Gun Policy: Anybody want to boycott Walgreens?

In reply to Giant Purple Snorklewacker:

This is the way we handle it. I carry in the mall. If someone of authority stops me and asks me if I am carying, I tell them. If they don't want me there, I must leave and I will comply. If not, I am trespassing. Its the same as on the street except there is no law against having it concealed in public. The law is very loose regarding it because if you are properly concealing a weapon, it will not be seen.

If someone asks me if I'm carrying and they have no authority, I don't have to tell them I am. They should contact the police to ask me and check my ID. There is a marking on my Non-Drivers license that shows I can carry. At this point the police would ask me to leave the property.

You can only be fined if you refuse to leave or return to the same area and are armed. In Missouri, we basically carry everywhere until we are told not to. I haven't been stopped yet. Law enforcement buildings are a no no for me.

Sounds like it would be the same for the "big-box" situation.

ransom wrote:

N Sperlo wrote:

ransom wrote: Seems like the "jerking at the trigger" is being taken to mean attempting to pull it. I'll grant you, I don't know much about guns. But is it really so hard to pull the trigger that dude had time after seeing the jerking to get his own gun out and fire before numbnutz-the-super-criminal actually succeeded in pulling the trigger? Or is it possible that the jerking motion was brandishing rather than attempting to shoot?

I don't care if hes holding it with his foot. Anyone points a gun at me, I will kill them. If he was seen jerking the trigger, I think the victim waited too long.

That's not the point I was making. This isn't about what to do if you're holding a gun and they're holding a gun. This is about the decision to hold a gun after agreeing not to. My point is that it's being suggested that the only reason he lived is that he was carrying a gun and that it's a good thing he was able to start shooting first. My point is that if they guy had been jerking at the trigger with intent to pull it, *he would have shot before the employee could get his gun out*. It looks to me like it's somewhere between possible and probable that this would have been one of those apparently more common cases where the robbers wanted to grab stuff and leave. To say that it's the gun that saved him, you have to believe that the gunman was yanking on the trigger and was too inept to actually pull it. Maybe he had the safety on? Maybe you're right, and he *was* trying to shoot. I don't know, but I'm not convinced that the gun saved anybody, and I'm not at all convinced that he was justified in carrying it without telling his employer or coworkers. People seem to be very aggravated about the employer/law taking away his liberty to make the decision about how to handle this situation. But by carrying a weapon, he overrode the decisions of his coworkers to handle this situation via the non-escalation policy. He took away their liberty to make that decision for themselves.

I'm not arguing with you, I'm being blunt with my point of view.

I have gone through scenarios in my head many times over. If a gun is pointed at me or someone I care for, I will shoot. I don't care about the position of the safety or weather or not its loaded, because if I wait long enough to find out, It is too late. You don't have time to look that close. When the bad guy pulls a gun, I pull mine and aim for a kill, because he may do the same to me or someone else. I know that if the gun is unloaded or on safe, I am still in the right and I have no problem taking someone down for that.

Even if you override the decisions of others, it is your decision to make.

He was justified by law. Policy is not justification, it is broken or not broken. He broke policy.

I agree that companies must have policies to protect themselves. I would have don the same IF I DECIDED TO CARRY AT WORK.

I carried every day while delivering pizzas... Totally against policy but I still put a .32 in an ankle holster. I figured the day I needed a gun delivering zza was also the day I retired.

Joey

What I find amazing is how many people here would pander to the criminals and grant them the right to rob, rape and murder. Next I suppose you'll be defending their career choice as a "lifestyle". Give me a Berkeleying break.

1988RedT2 wrote: What I find amazing is how many people here would pander to the criminals and grant them the right to rob, rape and murder. Next I suppose you'll be defending their career choice as a "lifestyle". Give me a Berkeleying break.

I don't think anyone here wants to grant the criminals the "right" to rape and murder. There is just a difference of ideas on how to deal with said criminals. I disagree with some of the ideas, but to think that they believe being a criminal is a "lifestyle" choice? Give ME a break.

Joey

joey48442 wrote: I disagree with some of the ideas, but to think that they believe being a criminal is a "lifestyle" choice? Give ME a break.

We all make lifestyle choices. Deciding to rape, murder, and steal for a living? It may be a bad choice, but its a style of living. I believe I would consider it a lifestyle. Maybe you feel it designates something positive. I don't think it does.

