Uber's Code of Death
Uber now has a new clear no weapons policy (https://www.uber.com/legal/firearms-prohibition-policy), which applies to drivers and passengers, regardless of what local laws otherwise allow. Uber's policy recently changed. Why did it change? It changed because in April an Uber driver in was legally armed (in Chicago!), and shot a young man who was wrongfully shooting at several people. The driver probably saved several lives, maybe even his own. He will not be charged, since he was acting in defense of life, his own and others.
Defense of life? That is something Uber cannot stand. They want to feel safe and comfortable. I'm sure those poor people in Chicago would have been much more comfortable getting shot while they wait for law enforcement to arrive and protect them. Good luck, Uber drivers and riders, feeling safe in your portable "gun-free zones" ....until someone intent on doing violence to your life and liberty comes along. Just another sign of the inverted mentality we call the Code of Death.
Lyft and Sidecar have similar policies:
https://www.lyft.com/drive/help/article/1229185
https://www.side.cr/policies/rules-of-the-road/
Defense of life? That is something Uber cannot stand. They want to feel safe and comfortable. I'm sure those poor people in Chicago would have been much more comfortable getting shot while they wait for law enforcement to arrive and protect them. Good luck, Uber drivers and riders, feeling safe in your portable "gun-free zones" ....until someone intent on doing violence to your life and liberty comes along. Just another sign of the inverted mentality we call the Code of Death.
Lyft and Sidecar have similar policies:
https://www.lyft.com/drive/help/article/1229185
https://www.side.cr/policies/rules-of-the-road/
I work for a store that has a sign at the front of the store "Concealed Carry Welcome" because the liability falls on the store if the customers are disarmed due to a policy of the store.
I think private individuals should be legally allowed to make that kind of rule (i.e., no guns), at least applying to their own property (including their business). But perhaps this should be a legally enforceable remedy. Citizens are allowed by law to defend themselves; anyone who removes that right is legally obligated to take on the responsibility for that task themselves.
This also raises the question in my mind: Does Uber have that kind of authority and control over their passengers, their drivers, and their drivers' cars? Is the car Uber's property, such that it has the authority to make this kind of rule (and take on any liability)?
There are numerous other developed countries where private gun ownership is all but banned, but where murder rates are negligible compared to the US.
Criminals are criminals precisely because they do not obey the law. What is the point of a new law?
That this implies the right to defend that life?
That this implies the right to equip ourselves with efficient tools to defend that life?
That guns are one of the most efficient tools of lethal force?
The suggestion is that we may have to accept high levels of violent crime as an effect of individualist economics and a society which refrains from any sense of collectivist obligation.
When Atlas shrugs, the world will always fall and crush a lot of unproductive people, and many of these will try to fight their way back to the teat of State through violence.
Interestingly, the original motivation of the UK's welfare state was largely based on the principle that paying off the bottom-feeders ended up cheaper than coping with the costs of their crime if they weren't getting welfare. In that sense, welfare kinda made economic sense as an insurance policy for the productive sector.
But, crime-fighting technology becomes ever more sophisticated. Bank robberies in the last 5 years have crashed to a fraction of what they used to be, for one. As such welfare will become increasingly obsolete.
https://youtu.be/pELwCqz2JfE
You might be a bit surprised that your statistics are incorrect. You might also check out my new post on the matter with another analysis and article:
http://www.galtsgulchonline.com/posts/35...
http://www.businessinsider.com/1homicida...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co...
However, in response to the recent church massacre, there are those who advocate for EVEN MORE guns.
Apart from Brazil, Mexico and Russia, USA is a part of the developed world where you're most likely to cop a cap in your ass!
Person in Europe: "Time to go to work I guess."
Partner: "Ok honey, have a good day!"
Person in USA: "Time to go to work I guess."
Partner: "OMG you're only taking a Glock? A bit light, don't you think? Oh that's right, your Uzi is in for repairs. Take my Kalashnikov, I've got a spare. Have a lovely day!"
Regarding the free market, I hope this happens. I doubt there are enough gun owners to make it happen. I doubt enough people are convicted of the prudence of being prepared for self-defense. Most people are sheep, and trust that life is rainbows and safe, that something that requires them to utilize self-defense will "never happen to them." Perhaps a voluntary boycott will work; I'd love to be wrong about that.
I think an alternative would be to force them to boycott a willing paying customer like me. I might still use Uber, and carry concealed like I always do. Odds are they won't notice and there will be no incident. If I'm caught, they'll cancel my account and get no more money from me. They will force me to boycott them.
Or do you think, since I know their policy, that this would be a lack of integrity? Or, since their policy is essentially violating my natural right to life, is this "lack of integrity" justified? What do you think?
Odds are you could ride Uber armed your entire life with no one the wiser.
I would not recommend riding with Uber unarmed, though. Should something bad happen, odds now also are no one will be with you to pull the gun that saves your life.
Of course, all you Uber sheeple can draw cell phones, dial 911 and bleat your bye-bye baas while being shot.
free car" ..
Oh, wait...a San Francisco based company; that explains everything.
Never mind.
I'm not defending their policy ( I think they've got it backwards), I just present an alternative theory as to why they felt such a policy decision necessary.
As far as precise motives go, you may be correct. They didn't just wake up and think, "Hey, we are liberals, and liberals should opposed guns." No, they may have thought, "Hey, guns kill people (like our driver in Chicago did), so we should protect people from people with guns by not having guns." This is wrongheaded; if they were really concerned for our safety, they would not take away our ability for self-defense. They have made Uber more dangerous. But in their own minds, they may be genuinely concerned for our safety. More likely, I think, this was merely a PR move. They were probably pressured by liberal activists, and caved to their demands to have global "gun-free zones" in these cars.
I believe Uber (et al) should be allowed to make this policy. I think it is wrong, and will be difficult to enforce, but private businesses should be allowed to make their own rules in this way. If we want reform, we ought to appeal not to the Government, but the free market.
But regardless of their precise motives, the fact is that they, as a business, are infringing on our ability to self-defense. They made this rule because one of their drivers defended the lives of others. They are opposing life. This is the Code of Death.
I would pose that in such a contractual relationship, the business may request to take responsibility for protection of certain basic rights such as safety while within the service of the business, but can not simply deny those rights. Thus if Uber chooses to ban self-defense, it then takes on the liability of providing for the defense of its customers. What say you?
If I used them locally, and wanted to carry, I just would, and not say anything. In my mind it is none of their business.
I think I like Uber, even with this rule, better than cab unions, and they are 1/2 the price. Therefore, I choose not to boycott Uber for this position.
instead of logicians. -- j
.