• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Victims shot after drugs handed over at Tennessee pharmacy, DA says

justabubba said:
when you get out of school you may need to open your own pharmacy which tolerates a ccw practice
not sure the outcome would be any different, but you would at least be able to take someone with you - hopefully not an innocent customer

or we could alternatively work to rid all handguns from the streets
Click to expand...

false dichotomy
 
MaggieD said:
It is sad. Criminals figure out that "no witnesses" is safer. So witnesses are executed. If even one person in that store had had a gun, this story might have had a very different ending. At the very least? They would have gone down fighting instead of like dogs tethered to trees.
Click to expand...
And they could have been railroaded by the pigs like Jerome Ersland was. And then got convicted of murder by a jury of left-wing idiots simply for defending themselves against robbers.
 
The Canadian model CanadaJohn referred to seems the most reasonable...any drugs with high street values should be in a time controlled safe, dispensed only after hours when the pharmacy is securely locked up, and held for pickup the next day or mailed.

As for CCW, it might decrease the number of pharmacy robberies, but I suspect it would increase the number of killings. Desperate junkies will generally leave once they have what they want, but if they suspect they will meet armed resistance, the most desperate may just march in guns blazing, and perhaps leave one alive to show them where the oxy is located.

Believe it or not I used to work with a guy who got arrested after a five hour standoff with cops when they tried to arrest him for bumping off pharmacies.

Pharmacy Robber Charged With 6 Robberies, More Charges Expected - Acadiana's Multi-Media News Station

...and given the timeline, he had to have been actively engaged in his crime spree while I was working with him.
 
Digs...I understand policy...but if it was me, Id go to work with some form of firearm (or tear gas if someone is opposed to firearms) in a shoulder holster type rig every day of the week, especially in that field. Some good basic rules the FBI teaches...if you are ever in a hostage situation, have seen the perpetrators face, and he tells you to turn around, kneel down, or go into a back room, you had best be making plans for some sort of gambit because odds are high ****s about to get really really real.
 
digsbe said:


Victims shot after drugs handed over at Tennessee pharmacy, DA says | Fox News

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]This really hits me hard. In all pharmacies I've worked for it was against company policy to bring a weapon to work for the purpose of self defense. There were no security guards and in the event of a robbery we were instructed to give robbers whatever they want and avoid all eye contact and hope that the robber chooses not to kill anyone and that compliance would most likely result in them leaving with stolen medications and no human lives being harmed.

The pharmacist and technicians were murdered execution style. They gave into his demands and were told to kneel down facing against the wall and were then shot and killed. Personally, had the pharmacist owned a gun or the staff had their own they could have defended themselves instead of being murdered unarmed execution style. This is a very very sad tragedy.[/FONT]
Click to expand...

So let us get this straight. You are using one incident with no knowledge of whether or not a gun would have done anything to emotionalize the argument and politicize a tragedy? Just want to make sure we all know that you are doing all of that before we start here.

One could make things a lot safer and harder for the criminal by certain policies. Armed robberies of lonely gas stations used to make big money in some areas, and a gun was seen as the only way to protect a business owner. however, systems of safes, multiple workers, making sure cash is not on premises in large amounts, better police patrols, and making sure criminals know there is no real gain from the risk have done far more to lower armed robberies on gas stations than any gun in the hand of an untrained clerk who is easily distracted with their job. You arfe a station clerk with lots of other duties. Wandering around with a gun at the ready pretty much makes doing other things hard. When you lower your gun and are not ready you are open to be killed by a person like you are complaining about because they already were going to kill people.

There are some better ways to do things. Do not keep powerful narcotic type of prescription meds on site. Or keep them in some sort of automated safe dispenser that the employee cannot open that spits out based on a time limit. This doesn't sound like a CVS or walmart pharmacy because basically you would have other employees to worry about an alarm trigger. So perhaps a couple of extra employees might be in order. make sure to put up some advertisements telling people things like Oxy are smoply not available within a certain time limit. These sorts of things have far better effect on things like armed theft, and even employee theft than having a gun.

Oh, I really do want to repeat in this case a gun would seem to have done absolutely no good for anyone as the robber was ready to execute the people there. You run under the delusion that your average person is ready to kill or even face the reprocussions of taking another persons life. it is often said by gun owners that you better be prepared to pay at least 25k if you ever use your gun in self defense and this is because you will face police investigations and charges and need a lawyer. That is if you are lucky and you do not get things blown up into some national case like zimmerman. If he is innocent all the money in the world wouldn't help him to go back to his life. The reality is a p[repped killer has the drop on you. You will hesitate. you will question. They will not and that means you die anyway. Your gun becomes nothing more than an extra for the killer.

