Goodyear Tires and legal concealed carry

Status
Not open for further replies.
Text of the e-mail I sent.

This letter is to inform you that I have purchased my last set of Goodyear tires. The reason is that I no longer feel save having my family on your store property. Armed crimminals will not give any regard to your policy and I will not put myself or my family in a position where they can be harmed by your shortsightedness.
Click to expand...

:scrutiny:
 
Posted by Andrew S:

Having someone with a firearm in store automatically escalates the situation and increases the chance that someone will get hurt if there is a robbery or some other disturbance.




Though defensive violence will always be a "sad necessity" in the eyes of men of principle, it would be still more unfortunate if wrongdoers should dominate just men. -St. Augustine (354-430 AD)

When there is absolutely no choice but between violence and cowardice, I would choose violence. -Mahatma Gandhi, The Essential Gandhi, Louis Fischer

“One bleeding-heart type asked me in a recent interview if I did not agree the ‘violence begets violence’. I told him that it is my earnest endeavor to see that it does. I would very much like to ensure-and in some cases I have-that any man who offers violence to his fellow citizen begets a whole lot more in return than he can enjoy.” -Col. Jeff Cooper

"The world is filled with violence. Because criminals carry guns, we decent law-abiding citizens should also have guns. Otherwise they will win and the decent people will lose." - James Earl Jones, actor
 
I doubt having a armed customer onsite would escalate the situation. Just about anybody with any sense would recognize the folly of taking it up a notch. As long as they don't start shooting anybody, I'll be content to stand there and be a good witness.

If they start shooting people, well, if you're going to die anyway, why not take a few of the bad guys with you. Occasionally, you get somebody who figures if they already killed one, getting rid of witnesses would be an even better idea.
 
Guyon -- Still amazes me how many folks have fired off judgmental emails without confirming the information at the source.

Only an inquiry about policy seems appropriate at this point. Perhaps a gentle reminder that business will go elsewhere *if indeed* this policy is real.

Beaucoup Ammo -- Right you are. Correct Intel is essential. I'll be aiming an e-mail their way..only After I've confirmed the target is legit.

To do otherwise IS..in your words..amazing.
Click to expand...

What you say seems elevated at first glance but after a second or subsequent look it seems more foolish and inappropriate than anything else. It's nothing more than something to say. Probably that's because you both have written while in a state of "amazement."

When you express that "amazement" about folks "firing off" "judgmental e-mails" "without confirming the information" "at the source" I suppose it's possible that you might think that I sent my e-mail somewhere other than to "the source." I used the e-mail address set forth here as "the source." I know of no other candidate for "the source." If you know another potential candidate as "the source" other than that person why not just identify that other "source" instead of criticizing people for writing to it.

Or perhaps you mean that it is wrong to directly address the person identified as the writer of the message posted here. I can't imagine anything better to do than to correspond directly with the person identified as the writer--which, again, is who I understand to be "the source." I didn't confront his ma or pa or his boss or the newspapers or the membership of this forum instead. I addressed him directly. I think that's the correct thing to do. I am open to hearing your instruction, though, so if you think that there is some other person to address why not say so directly.

I'm interested in how Beaucoup Ammo will get his essential "Correct Intel" and confirm that "the target is legit" before "aiming an e-mail" "their way." Again, I chose to "aim an e-mail" "their way" based on my knowledge and experience that if the e-mail address is incorrect my e-mail will be returned as undeliverable. If it's delivered, "the target is legit" in the sense that the e-mail address is valid.

If both Guyon and Beaucoup Ammo mean that it is unfair to respond to the purported writer at the purported e-mail address without first doing preliminary investigative work I confess that I don't have such abilities. In this situation I know only to address the person directly about what it is he is reported as having written.

I assume, of course, that the person I addressed will have the ability to deny authoring the statement posted here if that person did not in fact author it. Of course I admit the possibility that Mr. Markey (that person) might be too shy, too fragile, or too incompetent to know how to respond to my e-mail. In that case perhaps Mr. Markey might want to seek counseling for his emotional problems, get more professional help to become able to deal with disagreeable people, or find employment in some line of work other than communications and public relations.

I do admire Guyon's and Beaucoup Ammo's lofty position, though, and I take the point that they disapprove of my direct approach or its nature. But there's an essentially geographical issue that's being overlooked when they take their particular plot of high ground. Although they might have the right to it in their homes they're not residents of my property, and here I have ownership of the elevations on it.

