Who cites these statistics? Just kind of curious, because Banks are stationary, and those armored trucks are moblie and the guards are locked behind bullet resistant glass. Just wondering the circumstances behind those robbery statistics.
I for one think that if all stores/businesses had a "you try to rob me you will get shot" policy I think that robberies would almost disappear.
Most criminals are counting on the "..give them what they want so noone gets hurt.." policy. That more often thatn not results in an easy robbery.
What you folks think??
I'm just not sure. I was a store clerk during college when I was robbed at gunpoint. I cursed my rushed schedule that left me unarmed that day for the robber said, "give me the money AND I'm going to kill you". Three customers entered at that point and I attribute my survival to them.
A month later after three robberies in as many weeks the Milwaukee cops staked out a small store up the block from me. The robbers all died but the store had to close for a week to clean up the gore. (cops loved shotguns)
We're addressing symptoms. Let's stop pretending a war on drugs is winnable. It just increases the drugs and profits for druglords.
Fund rehabs for those who want them but we can end drug crime by merely giving up the myth that this war is winnable.
Face it! What sane person puts a needle in their arm knowing it brings a life of addiction and imprisonment?
__________________
I'll believe corporations are persons when Texas executes one.: LBJ's Ghost
I don't know about requiring weapons training as a prerequisite to getting a job, but I do think that (most) employers should not establish firearm carry policies for their employees. I understand where these employers are coming from. If they create a job position that requires an employee be armed, they can be held liable for the actions of that employee. If they actively seek armed individuals as employees, they can be held liable. Right now, if they permit their employees to be armed on the job, they think they can be held liable for the actions of those employees.
They aren't yet worried about liability for disarming employees.
Ideally, an employer who takes no position on employee-carry should be immune from liability for the actions of the individuals they employ.
__________________
We work together every damn day. --Jon Stewart
"Ideally, an employer who takes no position on employee-carry should be immune from liability for the actions of the individuals they employ."
Key word is "ideally". In our imperfect world that hires many marginal types as cashiers you risk a would be mall ninja with an IQ of 85 seizing his one chance at 15 minutes of fame. Someone needs to bear responsibility and the employer has a part in the results.
__________________
I'll believe corporations are persons when Texas executes one.: LBJ's Ghost
"Ideally, an employer who takes no position on employee-carry should be immune from liability for the actions of the individuals they employ."
Key word is "ideally". In our imperfect world that hires many marginal types as cashiers you risk a would be mall ninja with an IQ of 85 seizing his one chance at 15 minutes of fame. Someone needs to bear responsibility and the employer has a part in the results.
The "someone" in that case should be the employee, not the employer. Unless the employer required the employee to be armed.
__________________
We work together every damn day. --Jon Stewart
It's proven to not be much of a deterrent. We all die but no one is very happy being behind bars for life. That scares the crap out of me compared to death.
__________________
__________________
I'll believe corporations are persons when Texas executes one.: LBJ's Ghost
Linear Mode
