Right to bear arms vs. right to fire


Last Updated:

  1. OutofDate1980

    OutofDate1980 Well-Known Member

    I think this is a vote for take one for the Gipper." :(

    Advertisement
  2. TxGoat

    TxGoat Guest


    Are you talking about those insurance policies that some employers take out on individual employees or are you referring to a blanket policy that covers deaths and accidents that take place on company property?
  3. A.Nonymous

    A.Nonymous Well-Known Member

    Your odds of being killed during an armed robbery at your business are extremely slim. Let's be honest here. Your odds of being killed by a co-worker who thinks he knows how to use a gun safely, but really doesn't are much, much higher.

    I put people who feel the need to have concealed carry in the same category as people who want to take their dogs around without a leash. If the dog is well-trained and the owner is responsible, you've got no problems. The dog will generally behave himself and if he starts to misbehave, the owner can verbally correct him and the dog is fine. I've got no problems with that. The problem is that everyone thinks their dog is well behaved and many of them aren't. So we have unleashed dogs aggressively running up on other dogs or at people who don't want the attention of a huge, friendly lab and you've got problems when the owners can't control the dogs. Same thing with concealed weapons. Everyone thinks they know how to use a gun responsibly and everyone thinks they will act coolly under pressure. Everyone thinks this.

    Now, I don't own any guns myself and likely never ever will. However, I have no problem with people who want to own them themselves for whatever reason. I don't know why you would, but I also don't know why you'd ever buy an iDevice. :) Anyway, you can buy a bazooka and sleep with it under your pillow for all I care. It's just when you want to walk down the street with that weapon that I get skeeved out. Why is this random person armed? Does this person know how to use this weapon responsibly? Am I in an area that is so unsafe that people need to be armed? Should I run for the hills now since I'm in such an unsafe place?

    Both really. Both are going to go up. I'll bet money that police departments pay higher security premiums than say, a janitorial service. A janitor is probably more likely to be injured from falling off a ladder or slipping in a puddle of water, but when the police officer gets injured it's likely to be more severe.
  4. OstrichSaK

    OstrichSaK Well-Known Member

    Based on what statistics and facts? Or is this another one of your invented statements steeped in hyperbole trying to 'win' an argument? I love anti-gun people who spout off such rhetoric with absolutely ZERO facts to back them up yet they sound just smart enough for other people who can't think for themselves to take serious.

    You put these two groups of people into the same category because guns can be trained? I'm also glad you know how EVERYONE is trained and how EVERYONE thinks. You should think of running for president or at least mayor with this previously unheard of ability to read EVERYONE.

    How is this your concern? Are they doing anything to you? Do you know that EVERYONE driving near you is sober? I bet if you made driving illegal you wouldn't have to worry about people who MAY break laws, right? If you are that paranoid of someone who is LEGALLY armed then you sound like the perfect candidate for someone who should arm themselves and learn to use it. lol Life is full of unpredictability so all you can do is prepare yourself as best as possible for ANY possible situation and then hope for the best. If you are purposely choosing to NOT prepare yourself for all situations then I can see where life might be scary and you want all those bad guns to go away.

    You have NO idea what you're talking about with this 'insurance' argument so I suggest you start barking up another tree.
  5. A.Nonymous

    A.Nonymous Well-Known Member

    Why do you think every law enforcement agency in the country tells people to comply with a robber and not resist them? Just 'cuz? I'm not anti-gun. I'm anti-concealed carry. I've never understood the obsession with firearms and I live in the middle of gun nut country. It makes no sense to me whatsoever. Yes, it's your right. Knock yourself out. Just do it responsibly.

    No, I put them in the same category because just like everyone thinks their dog is well trained, everyone thinks they are a safe and responsible gun owner and will respond appropriately in a crisis situation.

    So, in order to protect myself from people running around with guns I should arm myself as well? That's insane. As I said before, I'm not prepared to kill someone. Ever. For any reason. Certainly not for a complete stranger on the streets. I'm thirty years old and I've never been mugged or robbed at gunpoint. I don't know anyone who has either. So I find it hard to justify that there is an immediate threat to my life somewhere that can only be prevented by me killing someone.