Although it might look as if I'm defending myself and only myself, to think those things is to misunderstand what I have said here. I'm saying that their statements have more sound than substance. Put it another way, I'm "amazed" that they've said things so mazey, so foolish and so insubstantial and overly critical. It's criticism for the sake of grumbling. A nice cup of tea might be just the thing to settle the overly irritable stomach. And I mean what I've said in support of others who also have e-mailed Mr. Markey directly. On my piece of high ground it's perfectly proper to do so. Here we believe that if Mr. Markey did not write what he is quoted as having written he can and will deny it. And if the policy stated in that quotation is not his company's policy he can deny that too. As for the tone, tenor, and content of the e-mails any person chooses to write to Mr. Markey, I don't see any need to run them past Guyon and Beaucoup Ammo for their corrections of other people's style, substance, or grace.

If the statement posted here is a forgery, hostile responses to Mr. Markey about it accomplish some postitive goals anyway. First, of course, it alerts Mr. Markey that the statement exists, that it is being distributed, and that it is unsettling to at least some actual or potential customers of Goodyear products. Mr. Markey then can disclaim the statement, which he could not do unless he is given the opportunity to know about it and the hostility it is generating. Second, it alerts Mr. Markey to the hostility that will be generated if Goodyear chooses to follow the Brady Campaign's program Guns & Business Don't Mix: A Guide to Keeping Your Business Gun-Free. Other large companies, such as Conoco-Phillips, have chose to support that program and pursue policies that are dictated by the politics of gun control instead of by any real issues of workplace violence or customer safety. My e-mail was intended to confront that situation: if any business prohibits lawful possession of firearms on the grounds proposed by the Brady Campaign, that business would benefit by paying close attention to the implications of that policy. The business's management needs to use better brains and do some better thinking than the Bradys' because they're opening a costly door that will be almost impossible to close.
 
Email sent informing Mr. Markey that I will no longer patronize Goodyear stores and will not purchase any of their products. Won't change much since IMO their stuff is crap anyway. -Don
 
Not Lofty..Just Prefer "Non Pack Mentality"

This entire thread (pardon the pun) is based on rumor. No one's seen a memo or anything definitive.

Be pre-emptive if you want, I'll wait til I'm sure of the facts before I act above and "before" the call of duty...in other words: knee jerk.

Not into blind faith myself..but Clapton and Baker were great in their own right!

Take Care
 
Suffered Through ATraffic Jam To See Stevie!

I'm a fan..yes I am..yes I am..yes I Am!:O) Anything but chopped liver! Staying on topic, I hear he's very pro-gun.

Take Care
 
A rush of people responding to rumor doesn't do a whole lot for the public image of gun-toters everywhere. I feel a part of this community, and its image does matter to me. So I'm not just grumbling for the sake of grumbling.

Accusations of wrongdoing usually don't sit too well when no wrongdoing has been committed. How would you feel if folks accused you of potentially damaging actions you didn't commit?

I was just wondering why folks were taking extreme positions in their emails to Goodyear rather than asking about policy? If/when Goodyear replied, wouldn't that be close enough to the source? In the Lowes instance, the proof was on their website. All we have here is an anonymous post to a pro-gun website. Hardly substantial at this point, and several posters here refute that the policy exists in their locale.

Again, I think it would be fine/logical to pose a hypothetical and convey to Goodyear that future business would be lost *if* this policy is legitimate. But flying off the handle is just that--flying off the handle.

And Robert, I don't want to be your censor or your editor. But I feel just fine critiquing your strategy. I am American, and such is my lofty right.
 
I don't know about Goodyear, but Firestone has posted their Akron, Oh. company store, and their offices in Akron.

The company store in Canton, Oh. is also posted.

The wording in the original post is very similar to the sign I see every day going to work.

Rumor has it to be company wide.

Though the postings on Akron only happened in the last year, no weapons on the property has been policy for employees at least 8 years that I am aware of.

:banghead:
 
Sent the following to Goodyear

Sent the following to:

Ed Markey (email: [email protected] )
VP, PR and Communications
North American Tire

of Goodyear via email:




Subject: Recent Goodyear policy statement

Dear sir,

It has come to my attention that Goodyear has issued the following policy statement:


______________________
______________________
______________________


"In an effort to ensure the safety and security of our associates and customers, we have a clear company policy regarding weapons in the workplace. The Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co. prohibits all persons who enter Company property from carrying a handgun, firearm, or prohibited weapon of any kind onto the property regardless of whether the person is licensed to carry the weapon or not. Exceptions apply to on-duty law enforcement personnel. This policy applies to all Company employees, visitors, customers, and contractors on Company property -- including our Company-owned stores.

