What can be done to stop mass shootings & gun crime? I’m ever so glad you asked.

With another mass shooting making headlines, the antigun extremists are out in force, from the President stating he would like Australian style gun control (and the firearms bans & confiscations that go with it), columnists not even bothering to hide that they want confiscation, to the slacktivists sharing facebook memes.

Here’s the thing, though.  When they are done venting, if you ask them what their plan is to specifically address these shootings, they can’t identify what would have prevented them.  Watch Charles W. Cooke do just that on Morning Joe:

I’ve got some ideas though.  Pardon the coarse language, but it’s time for real talk and if you can’t handle it, you aren’t ready for a serious discussion on this topic.

Identify the current policies that are failing
All jokes about nuclear holocaust and wiping out humanity as a solution aside, I think we all can agree that the current policy of “let’s make sure that the crazy guy with a gun has a safe working environment” has failed miserably at preventing mass shootings. When you are just nutty enough to commit several death penalty felonies such as mass murder and the like, a sign on a door saying “no guns” isn’t going to stop you. With that in mind, maybe it’s time to allow people to defend themselves since there’s at least 10 instances of people with CCW preventing mass shootings or stopping them from getting any further.

Nobody is saying HURR DURR GUNS EVERYWHERE. Nobody is calling for armed swat teams in schools. Please save the “blood will run in the streets, armed vigilantes getting in fights over tests!” arguments as they haven’t born out in the 30 or so years CCW reform has been spreading through the US. Texas collects CHL revocation rates and unsurprisingly people who bother to go through the legal rigmarole of having a clean criminal record, getting tested and getting a permit to carry commit far fewer crimes than the general population as a whole. Before anyone starts whining about drunk freshmen carrying guns at college, most states have a 21 year old age limit for CCW so chances are the only people carrying are going to be adults doing continuing education or veterans using the GI Bill. All things being equal, I’d rather dudes like Chris Mintz have something other than their gigantic brass balls to fight with if they happen to encounter a school shooter.

As it is right now, even if your state allows you to carry at work or school, you can be fired or expelled for doing so. Maybe, just maybe, that should change.

This is not a “guns everywhere” argument.  This is about being pro-choice when it comes to self defense.

Stricter enforcement of firearms violations
Most firearms crimes are felonies. It does no good to make all these felonies if you don’t prosecute. If someone is stopped on a background check because they are a felon, put them in jail. Obama has talked tough on this but hasn’t delivered

Then again, neither has any president. This is a decades long problem, across all administrations. Nobody has ever cracked down on these crimes – you know how you hear about background checks stopping [x] number of felons from getting guns? Each of those is a slam dunk fed felony with prison time up to ten years and fines up to $250k. They aren’t enforced ever so they aren’t effective deterrents – they are a toothless threat. When Colorado passed universal background checks, they touted something like 2900 criminals being stopped by background checks within the state and claimed this was a sign of success (and these were actual felons with ag assault, murder, burglaries, etc convictions). They made around 230 arrests off them. Who knows how many went to jail for it.

Meanwhile guys like this get probation for actually getting caught trafficking by nutball judges.

On top of that, a couple of these mass murderers had run ins with the cops prior to going hog wild

  • The Navy Yard Shooter, Alexis Aaron, had shot out some guys tires, claiming he went into a blackout rage and got his ass kicked out of the navy on another firearms charge.
  • The guy that shot up the Lafayette movie theater had been denied a CCW because he’d been brought in on arson and domestic violence charges. Guess what? No convictions.

Maybe, just maybe, getting some of these guys to plead guilty to felonies or putting them behind bars might have prevented them being able to buy a gun in a store.

Fixing the background check system
For those unfamiliar with the process, every time someone buys a gun from a FFL, they are put through the National Instant Background Check system that was proposed by the NRA when the 94 Brady Bill went through. The NICS system takes the info filled in on the ATF 4473 and checks it against a FBI database and returns either PROCEED / DENY / DELAY. It’s only as good as the info that gets put into it.