Thank you for the emotional argument that is not even statistically sound. It is but a simple anecdotal argument with no actual facts or reality behind it. You are like that guy who says he won't wear a seat belt because he heard that one time this one guy died from wearing one. You have not proved that much since we do not even know if the pharmacist would have shot the robber or even had time to pull the gun.

But i am sure the gun people will be all in here claiming crazy superhero with guns save the world.
 
VanceMack said:
Digs...I understand policy...but if it was me, Id go to work with some form of firearm (or tear gas if someone is opposed to firearms) in a shoulder holster type rig every day of the week, especially in that field. Some good basic rules the FBI teaches...if you are ever in a hostage situation, have seen the perpetrators face, and he tells you to turn around, kneel down, or go into a back room, you had best be making plans for some sort of gambit because odds are high ****s about to get really really real.
Click to expand...

Real odds are most thieves do not shoot because they do not want to be murderers. Also, anyone who has worked management in a place with employees knows a gun doesn't prevent many thefts because it is the employees or shoplifters, and not armed robbery. Part of the reason a gun doesn't help in those situations is because either the person who is there to protect the store is the one doing the stealing and is not going to shoot themselves, or the store owners don't find out until way after the fact which makes alternative security much better.
 
tererun said:
Real odds are most thieves do not shoot because they do not want to be murderers. Also, anyone who has worked management in a place with employees knows a gun doesn't prevent many thefts because it is the employees or shoplifters, and not armed robbery. Part of the reason a gun doesn't help in those situations is because either the person who is there to protect the store is the one doing the stealing and is not going to shoot themselves, or the store owners don't find out until way after the fact which makes alternative security much better.
Click to expand...
Odds are MOST dont. Odds are...once certain conditions are met it is probable bad **** is about to happen. There are rules police and federal law enforcement personnel follow...thats one of them. However...when it comes to firearms issues...I dont expect you to have ANY objectivity. So...we'll just leave it at that.
 
justabubba said:
the perps had the employees under the gun
what is the likelihood having a concealed weapon would have changed the outcome of that incident
Click to expand...

we know the likelyhood of them surviving without a concealed weapon, 0% chance of survival. Now why is it so wrong to let people defend themselves.

and if you will look at japan's experience, you will see that it was able to eliminate most hand guns in short order. that tends to discredit the notion that we cannot do the same in the USA
Click to expand...

The size of Japan compared to the U.S. Sorry, but that's comparing apples to oranges without any taking into consideration the fact it is a Constitutional Right here in the U.S.
 
VanceMack said:
Odds are MOST dont. Odds are...once certain conditions are met it is probable bad **** is about to happen. There are rules police and federal law enforcement personnel follow...thats one of them. However...when it comes to firearms issues...I dont expect you to have ANY objectivity. So...we'll just leave it at that.
Click to expand...

So that means odds are that purchasing a gun for security is your last option. Odds are that you have no objectivity or logic behind your gun arguments being one of the people who cannot really grasp that odds are in the moment you need to use your gun you will not draw, and even if you do you will miss. Even with Practice we all know that in real combat situations trained people miss because of lack of experience in real combat situations. So unless you are hiring soldiers with combat experience, or cops with experience to be your pharmacist none of this even matters. Even then your parhmacy can still be ripped off because as we can see those people are not above stealing oxy.
 
tererun said:
So that means odds are that purchasing a gun for security is your last option. Odds are that you have no objectivity or logic behind your gun arguments being one of the people who cannot really grasp that odds are in the moment you need to use your gun you will not draw, and even if you do you will miss. Even with Practice we all know that in real combat situations trained people miss because of lack of experience in real combat situations. So unless you are hiring soldiers with combat experience, or cops with experience to be your pharmacist none of this even matters. Even then your parhmacy can still be ripped off because as we can see those people are not above stealing oxy.
Click to expand...
No...that means if you are in a dangerous job you should play out scenarios, you should train as to risk and potential results, and you should take as much personal responsibility for your safety and those around you as do law enforcement officers. Or...you should operate under the notion that if something bad is about to happen to you you should take it and you probably deserve it anyway.
 
justabubba said:
the perps had the employees under the gun
what is the likelihood having a concealed weapon would have changed the outcome of that incident

and if you will look at japan's experience, you will see that it was able to eliminate most hand guns in short order. that tends to discredit the notion that we cannot do the same in the USA
Click to expand...

hell-froze-over-400x221.jpg

I really doubt it will get that cold.
 