    You're saying the opposite is true? You arm your employees and your insurance premiums go down? Really?
  6. OstrichSaK

    OstrichSaK Well-Known Member

    Still no statistics, proof or facts to back up your outlandish claims, huh? Same stuff, different day from you. You even use the exact same sentences in your hyperbole tirades. It's hilarious! Calling EVERYONE who carries a gun a 'gun nut' and claiming to know what EVERY law enforcement agency in the nation thinks. Are you even going to link to that backwoods Sheriff Dept you did last time to 'prove' your point? lol

    Two totally different things. A dog is capable of attacking someone or something without ANY input from it's handler. A gun.... not so much. Your comparisons are awful as usual.

    You're the one paranoid of everyone with a gun. I merely offered a logical solution but it's clear you want to keep thinking w/o logic so far be it for me to try to interject some logic to your thought process. Go on thinking that EVERYONE with a gun is some crazy loon who's out to get you. I also find it hilarious that you've never been mugged so it won't happen. I guess by that rational logic it's impossible for my house to burn down or for me to get in a car accident or get cancer... right?

    I'm saying you don't know the first thing about owning or managing a company to have ANY insight on the BS you present as fact. Your arguments are getting AWFULLY thin.
    IOWA likes this.
  7. A.Nonymous

    A.Nonymous Well-Known Member

    Really? You're asking me to link to every single law enforcement agency in the country? Really? I've gone down this road before. Show me one law enforcement agency that advocates that citizens respond with force to a criminal. Just one. I don't even care which one. Complying with a robber is just as common advice as lock your car.

    No, it's not. An untrained dog is just as dangerous as an untrained gun handler. Both can cause serious injuries and/or death. Or do you disagree on that?

    I'm not paranoid about everyone. I'm paranoid about the one that has no clue what he's doing. Why do you think that everyone who has a concealed carry permit is highly trained and will stay calm under pressure? I personally know many people who carry concealed. I also know that in a high stress situation, they would panic because I've seen them panic under pressure before. Not everyone carrying around a concealed weapon is a highly trained responsible person any more than everyone who uses a computer is skilled in it's use or everyone who drives a car is a skilled driver.

    Why would you say that? Let's use some common sense here. From a statistical perspective don't you think the risk of an accident involving a gun goes UP if there are more guns around? And accidents involving a gun are more likely to be fatal. How does that not make any sense to you? Accidents are going to happen. That's life. But if you're a business owner you cut that risk by banning firearms on your premises.
  8. Ridgerunner665

    Ridgerunner665 Well-Known Member


    My comments in red...

    Start them young...and teach them well! You gotta get them started right...before the "agenda" gets to them. (the agenda being the liberal mindset that is taught in most schools...our kids are tomorrows leaders, make sure they understand what Freedom is...)


    This one is real...and its his...its a 22/410 combo...he was barely 4 in this pic.
    [​IMG]

    And one more thing....

    Fear...is Freedom's worst enemy...so many Freedoms have been given up in the name of "safety" and "security" that it really makes me sick to think about it. After all those men fought and died so we could have those Freedoms, then we just give them up...legislated away, bit by bit... And not all of the Freedoms were gun related...

    This is America...there was a time when we feared NOTHING except God...Now? People are afraid of everything from terrorists to TSA...and most have no clue how America got to this point...thats the REALLY sad part.
  9. OstrichSaK