NICS needs to be fixed. States are inputting crap into the database, or not putting in complete records. The gun industry has a campaign to solve this: http://www.fixnics.org/factinfo.cfm

  • Remember the Lafayette movie theater guy? Yeah, GA removed his info from NICS, allowing him to buy a gun from a pawn shop.
  • Dylan Roof, the Charleston Church Shooter, had been arrested for drug charges and was pending trial, making him a prohibited person blocked from purchasing. Whoops, the reporting agency didn’t put the data in correctly and when Roof bought his gun, he was passed by NICS.
  • Jaylen Fryberg, the Marysville School Shooter, got his firearm from his father, who falsified his 4473.  Fryberg’s father was under a permanent protective order and a prohibited person – NICS should have caught that, had the information been properly

Worried about the so called “gun show loophole”? Open NICS to the public
We hear a lot of whining about how everyone needs Universal Background Checks and the Gun Show loophole and that sort of bullshit. The facts are that most of those mass murderers bought their guns at gun stores.

  • The asshole that shot up Umpqua? Bought 13 guns over 3 years, all at gun stores. Background checked for each. Apparently he got chaptered out of basic too, so there’s that…
  • Roof bought his gun at a store, and was background checked.
  • Alexis Aaron, the Navy Yard Shooter, bought his shotgun from a store and was background checked.
  • Holmes bought his guns at a store, and was background checked.
  • Cho, the Virginia Tech shooter, bought his guns at a store. You guessed it, background checked.
  • Eliot Rodgers, the Isla Vista beta bought his pistols at a store, registered them in California’s database, and underwent a waiting period for each after getting background checked – ticking off just about every gun control wish list item.

Lanza wasn’t background checked, but his mom was, and registered her guns, and complied with CT’s waiting periods and all that jazz. Even had them locked in a safe. He just murdered his mom to get to them, possibly because she was going to have him committed.  So clearly background checks aren’t a factor in stopping mass shootings and aren’t going to do any good, even if you implement Universal Background Checks.

B-b-b-b-b-b-b-b-but 40% of criminals get their guns from private sales! Nope. Not true. That’s based on a study that came out before the background check even was in place in 1995. On top of that, a study from U Chicago just came out that surveyed inmates in for violent crimes and they asked where they got their guns from. 2% said a store. 70% said family or fellow gang members. In IL you have to have a FOID to get ammo, nevermind a gun, so these enterprising lads would have a girlfriend with no rapsheet buy a bunch of guns, report them stolen, and turn them over to the gang. The rest came from street connections such as drug dealers who’d been traded guns for drugs.

Color me shocked that people who can figure out how to get cocaine from Columbia, superlab meth from South America, heroin from the far east and a host of other illegal shit including human beings for the sex slave trade are also able to figure out ways around obtaining firearms in order to protect their profits.

The “gun show loophole isn’t really a problem. Criminals state flat out that they don’t like buying them from strangers because they worry about stings.

So what can be done? Universal Background Checks aren’t a good idea – it doesn’t solve the problems listed above, and adds a whole host of new ones because the NICS system currently gets overloaded on busy sales days. Plus, it’s really a dick move to whine about people living in food deserts and then make them ride public transit across the county (or in San Francisco or Chicago’s case, out of the goddamn city since there’s no gun stores there anymore) and find a FFL during business hours, forcing them to take time off from their 3 minimum wage jobs…. etc etc etc to use every possible tumblr stereotype about why [proposal x] is racist.

What is a good idea? Open a public, smartphone accessible NICS portal to allow private sellers to prevent unlawful transfers – not perfect but better than nothing and a positive defense against trafficking charges. The Coburn proposal was just that. The same people shitting their pants about how we absolutely had to do something about the gun show loophole and needed UBCs voted in lockstep against it, showing that they really aren’t for making improvements, just telling gun owners to fuck off.

Blah blah blah MENTAL HEALTH
Yeah, it’s a trite thing to say and paid a lot of lip service, but something needs to be done. There need to be clear reporting policies for people who are a danger to themselves and others. This is tough because on one hand you don’t want to prevent people getting help. On the other hand, Holmes told his therapist about wanting to kill people before Aurora and she sent his journal by snail mail instead of getting the cops out there. Aurora was the result. Lanza was supposedly getting committed. Alexis Aaron had several episodes including hallucinations prior to shooting up the Navy Yard. As did Hauser in the Lafayette Theater shooting. Cho,the Virginia Tech Shooter had court ordered psych evals too. The guy from Umpqua was apparently a sperglord and on several meds as well. Notice a pattern?

And you know there’s no way Big fucking Pharma is going to allow a study to be done on what kind of psych meds all these crazy fuckers were on when they shot up the place. So the therapists need to be more proactive as they are the early warning system.

Rounding out this giant TL;DR there this
Stopping things before they start
An ounce of prevention, right? Violence interruption work such as what Dr Gary Slutkin does – http://www.ted.com/talks/gary_slutk…ipt?language=en – this has worked everywhere it’s been tried from Chicago to Iraq.

