That was some truly exceptional insight on the part of Mr. Luscomb. For it’s a safe bet that employees and guests–especially those who were shot–had indeed been made “uncomfortable” by the “…presence of guns inside [the] restaurant,” especially as those guns were in the possession of criminals thanks to the new no firearm/no self defense policy implemented for employees and customers.
And one certainly hopes the restaurant considers the shooting of customers in two cities to be “unintended consequences” of Jack’s new “Gun Free Zone” edict. Unintended yes; unexpected, not so much. Just another example of “common sense” gun control at its finest.
By the way, the principal claim used by the Moms Demand Action group, which apparently frightened CEO Comma into immediately yielding to their demands, consisted of the groups’ assertion that a number of men carrying rifles had entered one of the restaurant locations and scared employees so badly that they hid in a store freezer. Of course, the NY Times printed this claim just as it had been provided to the newspaper by Moms!
A short time later, however, the group Open Carry Texas helped prove the story to be an out and out lie. The Times printed a brief retraction.
Armed private citizens may have prevented as many as eight killings during the past week or so. Yet concerns of Jack in the Box CEO Comma that self-defense could result in an “uncomfortable situation” may be responsible for the use of his own, defenseless customers as clay pigeons.
Terribly complicated stuff, isn’t it, Senator Feinstein?
The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.