N Sperlo wrote: We all make lifestyle choices. Deciding to rape, murder, and steal for a living? It may be a bad choice, but its a style of living.

I am thinking of going into pillaging with the occasional rape or murder as a natural consequence. I initially plan to target places known to have policy forbidding any sort of resistance as I am new to the field and need time to develop my skills. I think a counter attack might be a little off-putting at this stage of my career.

In reply to Giant Purple Snorklewacker:

Start with kindergartens. Children are naturally more vulnerable.

Getting fired and not getting to actually shoot the bad guy is doubly tough.

N Sperlo wrote: In reply to Giant Purple Snorklewacker: Start with kindergartens. Children are naturally more vulnerable.

Excellent idea. I could probably take 30-40 kindergärtners straight up without any weapons at all.

Given the tack this has taken, it appears consensus has been reached by at least some folks:

• There is no deterrent to crime save for vigilantes with concealed carry permits. Nobody is ever caught, prosecuted, jailed. If they don't get shot, they'll be doing it again the next day.

• Any resistance to the notion that being armed and ready to shoot someone is that primary line of defense is evidence of the condonement or even encouragement of crime.

• The law which allows someone to shoot in self defense trumps any agreements, contracts, promises, and prior discussions about how to handle such a situation.

• Statistics which suggest that one is less likely to be injured by cooperating than resisting are meaningless.

• The decisions of those around an armed vigilante to go the nonconfrontational route are invalid. In the name of justice, they'll just have to deal with the ensuing firefight.

I tried to make and subsequently clarify a point about the guy having given his word not to carry a weapon in this location, and his coworkers reliance on that agreement (Would your actions change if you actually knew a coworker was carrying? What do you think happens to your odds of becoming a shield and/or hostage when your coworker pulls out a gun?). Rather than being argued or refuted, this was simply answered with "I will shoot".

While I think there are and always will be folks who might improve the world by finding themselves on the wrong end of a gun, I'm a bit disturbed by the refusal to discuss the details of how stuff happens or to acknowledge any shred of validity to another approach.

N Sperlo wrote:

joey48442 wrote: I disagree with some of the ideas, but to think that they believe being a criminal is a "lifestyle" choice? Give ME a break.

We all make lifestyle choices. Deciding to rape, murder, and steal for a living? It may be a bad choice, but its a style of living. I believe I would consider it a lifestyle. Maybe you feel it designates something positive. I don't think it does.

I made mention of this because often times people will say things such as "Don't push your "lifestyle" on me" in reference to the gay community, and other things the person may not agree with. It sounded alot like the "don't push your "lifestyle" on me... I could be totally wrong, and misread what he meant. His post made it sound like he thought people here were defending the criminals. I don't think that is true at all.

Joey

In reply to ransom:

In areas with CCW endorsements, violent crime has dropped. Knowing there are armed peoples is the deterrent.

You can't guess what the perpetrators will do, so if a reasonable person could assume they will cause anything from permanent damage to major harm or death, all bets are if and it's shoot to kill.

Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote:

N Sperlo wrote: In reply to Giant Purple Snorklewacker: Start with kindergartens. Children are naturally more vulnerable.

Excellent idea. I could probably take 30-40 kindergärtners straight up without any weapons at all.

Put your money where your mouth is EDIT: the following link used to be fun, but apparently never gives you an answer... http://www.howmanyfiveyearoldscouldyoutakeinafight.com/

In reply to ransom:

I don't think anyone is saying that your argument is invalid, just that they don't agree with it.

Do you know why airplanes aren't hijacked for ransom anymore. Because every time it happened, the hijackers got dead. Even if it cost the lives of some of the hostages. If every time someone decided armed robbery was a good idea they got dead, pretty soon there wouldn't be many stick ups. In that situation, I hope the guy that is, shoots the worthless bastard that thinks robbery is a good way to make a living. It might cost me my life, but in the long run it's worth it to me.

The guy got fired, I don't have a problem with that. He disregarded company policy, he deserved to be terminated. Suing to get his job back is the sign of a tool.

This is the sign that hangs on the wall just inside the door of my office. That way everyone knows what our company policy is.

The video of the event is back online, incase you were interested.

I'm not sure how this one will end, but considering it began in 2007 I'd bet the guy has moved on to another job by now.