See also Richmond California’s efforts which led to a 2/3 reduction of murders – http://m.motherjones.com/politics/2…-rate-gun-death – stop likely offenders before they turn into murderers by making them productive members of society. This involves police work and community outreach.

Anyhow, if you don’t like this wall of text SMDFTB

If you want to whine about how we need more gun control, here’s another wall of text from an actual subject matter expert on firearms, competition shooting, firearms training, best selling author and more. This is most of the standard gun control arguments broken down so ignore the parts that you aren’t bitching about.

Advertisements

Street Robberies and You, a classic from ARFCOM

Valuable insight from a long time LEO, posted in 2012 on AR15.com:

The Enemy

Some may object to me calling hold up men “the enemy”. You can call them whatever you like. I can assure you however they are as deadly an enemy as you will find anywhere but the battlefield. Even many soldiers probably lack the viciousness and utter disregard for life most hold up men possess.

No one wakes up in the morning one day and decides to become an armed robber. It is a gradual process that requires some experience and desensitizing. Before a man will pick up a gun and threaten to kill people who have done him no harm in order to get their usually meager possessions he has to get comfortable with some things.

He has to get used to seeing others as objects for him to exploit. He has to accept he may be killed while robbing. He has to accept the felony conviction for Robbery will haunt him all his life. He has to accept he may need to kill a completely innocent person to get away with his crime.

This is a process that starts with stealing candy at the corner store as a child. It progresses through bigger property crimes that may also involve violence. But one day G gets tired of selling his stolen property for nothing and decides it would be better to steal cash. Cut out all that tiresome sales stuff.

Keep in mind many petty thieves, auto burglars, residential and commercial burglars, paper thieves, and hustlers will get to that point and decide not to become armed robbers. Most will. It is a special group of outliers who decide threatening to kill people for a few dollars is the way to go.

Once a man starts armed robbing he has crossed a line most won’t. Don’t forget that when you are looking these bastards in the eye. Their decision to kill you is already made. Your life means nothing to him. Only his does. His sole motivation for not killing you is he doesn’t want a murder case. He has already accepted he may pick one up though.

We hunt hold up men around the clock once they are identified. We send teams of fire breathing fence jumper/door kickers to find them. We will bring their mother to the office and convince her she is going to jail if we don’t have Junior in our office in an hour. We have her call her son crying hysterically for him to turn himself in before she is arrested and held without bond as a material witness and her home seized for harboring him. Most of the time they won’t. Fuck their own momma.

We will hit all Juniors friends and family’s houses. We make it so no one will harbor him. He is so hot no one will let him in their house or even talk on the phone with him. We put money on him so he knows he is right to be betrayed and set up. We do this because of one thing.

That thing is they WILL kill someone if they keep robbing. That is why the city is willing to pay all the overtime. They don’t want the murders. Think about that when you see Junior coming. The more robberies he does the closer he is to killing someone. Maybe you.

The guys who hit you on the street are gang members. They are Gangster Disciples, Vice Lords, Crips, Sureonos, many others. They do not see themselves as part of society. The street is all they know. They don’t expect to live long or stay out of prison. They take a delight in your fear and suffering. They are warped individuals for the most part. They can be extremely dangerous.

One time we were locking up a hold up man and having a conversation about how they target their victims. I was saying they pick easy ones, another guy was saying they preferred easy ones but would take anybody.

I pointed out a uniform Officer there was an NFL size guy to that hold up man. Frankly the dude was a monster. I asked hold up man if he would rob him. He said “If I needed the money”.

More:

Dynamics of Encounters

Hold up men target victims on the street in an impulsive, opportunistic manner. They see someone and make a quick judgment call on whether to rob them. The time between when you are targeted and they are on you isn’t long. Therefore, situational awareness is everything.

If you see G coming you are in good shape. If you don’t you will be the victim who says “He came out of nowhere”. No he didn’t. There are many tricks to watching out but simply watching your back is the main thing. Watch your back. If you do it enough it becomes second nature and you won’t even realize you are doing it.

Watching out is great but unfortunately many self defense courses stop there. You have parked you car in a well lit area, are aware of your surroundings, and looky here, here comes three guys across the parking lot and they start to kind of fan out.

