expand your minds

Alright, folks, it is time for some creative thinking… and possibly some critical thinking as well. For the sake of argument, pretend you are a criminal – someone who operates outside the laws, frequently breaking them whenever you feel the need or compulsion. Imagine, for the sake of argument, that you are the kind of criminal who hits up convenience stores, banks, and other locations that are known to keep relatively-easily-accessible money, and your standard tactics are relatively straightforward: barge into the establishment, demand money, and if your victims start becoming problems, pull out the gun you use and threaten them. You have not shot anyone yet, but your victims have frequently forced you to assault them, threaten them, and hold them against their will, in addition to robbing them and the establishment.
Imagine that you have been going about this way of crime for a few months now, and have been doing whatever is necessary to evade capture/detection. Then, one day, imagine you come across an establishment with this sign on its door:

PURSUANT TO § 39-17-1359, THE OWNER/OPERATOR OF THIS PROPERTY HAS BANNED WEAPONS ON THIS PROPERTY, OR WITHIN THIS BUILDING OR THIS PORTION OF THIS BUILDING. FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THIS PROHIBITION IS PUNISHABLE AS A CRIMINAL ACT UNDER STATE LAW AND MAY SUBJECT THE VIOLATOR TO A FINE OF NOT MORE THAN FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS ($500).

What do you, as the hypothetical criminal in this imagination exercise, do? Given the potential of a $500 fine, do you give up your plans to rob, assault, and threaten the people inside? Or do you realize that the $500 fine is small change compared to your previous criminal history, and just barge right in on your original trajectory?
Do signs like that really discourage criminals who are determined to commit crimes?
My opinions on these postings are probably a given – signs like these only limit those who abide by laws in the first place, and, in fact, disarm the law-abiding , placing them further at-risk from the law-breaking. Even worse, the sign above has the backing of the state, and can result in an otherwise law-abiding citizen suddenly having a criminal history simply because he was concerned over his family’s safety.
Make no mistake – I actually support a private business’ ability to ban whatever it so desires on its premises (i.e. “This business reserves the right to deny service to any individual for whatever reason,” etc. etc. etc.). However, I strongly oppose laws that allow for automatic criminal punishments for bringing a banned object onto that business’ premises – if employees of that business want to ask me to leave, fine, but setting up an inffective and pointless “force field” around the establishment accomplishes nothing.
Finally, any establishment that tells me it is banning firearms on its premises for “the safety of its patrons” (or any other expression of that concept) is lying. Period. Full stop. End of story. It does not make me “safer” to force me to disarm for no apparent reason other than your delicate sensibilities. It does not make me “safer” to remove one of my better defenses against those who would do me harm. Save us all the platitudes and be honest with everyone.