two-way communication would aid both sides, for sure.
Tidewater wrote:
I dont understand businesses sometimes? Wouldnt you think, when its obvious that your there with the best of intentions, that it would be good for your customers to be armed? After all, if someone did have ill-intentions, wouldnt they have immediatley carried out what they wanted to accomplish dispite laws? Thats what I DO NOT understand about many carrying laws.
The individual business location, or the corporatepolicy-making department, simply decideson different conceptualmodel of acceptable (and manageable) behavior in their stores than you or I would use. One,not the only one, factor is that the behavior of OC inside a store at its simplest level is a behavior that is done by a tiny percentage of itscustomers. So, if it is deemed objectionable (byemployees, managment,other customers, etc.) then it can be "safely" prohibited. The "safe" prohibition, of course, could notdeny some fundamental right of citizens,because that would likely cause blowback and badpress.If there would betoo much blowback, or the wrong kind, then the prohibition would not be "safe" anymore.
There are probably 4to 6 main factors that go into the conceptualmodel that retailers use to decide whether to give OCthe OK or the boot in their stores. Even if they don't do a formal analysis of the problem, they stillmust use a model of somekind to aid in their consideration of the aspects of the problem.
It would be interesting for a business location owner/manager or a corporate policy-maker to come on OCDO to have a discussion about what goes into the decision to ban OC. Or to allow it, for that matter.
It would be educational for both sides. Right now, it is evident that the pro-OCers don't really understand the prohibiting stores/chains and the stores probably don't really understand the OCers. A good two-way communication would aid both sides, for sure.