When you lock eyes with G the very first thing you need to do it indicate you have a weapon. It doesn’t matter if you do or not. If you are a woman put your gun hand in your purse and keep it there. If you are a man fan your shirt or coat tail with your gun hand. Make it clear to dude you are mentally prepared to draw and making sure your gun is clear. This will many times result in an about face by dude. It is the single best robbery avoidance tactic IMHO.

Not long ago I was walking down the sidewalk in my town to go get my car. I was holding a folding chair in my gun hand. A car slow rolled past me with 4 heads in it. The guys in the back seat turned around as they went by looking at me. They went a little farther and U turned in the street.

Here they come back. As they started to slow down I looked at them with as contemptuous a look as I could muster and switched the chair to my left hand and flicked my shirt tail with my right hand. They just drove on mad dogging me.

In another case I was at a Christmas party and walked a girl to her car about 3 am. As we said our good-byes two guys were walking across the parking lot. One went behind a dumpster. I though he was peeing. He came out from behind the dumpster with a bottle.

As they got closer I stepped clear of that girl and unzipped my jacket at those two guys. When I did the guy threw down the bottle and they walked by cussing at me. If someone challenges you after you indicate you are armed say “I don’t have a gun”. Then they will know you do.

Here is an opposite story. A girl my brother knows was walking her dog when a guy approached her. She was polite. Mistake. He talked to her about the dog and said she had pretty hair and reached out and touched her hair. She did not slap his hand down or aggressively object. Mistake. He asked her if her dog bit and she said “No”. At that time he slapped the shit out of her, drug her into a wooded area, and raped her.

The answer in the street is always “No”. Can I ask you something? No. Do you have a cigarette? No. Can you tell me what time it is? No. The answer is always “No”. Don’t be nice. Stop the encounter as soon as it starts.

Read the entire post here: https://www.ar15.com/forums/t_1_5/1285487_Street_robberies_and_you___The_Basics.html

Reason gets it right again: How to Count the Defensive Uses of Guns

Reason’s always been pro-gun and a source for rational discourse when it comes to debunking the various flawed arguments gun control proponents come up with.  They have a new article out addressing the many issues with the antigun tactic of “driving the numbers down” for Defensive Gun Uses:

Stringent gun control advocates are fond of underestimating the possible importance of owning a gun. For example, a pair of anti-gun activists took to Politico in January to claim that the gun rights community is deluded about the likely number of defensive uses of guns by American citizens. Such defensive uses are known as DGUs (“defensive gun uses”) in the lingo.

Many in the gun rights community believe that a privately owned gun is used in legitimate self-defense over 2 million times a year in America. This figure arose initially from the survey work done in 1993 by Florida State University criminologists Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz.

The entire article is a must read and goes into detail about common errors and misconceptions.

The pushback against Campus Carry is much ado about nothing.

Campus Carry is making the news, especially after the remarks of one Nevada Lawmaker who suggested that women shooting rapists would have a deterrence effect:

The sponsor of a bill in Nevada, Assemblywoman Michele Fiore, said in a telephone interview: “If these young, hot little girls on campus have a firearm, I wonder how many men will want to assault them. The sexual assaults that are occurring would go down once these sexual predators get a bullet in their head.” (source)

Naturally the first reaction to this is a bunch of handwringing nonsense, strawman arguments and panic.

Opponents contend that university campuses should remain havens from the gun-related risks that exist elsewhere, and that college students, with high rates of binge drinking and other recklessness, would be particularly prone to gun accidents.

First and foremost, campuses certainly aren’t havens from gun-related risks that exist elsewhere – Virginia Tech & other school shootings are ample proof of that.

Second, the ‘drinking’ argument is completely incorrect for one simple reason: most states require that a CCW applicant has to be over the age of 21.  This is going to eliminate 90%+ of the student population immediately.  Instead, this bill is going to allow people to effectively defend themselves against attackers when they commute in from their homes or off campus apartments.   There’s no shortage of crimes that occur on campuses, such as:

These are just the first few results from Google.  But even more than that, we already know that “no guns” policies have created victims, because we know about Amanda Collins.  You may remember her name if you followed the Colorado firearms testimony during the last election season – Democrat Senator Evie Hudak made this callous remark to her after her testimony:

I just want to say, statistics are not on your side, even if you had had a gun. You said that you were a martial arts student, I mean person, experience in taekwondo, and yet because this individual was so large and was able to overcome you even with your skills, and chances are that if you had had a gun, then he would have been able to get than from you na possibly use it against you …

It seems that when it comes to the issue of self defense, progressives are not pro-choice at all.