    OstrichSaK Well-Known Member

    This is the first smart thing you've ever typed. I'm going to use some common sense and block you. Congratulations for becoming the first person I've ever felt the need to block on this forum. That's quite the accomplishment so you should be proud. It takes a 'special' kind of member to push me to that point. You're going to try to say that it's because you disagree with me. This couldn't be further from the truth. It's because you have taken a VERY strong stand against something which you clearly know nothing about. Whenever someone attempts to provide you with a dose of reality you flail your arms in the air and start making stuff up and resorting to hyperbole in an attempt to distract from the fact that you live in a fantasy land that isn't based in any reality what-so-ever. You refuse to see the other side for what it is and think that if you just cover your eyes then all the bad people responsible for all the bad in the world won't see you and will simply move on to the next victim in waiting who has ZERO means to defend themselves. I also hope that we never see a time in our lifetime where you realize how important our right to bear arms was. If it ever gets to that point it will be too late and you will quickly realize how important well armed citizens are to the protection of ALL that we hold dear. Every freedom we enjoy, every luxury we take for granted are ALL made possible by firearms. Like it or not. Until that day comes you can continue thinking that the silent majority who carries and intimately knows firearms inside and out (more so than most of the law enforcement officers you hold in such high regard in fact) is the REAL problem and if you can just get rid of the 'nut job gun owners' everyone in this nation it will instantly become law abiding, murderers will cease their actions and we will all hold hands and sing Kumbaya. Never mind all of the glaring obvious stats that show how increased gun ownership actually causes a noticeable decrease in violent crime. Never mind all the well documented stats that prove that when gun ownership is restricted violent crimes, especially assault/murders by firearm, rise dramatically. You just keep living in your fantasy land and arguing with those of us who know what the world is REALLY like because it makes you look SO informed and righteous. Good luck on saving the world by riding it of 'nut jobs' like me!
  10. OutofDate1980

    OutofDate1980 Well-Known Member

    Many folks call me a liberal, whatever that means. Yet I support that citizens be afforded the opportunity to defend oneself, but within reason.

    When one is in a public place consuming alcohol, firearms should not be permitted. Does that make me a liberal ?
  11. TxGoat

    TxGoat Guest

  12. Ridgerunner665

    Ridgerunner665 Well-Known Member

    No, that doesn't make you a liberal...drinking and guns is just as dangerous as drinking and driving.

    Gun in bars is OK with me, as long as the one carrying it is not drinking.
  13. Ridgerunner665

    Ridgerunner665 Well-Known Member

    LIBERALS – believe in government action to achieve equal opportunity and equality for all. It is the duty of the government to alleviate social ills and to protect civil liberties and individual and human rights. Believe the role of the government should be to guarantee that no one is in need. Liberal policies generally emphasize the need for the government to solve problems.


    CONSERVATIVES – believe in personal responsibility, limited government, free markets, individual liberty, traditional American values and a strong national defense. Believe the role of government should be to provide people the freedom necessary to pursue their own goals. Conservative policies generally emphasize empowerment of the individual to solve problems.
  14. IOWA

    IOWA Mr. Logic Pants Moderator

    Requiring your employees be defenseless against attackers is a bit ludicrous. Oh, and how did that compliance thing go on those 9/11 flights? Subduing to the criminals demands sure worked out fine there.
  15. A.Nonymous

    A.Nonymous Well-Known Member

    Nice flag waving thing you did there. They resisted the hijackers on Flight 93 and still died for it. Just saying.

    Anyway, as I said earlier, I'm not opposed to gun ownership. I'm opposed to concealed carry. If you want to purchase an M-16 and go out to the range and blow stuff away until you can't breath from the gunpowder in the air, knock yourself out. If you want to go hunt until you've been in the woods so long that you smell worse than the animals you're hunting, I say go nuts. If you are so scared of armed robbers that you hang and hide loaded guns in every room in your house (my bro-in-law does this actually), it's your right. I've no problem with that. None of that puts me or anyone else in real danger. Hunting requires a fairly intensive hunters ed course on gun safety and it's not a high pressure situation where people are prone to panic. It's about as safe as you can get if done right.

    Concealed carry is quite the opposite. You are likely to pull your weapon when you are in a high stress, possibly even panicked state. When you do that, you are far more likely to do something hasty and rash. You do something hasty and rash with a gun in your hand and someone is likely to be seriously injured or killed. That's just the way it is. There are no intense training courses required for concealed carry around here. There's a course on the legality of it and basic gun safety. That's it. Sure, you can take more advanced courses and I'm sure some people do. Most people don't though. That's where the problem comes in. When they have to pull the weapon, they're not trained (though they think they are), they're panicking (though they think they won't) and they're not thinking clearly because they're in a high stress situation.