Toyman01 wrote: In reply to ransom: I don't think anyone is saying that your argument is invalid, just that they don't agree with it.

And fair enough! Disagreement I have no issue with.

I guess I've been hoping someone would come out and plainly assert that they feel their right to carry a gun and use it trumps the right of others to take the non-escalation approach in the case that all present, including the gun owner, have previously agreed to use non-escalation, because that's what happened in this case.

ransom wrote: And fair enough! Disagreement I have no issue with. I guess I've been hoping someone would come out and plainly assert that they feel their right to carry a gun and use it trumps the right of others to take the non-escalation approach in the case that all present, including the gun owner, have previously agreed to use non-escalation, because that's what happened in this case.

Sounds like you were trolling and no one took your bait.

People carry guns for a variety of reasons but doing so is also a clear indication of intent-to-use if someone else escalates their behaviours above what is considered "civilized". Armed assault and robbery aren't considered within the context of acceptable/legal actions.

Refusing to legally carry a gun, i.e. non-escalation, is a valid choice. Choosing to do so is equally as valid.

Perhaps a more appropriate question to ask is whether those who legally carry are victimized more/less than those who don't.

oldsaw wrote: Sounds like you were trolling and no one took your bait.

It was very much not my intent to troll. When I pointed out that by carrying after agreeing not to do so a person takes away the ability of others to avoid escalation, the response was that some still felt it was okay to do so. What I wanted was for folks to take responsibility for that sentiment. To say out loud "I believe that I have the right to escalate such a situation because I feel that it is the right course of action even though it affects my coworkers who are there with my assurance that I will not be carrying." I phrased it badly and I can see where you'd get attempted trolling out of that.

oldsaw wrote: People carry guns for a variety of reasons but doing so is also a clear indication of intent-to-use if someone else escalates their behaviours above what is considered "civilized". Armed assault and robbery aren't considered within the context of acceptable/legal actions.

We've also largely been talking about concealed weapons, where there is no advertisement of clear intent-to-use.

oldsaw wrote: Refusing to legally carry a gun, i.e. non-escalation, is a valid choice. Choosing to do so is equally as valid.

In a mirror of Toyman's observations that my stance is perhaps valid but generally at odds with other folks' opinions, I generally disagree with the decision to carry a gun in normal, day-to-day life (for those whose day-to-day lives are, for lack of a better word, 'average'), but I would have to recognize it as valid in our civilization; there are even places and times I would likely agree with the decision to carry.

oldsaw wrote: Perhaps a more appropriate question to ask is whether those who legally carry are victimized more/less than those who don't.

That's an excellent question. I don't think it's the only one, because I think an armed populace comes at a price. Even if two people have no reason to be anything other than cordial to one another, the fact that they are both armed colors the interaction. For this reason I don't think the answer as to whether or not to be armed is as simple as answering who is less victimized. Not for me, at any rate.

1988RedT2 wrote: What I find amazing is how many people here would pander to the criminals and grant them the right to rob, rape and murder. Next I suppose you'll be defending their career choice as a "lifestyle". Give me a Berkeleying break.

I don't think anyone is granting them the right to rape or murder. I'm not out with a radar gun, but that's not granting people the right to speed.

oldsaw wrote: ....Perhaps a more appropriate question to ask is whether those who legally carry are victimized more/less than those who don't.

Well, considering the fact that most of the people who carry, carry concealed I am pretty certain there would be almost no difference. (This is obviously excluding those that open carry by law, police officers etc)

It reminds me a bit of a conversation from one of my favorite movies:

Dr. Strangelove: Of course, the whole point of a Doomsday Machine is lost, if you *keep* it a *secret*! Why didn't you tell the world, EH? Dr. Strangelove: Based on the findings of the report, my conclusion was that this idea was not a practical deterrent for reasons which at this moment must be all too obvious.

Another consideration. If it is the Knowledge that someone is carry that is the deterrent, and the law generally does not allow showing physical proof of that (open carry), then a sign (as above) that says you have a gun is as an effective deterrent as an actual gun. With the added benefit that you are far less likely to end up in a gun fight.

You could also ask a similar question: "Who is more likely to get shot? Someone who owns a gun, or someone who doesn't?"

Obviously a highly confounded question (lots of other variables come into play regarding why people have guns) but I think it is what Ransom is trying to get at.

Damn shame he wasn't a better shot.

I've seen people do some interesting things to avoid bullets.