.

Buffalo Wild Wings Gun Ban: What Do You Think?

Commenters express outrage on the business’s Facebook page after some of the company-owned restaurants post signs prohibiting guns on the premises.

Buffalo Wild Wings is attracting controversy after some of the chain’s company-owned restaurants began posting signs banning guns on the property.

KDKA reports photos taken at restaurants around the nation are popping up on social media sites of signs that say guns are not allowed inside the buildings.

No such sign was at the Buffalo Wild Wings on Route 22 in Wilkins Township over the weekend.

The move has sparked outrage on the company’s official Facebook page.

"It's your right to disarm your customers as is our right to go eat elsewhere from now on to prevent becoming a victim,” said one poster. “I changed banks for the same reason.”

In a statement to KDKA, Buffalo Wild Wings' corporate headquarters said that while the company “respects the right of individuals to carry firearms. One of our top priorities is the comfort, safety and enjoyment of our Guests and we have elected to exercise our right to prohibit the carrying of firearms in our company-owned restaurants.”

The company told the news station it regrets any inconveniences, but “This long-standing position is in the best interest of our Guests and our Team Members. This position may vary in independently owned franchised locations.”

KDKA checked a few of the local Buffalo Wild Wings restaurants in Pittsburgh and found most of them currently do not have signs banning guns on their doors.

We want to know what you think. Would a ban on guns inside the premises prevent you from eating at the restaurant chain? Do you approve of Buffalo Wild Wings' stance? Tell us in the comment section below.

______________________

"Like" Patch on Facebook. | Follow us on Twitter. | Sign up for our daily email newsletter.