Naturally the media response to this issue has been almost uniformly negative.  The Houston Chronicle opines that

Allowing concealed handgun license holders to tote pistols on college campuses could cost tens of millions of dollars, a burden that could be ultimately passed on to students or siphoned away from education and research programs at Texas universities. (source)

Riiiiiiiiiiight.  Or it could cost nothing at all and just allow the same level of day to day activities that normal CCW use does.

The LA Times wrote:

What’s the dumbest idea of the season? Backed by the National Rifle Assn., state legislators across the country have been pushing laws to let students carry concealed weapons on college campuses.

What’s the lame excuse? Gun-toting young women would be armed to defend themselves in the event of sexual assaults.

We shouldn’t be surprised by this. These are the same crackpots who argued in favor of more guns on campuses after the Virginia Tech shootings in 2007. And who held out the 2012 massacre of 26 students and educators at Sandy Hook Elementary School as an argument in favor of arming teachers. Of course they’re cynically twisting the latest painful, high-profile issue into an argument for more guns. (source)

Wow.  I must have imagined the media outcry for more gun control after each and every possible opportunity.

As usual, this issue highlights the hypocrisy of the antigun movement.

Kleck responds to “Armed with Reason” hitpiece: Defensive Gun Use Is Not a Myth

II’d previously written about Slate’s hitpiece “The Myth of the Good Guy With a Gun” and how it was riddled with problems, but Gary Kleck himself has penned a great smackdown in response to their drivel over on Politico:

It’s deja vu all over again. In a recent Politico Magazine article, Evan DeFillipis and Devin Hughes resuscitate criticisms of a survey on defensive gun use that I conducted with my colleague Marc Gertz way back in 1993—the National Self-Defense Survey (NSDS). The authors repeat, item for item, speculative criticisms floated by a man named David Hemenway in 1997 and repeated endlessly since. The conclusion these critics drew is that our survey grossly overestimated the frequency of defensive gun use (DGU), a situation in which a crime victim uses a gun to threaten or attack the offender in self-defense. But what DeFillipis and Hughes carefully withheld from readers is the fact that I and my colleague have refuted every one of Hemenway’s dubious claims, and those by other critics of the NSDS, first in 1997, and again, even more extensively, in 1998 and 2001. Skeptical readers can check for themselves if we failed to refute them—the 1998 version is publicly available here. More seriously motivated readers could acquire a copy of Armed, a 2001 book by Don Kates and me, and read chapter six.

Right out of the gate Kleck lets us know that this sort of thing is not only not new but is a decades old tactic of the antigun congregation.  Ad nauseam repetition from the priest (Hemenway), repeated by the acolytes (Hughes & DeFillipis) & sung by the choir, hoping that if the lies are chanted often enough, people will believe them.
Except…
If DeFillipis and Hughes could refute any of our rebuttals, that would be news worth attending to. They do not, however, identify any problems with our refutations, such as errors in our logic, or superior evidence that contradicts any of our rebuttals. Instead, they just pretend they are not aware of the rebuttals, even though our first systematic dismantling of Hemenway’s speculations was published in the exact same issue of the journal that published Hemenway’s 1997 critique, on the pages immediately following the Hemenway article.
Ouch!  Kleck then goes on to outline how DGUs are, if anything, underreported:
So what does research on the flaws in surveys of crime-related behaviors tell us? It consistently indicates that survey respondents underreport (1) crime victimization experiences, (2) gun ownership and (3) their own illegal behavior. While it is true that a few respondents overstate their crime-related experiences, they are greatly outnumbered by those who understate them, i.e. those who falsely deny having the experience when in fact they did. In sum, research tells us that surveys underestimate the frequency of crime victimizations, gun possession and self-reported illegal behavior. Yet DeFillipis and Hughes somehow manage to conclude that defensive gun uses—incidents that always involve the first two of those elements, and usually the third as well—are overestimated in surveys.
Naturally this will be ignored and brushed aside by the antigun congregation.

A step in the right direction: Kentucky now allows you to apply for a CCDW online

Color me shocked to find a piece of relatively even handed reporting about changes to Kentucky’s CCDW process:

The process requires state police to either issue or deny a license within 15 days of receiving an electronic application — down from the 60-day processing period allowed for paper applications.