All Company properties have received the decal or sign you referenced, and have been instructed to post it.

Thank you for the email. Please get back to me if I can provide further information."

Ed Markey (email: [email protected] )
VP, PR and Communications
North American Tire

______________________
______________________
______________________



I would suggest that Goodyear consider the words of President Thomas Jefferson who said:


"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve to encourage rather than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."

-Thomas Jefferson


and reconsider this policy. I believe that this policy is anti-American and stands against the Constitution of this great country. Therefore I cannot in good conscience purchase Goodyear products or have my vehicles serviced at Goodyear locations any longer until Goodyear corrects its stance on this issue.
 
Guyon -- A rush of people responding to rumor doesn't do a whole lot for the public image of gun-toters everywhere. I feel a part of this community, and its image does matter to me. So I'm not just grumbling for the sake of grumbling.

...

Again, I think it would be fine/logical to pose a hypothetical and convey to Goodyear that future business would be lost *if* this policy is legitimate. But flying off the handle is just that--flying off the handle.

And Robert, I don't want to be your censor or your editor. But I feel just fine critiquing your strategy. I am American, and such is my lofty right.
Click to expand...

You're absolutely right, Guyon. As an American you have the right to critique my strategy and to offer your opinion on everything in, about, or alongside this country or any other place, person, animal, or object in this world or any another. It's heartwarming to see a person who not only understands that right but also asserts it.

In fact I support you in your exercise of that noble right even when you extend it into a right to chastise other Americans for exercising their rights when their opinions differ from your own. It is indeed your right to correct the rest of us. Why would we come here if not to learn correct behavior during our imperfect discussions about our flawed opinions?

My only lament is that I and others here who do not share your opinions and those of Beaucoup Ammo seem to operate in the dark because you good people wait until we do something of which you disapprove before telling us so. It would be a kindness if you both would simply provide proper instruction about the opinions we should have before we acted on them prematurely.

I am touched that you feel responsible for our actions. But, alas, I do not consider myself a "gun toter" and I am simply not sufficiently intelligent to pose a "hypothetical." My few strengths are not intellectual, as you can tell by my inability to form the correct opinion.

I am relieved to see that you were not so weakened by your previous state of "amazement" that you were unable to judge that when I and others express our opinons we are "flying off the handle."

Of course you are not grumbling merely for the sake of hearing yourself talk. I don't know what possessed me to have that wrong opinion. It's obvious that I need your guidance so I can think right. I'm sure that you'll continue to give it to me and to others who need it.

Has anyone else ever noticed that when someone makes a statement such as "Robert, I don't want to be your censor or your editor" that statement is usually followed by a "but ...." that attempts to justify what the person has just said he didn't want to do?
 
Another reason why I goto Les Schwab. I think the only group of people who work harder than the folks at Les Schwab is the USMC. Mike :)
 
Some folks just like to hear themselves talk. Or read their own writing. Frankly Robert, there is so little logic and so much sarcasm in your long-winded response that I feel a point-by-point, analytical response--while tempting as a rhetorical exercise--not worth my time.

Go ahead and get that last word in. Smother me in some more verbose sarcasm, but this is the last I'll engage you. It just ain't worth the energy in this case. In the battle of "I can type the most," you win! A hearty congratulations! :D

Back on topic: I am going to email Goodyear and, like a rational person, first ask about their policy. Why? Seems to me that the gun community is always talking about the liberal left arguing without getting their facts straight. I would like to know the truth before I make threats to Goodyear concerning my business. That is, I would like to come across as a calm, logical consumer who has money to spend and who is concerned about an alleged report on Goodyear's policies.
 
Guyon -- Some folks just like to hear themselves talk. Or read their own writing. Frankly Robert, there is so little logic and so much sarcasm in your long-winded response that I feel a point-by-point, analytical response--while tempting as a rhetorical exercise--not worth my time.

Go ahead and get that last word in. Smother me in some more verbose sarcasm, but this is the last I'll engage you. It just ain't worth the energy in this case. In the battle of "I can type the most," you win! A hearty congratulations!

Back on topic: I am going to email Goodyear and, like a rational person, first ask about their policy. Why? Seems to me that the gun community is always talking about the liberal left arguing without getting their facts straight. I would like to know the truth before I make threats to Goodyear concerning my business. That is, I would like to come across as a calm, logical consumer who has money to spend and who is concerned about an alleged report on Goodyear's policies.
Click to expand...