Todd Anderson January 28, 2013 at 02:58 PM
Seems like a good way to needlessly lose business.
Kat Woman January 28, 2013 at 03:45 PM
I think it is great. Kudos to BWW for a taking a stand!
Pat O'Neil January 28, 2013 at 04:57 PM
Yes, this is great because those signs will definitely make someone think twice about murdering dozens of people. I mean who wants to get in trouble for breaking a rule (not a law) by bringing a gun into the restaurant. We are so much safer.
Pat O'Neil January 28, 2013 at 06:29 PM
Kat, can you please explain to me how this policy stops a robber or someone looking to shoot up the place from doing so? Please list any link to a story where a person legally carrying a concealed weapon snapped in the middle of a public place and started shooting innocent people. Thank you
Kathleen Gaberson January 28, 2013 at 06:40 PM
I support the right of businesses to prohibit carrying firearms into their buildings. I would be much more likely to take my business to these establishments. TwoFists, no one thinks that signs like this will prevent mass murders. If we had laws that prohibit ownership of assault-type weapons and carrying of handguns in public places, we could enforce such laws through appropriate judicial sanctions. But absent such laws, I would feel more comfortable dining in a restaurant that prohibited guns because I would assume that most if not all of the other diners supported such a ban, as I do, and complied with it. The best way to avoid being killed by gunfire is not to be around people who have firearms.
Pat O'Neil January 28, 2013 at 06:44 PM
Kathleen. That's all well and good. Now I'll pose the same question to you as I did above. How does that policy stop a robber or would be murderer from coming in with a gun and killing and robbing people? I've asked this a million times on a million boards and have yet to get an answer. Do you not see the gaping hole in the logic of making it a gun free zone? Unless you're going to use metal detectors at the doors and search everyone then the policy is useless.
Pat O'Neil January 29, 2013 at 01:21 PM
Still waiting .... I understand you all want to live in a utopia where even the criminals would respect a "no gun" policy but I hate to break it to you, that isn't going to happen. I hope you never find yourself in a situation someday where the only armed person around is the criminal, maybe then you'll see the error in your logic, unfortunately it may be too late at that point.
JD January 29, 2013 at 03:24 PM
I think it's funny that gun advocates look right over the glaring issue that these policies are meant to remedy—accidental shootings. If there's a no-gun policy in an establishment, there's less of a change of an accidental discharge, simple as that. If you know someone whose lost a loved one due to an accidental shooting, you'd understand this. If you don't know someone whose lost a loved one due to an accidental shooting, you probably will at some point in your lifetime, unless things change. There will always be crazy people with guns. No law will eliminate that. But I feel better bringing my kids to buffalo wild wings in light of this policy. Even if it means it's more of a target for an armed robbery, there's less of a chance of me, or my child, getting snagged in the crossfire of a senseless gun battle.
Pat O'Neil January 29, 2013 at 03:32 PM
JD, are there accidental shootings happening in restaurants that often? I honestly have never heard of one. I'm not saying they don't happen but could you give some examples? I would still say it's much more likely to get shot by a criminal or maybe even just robbed than you are to have an accidental shooting at these places. BTW, I also believe in their right to do this, it is private property and I respect that. I simply don't like to patronize places that, in my opinion, put my family and myself at an unneeded risk.
Kathleen Gaberson January 31, 2013 at 08:29 PM
TwoFists, that policy will not stop an armed would-be robber or criminal from entering an establishment. But I think I have less chance of being shot by the criminal than I do getting caught in the crossfire when multiple people with varying degrees of marksmanship try to be a hero and "defend" everybody in the restaurant by pulling their guns and shooting at the criminal. Police officers are trained to use their guns under stressful conditions like this; ordinary citizens usually are not. I'm not seeking to live in a utopia; I just don't have confidence that the guy sitting in the next booth would be shooting cooly and accurately at the would-be robber, not at someone who accidently moves between him and his intended target. I hear about too many accidental shootings that wound the gun owner or innocent bystanders (including family members) because of clumsiness, foolishness, or failure to follow safety precautions.
Kathleen Gaberson January 31, 2013 at 08:37 PM
Fine, TwoFists. You and your family can stay home or go somewhere else where your gun is welcomed. I will feel safer in the restaurant that you and other gun owners are shunning.
Pat O'Neil February 01, 2013 at 06:14 PM
Kathleen, when has this happened ever? I have never seen a story about a shootout happening in a restaurant with innocent people being killed in the crossfire. Think about it this way; it doesn't matter if someone in the restaurant actually has a gun or not. The fact that the criminal knows that there is a chance that one or multiple people in the place may be carrying a weapon is probably enough to make him reconsider robbing the place. It's not a macho thing or a gun thing really, it's just common sense that you don't advertise a place with lots of money and people in it as being totally defenseless.
Pat O'Neil February 01, 2013 at 06:23 PM
Sorry, I forgot to address the other part of your response. I would NEVER pull out my gun and try to be a hero in a robbery. Only if the perp showed he was about to start shooting would I even consider pulling my weapon. Quite honestly, I would probably only use it in defense of myself and my family. The last thing anyone who carries a firearm wants to do is to have to pull it out and use it. Your life will never be the same after an incident like that. Even if it is justified you have to live with those actions. You may think you have little chance of a robber shooting you during a hold up but are you willing to bet your life and the life of your family on that? I'm not http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luby's_massacre