    I've seen guys with concealed weapons run across a residential neighborhood shooting at someone who they caught burglarizing their house. I've seen guys with concealed weapons in the same situation shooting at a peeping tom they caught. Would anyone who is trained fire a weapon at a peeping tom who is running away from them in a residential neighborhood? No. There is more risk of a stray bullet hitting someone than there is of actually hitting the guy while both of you are running and you'd have a hard time explaining to a judge why you shot a peeping tom in the back. But this guy caught someone looking in a window, drew down on him and the guy ran. His adrenaline is pumping and he's not thinking clearly. It happens to the best of us. I know a woman who carries concealed. I also know that she's pulled it on people in road rage incidents. Why? Because her stress level was high and she acted inappropriately. It happens. That's my problem with concealed carry. The majority of people doing it aren't highly trained IME.
  16. jayjay1122

    jayjay1122 Well-Known Member

    A, I think you've made SOME valid points in your arguments with regard to a trained concealed carrier vs. an untrained concealed carrier. That said, I do not feel Iowa was flag waving but rather emphasizing how foolish it is to require that your employees remain defenseless. I also don't think he was referring to flight 93 and meant to type "submitting to criminal demands" (on the planes that hit the towers and the pentagon), not "subduing", but he can correct me later.

    To get back on track to the OP for a moment, I find Walgreens to be absurd in this particular case. Not for firing someone for violating policy, but for not providing any security at all for employees in lieu of personal protection and here is why. First, we are not talking about a "mom and pop shop", we are talking about a national chain of stores with gross revenue over $70 million. Second, we are talking about a 24/7 operation, in a high crime area where narcotics are stored and sold on the premises.

    I cannot think of a more obvious place to offer your employees at least a cursory level of safety. Did you see the video? The pharmacy is wide open. I live most of the time in an area where the crime rate is practically nothing. We are a crime index of 90 out of a possible 100 (almost all of that is stolen cars) and my Walgreens pharmacy is a fortress. Should every 24/7 business have armed guards or a secured area? No, of course not, but you do the math on this particular Walgreens in a town with a crime index of 1 and I am sorry to say, but an armed robbery was not a matter of if, its a clear matter of when! I actually find Walgreens to be negligent for ignoring the obvious potential for violent crime at certain stores.

    Doesn't a corporation the size of Walgreens owe the people who work there a certain level of safety? Even 24 hour gas stations lock their employees behind a steel door and bulletproof glass during certain hours and all they have is some petty cash. I find it ludicrous to even discuss potential safety measures for employees in "at risk" situations. Walgreens should be ashamed of themselves, not for firing an employee who violated policy, but for having the policy at all while not offering any safety measures of their own.
  17. TxGoat

    TxGoat Guest

  18. Frisco

    Frisco =Luceat Lux Vestra= VIP Member

    I agree with the point, "..carrying a concealed license doesn't necessarily prove that you'll do the right thing.." but I don't see the linked story as necessarily an illustration of that. Nobody knows what happened except the shooter, the other one is dead and there were no witnesses.

    All we have is the 911 call which includes the shooter saying he was going to follow the guy and the 911 dispatcher telling him that action was not needed.
  19. TxGoat

    TxGoat Guest


    There was another 911 tape where you can hear the alleged victim screaming for help, then you hear a shot ring out and the screams for help stop. That's probably the most damning evidence and raises questions as to why this guy wasn't arrested.
  20. Frisco

    Frisco =Luceat Lux Vestra= VIP Member

    Yeah I just read the updated story.. the girl's 911 call was troublesome to me and still raises more questions.

    I can agree that this guy seems to have been overstepping his bounds, but makes me wonder at what point he should have stopped, given the recent break ins and vandalism in that neighborhood.

    The thing that leans it in the direction of him being too zealous was the operator telling him that he did not need to follow the person. The cops were on it. He sounds like he let his frustration take it to point of confrontation, a huge no no in concealed carry situations; you're supposed to do quite the opposite.
  21. OutofDate1980

    OutofDate1980 Well-Known Member

    I read in the Washington Post that the boy killed was armed with a container of ice tea and skittles.
  22. Frisco

    Frisco =Luceat Lux Vestra= VIP Member

    Proof that even the W.P. can get a fact straight now and then.

    Fwiw, unarmed people can and do kill people every day. The question here is one that may never be fully answered: which person began the threatening situation? It seems to be leaning in the direction of one then the other. I tend to think that the shooter was at fault for even following the person around once told not to.