That makes me feel bad. I don't want to be the reason why you relinquish your right as an American to address personal comments to me and others who hold opinions other than your own. You and Beaucoup Ammo are the only people in this extensive thread who take the time and trouble to reproach us by saying such things as that you're "amazed" by our behavior and to criticize us for "flying off the handle." And no one even asked you to do it. It was purely voluntary, from the goodness of your heart, the sharpness of your mind, and the depths of your experience. What will we do without you as our moral center?

But I understand that you think I'm no longer worthy of your time and that I "ain't worth the energy." You must spend a great deal of time monitoring everything said by everyone who owns or is interested in firearms because you're capable of knowing that "the gun community is always talking about the liberal left arguing without getting their facts straight." I'm having a little trouble with the end of that sentence, by the way. Do you mean that it is the "liberal left" who argues without getting their facts straight or do you mean that it is the "gun community"? (Those are the same people you called the "gun-toters" earlier, right?) The pronoun reference is a bit confused but, as I admitted earlier, I'm not the least bit confident in my own intellectual powers. I suppose the meaning doesn't matter: I get the substance, which is that everyone else is doing the wrong thing as usual.

You're a man who has special powers, such as the ability to know that my e-mail to Mr. Markey threatened him and/or Goodyear Tire and Rubber even though you never saw my e-mail. That's special.

It was good of you to spare some of your time to lean over your perch this little while to drop your correctives upon me and the rest of the unworthies whose behavior you disapprove. No one--not even I--has criticized you for taking an approach different from any of ours, but of course we're rather crude, impulsive, dull-writted "gun-toters" who "amaze" you by "flying off the handle." I'm sure that Mr. Markey and Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company would much prefer contact with you than with the rest of us.

I'm equally sure that you'll volunteer instruction to us on other issues when you notice us behave badly. If you lose track of us just look down. We're here, below.
 
Seems to me that the gun community is always talking about the liberal left arguing without getting their facts straight.
Click to expand...

So if we've made a mistake, Goodyear will respond by saying that's not their policy and everything will be right with the world. No harm/no foul.
 
"No Weapons On Premises"

I called the Goodyear Store closest to me this morning. The guy who answered had no clue as to what I was talking about..asked if I wanted to speak to a manager, I said yes, and was told "No Weapons Of Any Kind Allowed On The Premises" (including in your car) of this particular store.

Asked about Corporate policy..he "didn't know", or didn't care to comment.

I haven't visited a store location to look for a posted "30.06 law" as of yet.

Take Care
 
I sent an e mail to Mr Markey at goodyear and he confirmed the policy in no uncertain terms. The reply was exactly the same as "Iscurrier" in his post. It scares me that they may be selling a product so bad that they are afraid of their own customers! They are demanding that the customers be disarmed before and during the sale/service of Goodyear tires.
 
Thanks, 106RR

for providing the information I've been waiting for. Now that we know it's a fact, we can act accordingly. Mainly, purchase another brand. Definitive information makes a huge difference to me. Thanks.

BTW, a family member was severly injured when one of their Goodyear tires seperated at highway speeds..he was 9 at the time. The settlement is being held in trust and will pay for his college education. This prior to Goodyear's "out of court" agreement that keeps them immune from future lawsuits for that defect,

A question for all: when I took my CHL course here in Texas, the instructor mentioned more than once that any "store" must display the entire "30.06" law in a large, specified size if they want to keep legally concealed handguns off their premises.

Has this changed? I have no intention of "pushing it" with any establishment who doesn't have it posted...but, is that not still the final word in Texas?

Take Care
 
As a side question, isn't (wasn't) there an NRA sponsored NASCAR car? Wonder what brand of tires it runs (ran) on?

Update: Here is the site for NRA Racing. NRA does not sponser cars. Some drivers or teams choose to show their support for the NRA on their cars. Looks like some run on Goodyear, some on Hoosier.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

A
  • Locked
I need confirmation about Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co.'s alleged gun ban.
2
Replies
32
Views
2K
bogie
B
P
  • Locked
No firearms at my workplace.
2
Replies
33
Views
2K
Rotorflyr
R
J
  • Locked
Anti-gun response from applebees
2 3 4 5 6
Replies
144
Views
14K
pax
P
Y
  • Locked
Pizza Huts shift gears on firearms possession
Replies
4
Views
901
danprkr
D
S
  • Locked
Can Virginia Tech do this?
2
Replies
39
Views
2K
Bobo
B
Back
Top