Thrilla said:
allowing people to defend themselves with a firearm is reasonable and doable... getting all handguns off the street is the stuff of fantasies.
Click to expand...



Bing. QFT.... /thread
 
justabubba said:
the perps had the employees under the gun
what is the likelihood having a concealed weapon would have changed the outcome of that incident

and if you will look at japan's experience, you will see that it was able to eliminate most hand guns in short order. that tends to discredit the notion that we cannot do the same in the USA
Click to expand...



Bubba, Japan never had that many guns to start with; we do. Furthermore Japanese culture is based on the subordination of the individual to the group, and compliance to society... ours isn't. Japan is largely a homogenous culture... our isn't.

I could go on and on with the differences, but the big one is a number: 300 million guns. And one more number: 2, for the Second Amendment.


I thought you were more of a realist.
 
justabubba said:
the perps had the employees under the gun
what is the likelihood having a concealed weapon would have changed the outcome of that incident

and if you will look at japan's experience, you will see that it was able to eliminate most hand guns in short order. that tends to discredit the notion that we cannot do the same in the USA
Click to expand...
I know right? I mean just look at how effective prohibition was. And drug bans! :lamo
 
VanceMack said:
I know right? I mean just look at how effective prohibition was. And drug bans! :lamo
Click to expand...

excellent point
notice how those edicts drove drinking and drugging off of the streets and into the underground
how it made arrests for public possession of illegal substances easy to enforce
it will do the same thing with a hand gun prohibition

what will be different however, unlike with drugs and booze, the majority seek to remove hand guns from the private sector
thanks for the analogy and for making my argument
 
justabubba said:
excellent point
notice how those edicts drove drinking and drugging off of the streets and into the underground
how it made arrests for public possession of illegal substances easy to enforce
it will do the same thing with a hand gun prohibition

what will be different however, unlike with drugs and booze, the majority seek to remove hand guns from the private sector
thanks for the analogy and for making my argument
Click to expand...

Good lord, son...do you have even a basic understanding of history? Not only was the proliferation overt, it turned previously law biding citizens into criminals, law enforcement was completely inept at both prevention and enforcement and it demonstrated beyond question that criminals... The only group you should actually give a **** about, COMPLETELY ignored the laws and in fact thrived.

Sometimes dood...I really wonder about you. I'd think you were playin POE...if it wasnt so obvious you actually believed it.
 
Goshin said:
Bubba, Japan never had that many guns to start with; we do.
Click to expand...
wrong
hand gun and long arms usage was widespread across japan until the conclusion of WWII

Furthermore Japanese culture is based on the subordination of the individual to the group, and compliance to society... ours isn't.
Click to expand...
while they are less individualistic than we, that does not make us a nation which refuses to obey the law

Japan is largely a homogenous culture... our isn't.
Click to expand...
that has nothing to do with guns. we are a melting pot, they are homogenous. but surprise me and explain why this has a bearing on the control of hand guns

I could go on and on with the differences, but the big one is a number: 300 million guns.
Click to expand...
not looking to prohibit all guns. just hand guns and those weapons which have a military/offensive, rather than defensive, purpose

And one more number: 2, for the Second Amendment.
Click to expand...
yep. an amendment would be required prohibiting the possession of hand guns and weapons having a military/offensive purpose


I thought you were more of a realist.
Click to expand...
didn't realize you were such a defeatist, refusing to attempt to pursue reasonable public policy
 
Lutherf said:
Just to be clear, your position is that it's better to put the lives of innocent people at great risk by prohibiting firearms and if a few innocent folks get killed then that's just the way it has to be to insure that only criminals can have firearms....is that about right?
Click to expand...

Since you want to be clear:

There is no prohibition on firearms in pharmacies
 
VanceMack said:
Good lord, son...do you have even a basic understanding of history? Not only was the proliferation overt, it turned previously law biding citizens into criminals, law enforcement was completely inept at both prevention and enforcement and it demonstrated beyond question that criminals... The only group you should actually give a **** about, COMPLETELY ignored the laws and in fact thrived.