Kathleen Gaberson February 02, 2013 at 03:18 AM
That sounds like adolescent thinking--it has never happened to me, so it never will. Carrying a gun emboldens some people to do things that others would find senseless. If you and your family are in a restaurant and someone else pulls out a gun and threatens others, you are going to focus on whether or not you need to pull your gun to protect yourself. Maybe you would exercise some self-restraint and not do so unless your own life or your family members' lives were specifically endangered, but other gun owners might not be as reticent to play the role of hero. I don't want to be anywhere near that scene. And if you want to discuss what's plausible and what's not, when was the last time you heard of someone entering a crowded restaurant during business hours with a drawn weapon, intending robbery or another crime? It's not the thought that patrons carrying guns would be there that would discourage the would-be criminal, it's the fact that the place would be full of people, period. Lots of money and lots of people in the same place at the same time does not make a restaurant vulnerable to crime.
Kathleen Gaberson February 02, 2013 at 03:31 AM
I'll take my chances with the criminal. Re: the Wikipedia article (BTW, I don't consider Wikipedia an authoritative source of information)--If Hupp had had her gun in her purse, how do you know that drawing it out would have allowed her to defend herself and her parents? More likely, it would have prompted the perpetrator (who was clearly mentally ill) to kill her immediately. And your thinking that you would never act the hero is no proof that others wouldn't if given the chance.
Pat O'Neil February 04, 2013 at 07:09 PM
Kathleen, The Luby's shooting was quite well known and resulted in her testifying in front of lawmakers numberous times. I'm never going to convince you if you think that it would be better that the entire restaurant be unarmed and defenseless against a gunman. BTW, in her testimony she talked about how close she was to the gunman (she was only about 12 feet away) and his back was to her. I'm pretty confident she would have hit him since she was trained to shoot and was comfortable with the weapon. Of course there's no guarantee but she was willing to try which would have at least distracted him and maybe would have allowed others to escape. Take your chances with the criminal if you decide that's the safest thing for you and your family but never assume that there aren't guns around you (good or bad guys) because of a sign.
Jesse Garboden February 15, 2013 at 01:26 AM
One thing you have to remember the bad guys are the police as well. If you ban guns you must say to the police you must leave your gun in the car. So in that, police would be breaking your law of not having guns in the store. When there is a gun ban I would not even let an armed police man in because it would be breaking the law of not having them in the store. Gun are protected under the Constitution no matter what law the gov passes. Gun are legal 100% of the time no matter what the current gov says. If you change the Constitution you must leave the country because you don't love america. I don't have a gun for personal reasons. But if I had to get no law would prevent Keep me from protecting my friends and family and those who love the USA.
Jesse Garboden February 15, 2013 at 01:27 AM
If you don't love the Constitution your not an american.
Kathleen Gaberson February 16, 2013 at 02:06 AM
Really?!? Do you think that you are presenting a convincing argument? Just because some police officers are "bad guys" doesn't mean that you can label all police officers as such. And police officers in this country are expected to carry guns as part of their law enforcement responsibilities. A specific restaurant's designating its property as gun-free doesn't ban a police officer from entering it with his or her service weapon. And a specific establishment's policy is not a law, so a police officer who does so is not breaking a law. Even if private citizens were to be banned by federal or state law from owning personal weapons, police officers who carry weapons would not be breaking the law. It's the same principle as emergency and rescue vehicles breaking the speed limit when they are responding to an emergency with sirens and flashing lights--they take appropriate precautions to protect the public but they exceed the posted speed limit if the circumstances require it. Read the 2nd Amendment to the Consitution sometime and see if it guarantees gun ownership without restrictions whatsoever. It doesn't say that federal or state law can't place reasonable restrictions on who may own guns and what types of weapons they may own. By "the current government" do you mean the current President? He was elected by the voters with the responsibility to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States." Why would he try to pass a law against the Constitution?
Kathleen Gaberson February 16, 2013 at 02:12 AM
"If you change the Constitution you must leave the country because you don't love America"? But the Second Amendment to the Constitution itself was a change to the Constitution, as was every other Amendment. The Constitution itself contains a provision for such Amendments, so changing it by adding an amendment doesn't violate the Constitution. Any Federal law that is passed must be in line with the Constitition or there may be a legal challenge, all the way up to the Supreme Court if necessary, to its constitutionality. Checks and balances, that's how it works, spelled out by the Constitution itself. Oh, and by the way, the Constitution guarantees us freedom of speech, including the right to criticize the Constitution. Criticism doesn't mean that the speaker doesn't love our country.
Kathleen Gaberson February 16, 2013 at 02:16 AM
Jesse, see my previous comment. As an American, I have a Constitutionally protected right to criticize the constitution. But what makes you think that my opposition to the ownership and carrying of assault-style weapons into restaurants and other public places is criticism of the Constitution? I think that most gun advocates misinterpret the Second Amendment, at best, and some may have no idea what it actually says. Read it sometime, and then read a Constitution scholar's interpretation of the framers' intent.

Boards

More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something