Supporters, including the National Rifle Association, say the change improves access to concealed-carry permits at a time when demand is high. Kentucky issued more than 59,500 permits in 2013, compared to 10,900 in 2004.

http://www.courier-journal.com/story/news/politics/ky-legislature/2015/01/30/kentucky-speeds-process-concealed-carry-gun-permits/22585105/

In my opinion, this is a great thing.  Honestly, two weeks is too long if your life is in danger, but given that Kentucky has a process for temporary 45 day CCDW permits for domestic violence victims & people with EPOs against stalkers, I really can’t find too much fault with this.

Naturally there are naysayers:

Rep. Jim Wayne, a Louisville Democrat opposed to the new rules, says state police are already hurting for personnel and that having officials process applications within 15 days could result in mistakes, such as approving permits for people with criminal histories.

“They are so overloaded and they should have the leeway to not be pressed to get this job done,” he said. 

Oh, wow, well we don’t want any criminals to exploit this.  I sure am glad that Jim Wayne has the facts of the matter and knows how burdened the state police are.  Let’s hear it from their point of view:

The state police department, which began accepting applications electronically in mid-November, answered questions about the process in an email to The Courier-Journal last week.

Officials said the transition has been smooth and that several hundred people have used it to apply for new permits or renew old permits. They reported no problems meeting the 15-day deadline or performing criminal background checks, which are required for licenses.

“We are able to adapt to any changes and have not experienced any unexpected issues,” KSP Sgt. Norman Preston said in the email. “We are expecting to see a gradual increase (in use) after the general public has been made aware.”

LOL!

Barry Laws, CEO of Openrange, an indoor gun range and store in Crestwood, said he hasn’t heard customers talking about the new application process yet. […]

Laws said the program as a whole has given gun owners a greater understanding of the rules and liabilities.

“Many come into our program thinking they will be John Wayne with their new CCDW and leave feeling a bit like Pee-wee Herman, not wanting to ever have to use deadly force,” he said.

In my opinion, good.  Using lethal force for self defense is not something to be taken lightly.  You need to understand the consequences legally, monetarily & spiritually before you think about carrying a firearm.

Finally the C-J give the last word to the antigun representative:

But Wayne said the public should have concern.

“This is a legislature that is pretty much shackled to the NRA, and whatever the NRA wants to promote, their unreasonable, immoral agenda is what the legislative leaders and the rank and file will probably follow,” he said.

Yeah this guy sounds like he’s a rational, level headed fellow.  How dare people want to defend themselves! Why can’t everyone live in a gated community with armed bodyguards watching over them?

If you want to give Rep Jim Wayne a piece of your mind, here’s his KY Legislator home page – I find it ironic that he considers himself a champion of minors and the vulnerable per his Wikipedia page, but hates the idea of you defending yourself.

National Guardsman shoots multiple attackers at Sonic – but wait, there’s more.

A man defended himself at the drive through of his local Sonic:

DEKALB COUNTY, Ga. — Police say a man shot at a group of armed men who allegedly tried to rob him while he was waiting in the drive-thru line at a fast food restaurant Sunday night.
DeKalb County police said the victim was placing his order in the drive-thru lane at the Sonic on Flat Shoals when a group of men approached his car with guns and demanded money.

That’s when the man fought back.

“The victim had his own handgun was able to shoot the suspect, who fell to the ground. The other two or three suspects fled from the scene,” said DeKalb police Lt. Mark Lavigne.

Police said they captured two suspects.

Another suspect, who was shot, was rushed to the hospital in critical condition.

Officers are still searching for a fourth person accused in the shooting.

http://www.wsbtv.com/news/news/local/police-man-shoots-armed-robbers-sonic-drive-thru/njrJk/

Why is this significant?

Well, Sonic decided to go gun-free in 2014:

Sonic-Drive-In and Chili’s Bar & Grill both issued statements asking diners to refrain from bringing concealed weapons into their restaurants, even if they have a permit, NBC News reported Friday.

Sonic Vice President of Public Relations Patrick Lenow told the news agency in an email that while the drive-in chain respected current gun laws, certain actions led to new consideration for their restaurants’ policies.

“While we historically have relied upon local laws to guide how we address the display of guns at drive-ins, recent actions required we carefully reconsider this approach. We’ve considered the views and desires of our customers and employees that staff the drive-ins across the country. Accordingly, we’re asking that customers refrain from bringing guns onto our patios or into our indoor dining areas. With respect to the storage of guns in vehicles, we ask that our customers continue to honor local laws,” he said.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/may/31/chilis-sonic-drive-tell-gun-owners-leave-firearms-/

Gun Free Zones like Sonic are Security Theater, no more, no less.