    I put myself in his situation.. I may very well have followed in my car and at a distance if the 911 operator didn't say not to, in no way would I have confronted a suspicious person on a street like that, that's cop stuff. So, again, this guy seemed over the top.. and I can well understand the family and friends wanting something more of an investigation.
  23. OstrichSaK

    OstrichSaK Well-Known Member

    One person who didn't do something right doesn't mean that NOBODY else will perform good enough to derail the attack. For every story you find where someone carrying didn't respond properly I can present 10 where the person owning a firearm acted to save lives. The media doesn't report those because the general watching public has spoken.. they don't care. Negativity & shock journalism gets the headlines and ratings.

    There is no proof you will act properly if your house catches fire but do you still own a fire extinguisher? Isn't having the chance to do right better than the alternative which is to be a completely defenseless victim?

    I can't stand when people's biggest fear is a citizen with a firearm yet they hold ALL law enforcement officers in high regard and all of them deserve firearms and can do no wrong. Like they're somehow cut from a different cloth or a non-LE couldn't possibly train more than your average patrolman. Little do they know the reality of it all. Most patrolman (also civilians I might add) are required to qualify with their firearms only once a quarter and then you're talking 150rds or so. It's not uncommon for me to blow through a thousand rounds on a weekend. I've competed with the best of the best at many different types of firearm competitions which have included some of the best LE shooters to know where my skills stack up. I have lots of friends in LE and when I compare my non-LE friends to my LE friends it's readily apparent who the better group of shooters is and it's not even close. Simply having a badge doesn't make you an expert marksman. We need to get past this idiotic opinion that armed civilians are dangerous because the majority are more trained than the majority of LE because it's their hobby. They're passion.

    Why shouldn't people be allowed to carry their firearms at a place that serves liquor? Who says they're drinking? What if they have ONE beer? It's been determined that there's a certain level that one is still perfectly capable of driving so why shouldn't this be applied to firearms? I'm not saying I would drink but at the same time I don't see why there's a 'legal level' for driving but not one for carrying a firearm. Both are just as capable of ending a life if the person in control is careless.

    Increased restriction on firearms does NOT decrease crime. In fact, it's been proven numerous times that increasing restriction on firearms serves to INCREASE crime rates. So what's the fight for?
  24. OstrichSaK

    OstrichSaK Well-Known Member

    I agree with this statement taken at face value. Owning a firearm and carrying it comes with a VERY unique set of responsibilities. You can't believe how different of a person I am now WITH a firearm than without. I wish I could present video proof to those who think that carrying a firearm will make you some crazy overzealous person LOOKING for trouble or an excuse to draw your firearm. Now I won't even honk at someone in traffic for fear of a situation escalating because if I end up using my firearm for a situation I could have avoided then I would have a hard time living with that. I go out of my way now to not put myself in situations where bad things happen. I don't go to bars or clubs anymore. I'm not out late or in places where the 'bad element' seems to strike most often. I'm a more calm, level headed person who avoids conflict at all possible costs because I know now that if something goes wrong someone could die and I will have to live with that.

    All that being said I won't chase danger. In fact, if danger presents itself my first goal is to escape it at all costs. If put in a situation where escape isn't possible I will then revert to my training which will likely end in a dead bad guy or two. I don't go looking for trouble and I don't act on anything that isn't an immediate and unavoidable threat. Following trouble only gets you what you're looking for. That doesn't mean that I hold the opinion of a 911 operator above my own instinct either. If something goes bump in the middle of the night and my wife calls 911 while I go investigate I'm not going to drop my firearm and hide under the bed until the police arrive because the 911 operator said we should do that. I don't hold what the 911 operator suggested he do as any sort of requirement. With the information we have on that particular story I would say that he shouldn't have pursued him.
    Frisco likes this.
  25. ElasticNinja

    ElasticNinja Well-Known Member

    I'm not in favour of it being easy to get a weapon, but from what I see that employee was in the right. If someone is trying to attack you, and you are actually at risk, you do something. How was the employee supposed to not escalate the situation? Fill his gun with dust and then try to fire, so that it would jam? I presume the idea of Walgreens policy is that robbers wount presume workers will be armed and wont shoot, but I mean what criminal would presume that in the US?
    But yeah, if someone is trying to eriously hurt you, you fight back, with a plank of wood, your fists whatever, within reason. If they're running away though, the best thing you can do is call the police.

Share This Page