Sometimes dood...I really wonder about you. I'd think you were playin POE...if it wasnt so obvious you actually believed it.
Click to expand...

you refuse to acknowledge how prohibitions drove drugs and booze underground, thus making enforcement easier
after the change, if found with a hand gun, go to jail
not true today, allowing criminals such as the perps in the OP to freely carry with impunity ... and thus place their victims at a distinct disadvantage. why do you seek to enable such lawlessness?
will some still manage to possess a hand gun to use in the commission of crimes? yes, certainly. will those who are found by LEOs to possess hand guns lose the weapons and their freedom? yes. and over time, we will rid our nation of most handguns
sorry that reality is beyond you
 
justabubba said:
wrong
hand gun and long arms usage was widespread across japan until the conclusion of WWII


while they are less individualistic than we, that does not make us a nation which refuses to obey the law


that has nothing to do with guns. we are a melting pot, they are homogenous. but surprise me and explain why this has a bearing on the control of hand guns


not looking to prohibit all guns. just hand guns and those weapons which have a military/offensive, rather than defensive, purpose


yep. an amendment would be required prohibiting the possession of hand guns and weapons having a military/offensive purpose



didn't realize you were such a defeatist, refusing to attempt to pursue reasonable public policy
Click to expand...


Ah Bubba....

Japan didn't have the private firearms ownership rates we have today, period. Fact.

Their culture is FAR more inclined toward cooperative behaviors than ours, enough to make a HUGE difference. I've studied the Japanese in more depth than most, and this is fact.

If you're looking to prohibit guns with a military/offensive purpose, rather than a defensive one, you shouldn't be trying to prohibit handguns. They are the most commonly used defensive firearm.

I would oppose such an Amendment. Indeed I'd consider it a breach of the fundamental substance of our society, just as if someone tried to repeal the First Amendment.

I don't consider your policy proposal to be reasonable, nor a public good. :mrgreen:
 
ChuckBerry said:
The Canadian model CanadaJohn referred to seems the most reasonable...any drugs with high street values should be in a time controlled safe, dispensed only after hours when the pharmacy is securely locked up, and held for pickup the next day or mailed.

As for CCW, it might decrease the number of pharmacy robberies, but I suspect it would increase the number of killings. Desperate junkies will generally leave once they have what they want, but if they suspect they will meet armed resistance, the most desperate may just march in guns blazing, and perhaps leave one alive to show them where the oxy is located.

Believe it or not I used to work with a guy who got arrested after a five hour standoff with cops when they tried to arrest him for bumping off pharmacies.

Pharmacy Robber Charged With 6 Robberies, More Charges Expected - Acadiana's Multi-Media News Station

...and given the timeline, he had to have been actively engaged in his crime spree while I was working with him.
Click to expand...

Yes, while it is true that the presence of a firearm might have saved innocent lives in this case and in all cases overall, it's possible that the presence of firearms might lead to an increase in the deaths of innocents
 
TheNextEra said:
we know the likelyhood of them surviving without a concealed weapon, 0% chance of survival. Now why is it so wrong to let people defend themselves.
Click to expand...
yes, and the chance that the employee with the weapon is going to be able to defend himself against perps with drawn guns is what, .0001%
hell of a reason


The size of Japan compared to the U.S. Sorry, but that's comparing apples to oranges without any taking into consideration the fact it is a Constitutional Right here in the U.S.
Click to expand...
in terms of population, japan is half our size. why does that have an impact on the question of hand gun control?
yes, an amendment would be required to restrict hand guns. so, let's do it. solve the gun problem
 
justabubba said:
you refuse to acknowledge how prohibitions drove drugs and booze underground, thus making enforcement easier
after the change, if found with a hand gun, go to jail
not true today, allowing criminals such as the perps in the OP to freely carry with impunity ... and thus place their victims at a distinct disadvantage. why do you seek to enable such lawlessness?
will some still manage to possess a hand gun to use in the commission of crimes? yes, certainly. will those who are found by LEOs to possess hand guns lose the weapons and their freedom? yes. and over time, we will rid our nation of most handguns
sorry that reality is beyond you
Click to expand...

Geeez us dood. Your thought processes are laughable. You actually believe it is a good idea to disarm the law abiding population and 'ban' guns knowing beyond a shadow of doubt that bans have never worked in his country and you promote your ideas citing examples CLEARLY showing how easily criminals do and always have managed to get those illegal and banned products. You are precious Bubba...a walking talking living breathing billboard for why people like you should NEVER be taken seriously over ANYTHING.
 
sangha said:
Since you want to be clear:

There is no prohibition on firearms in pharmacies
Click to expand...

Actually quite a few pharmacies have prohibitions on their employees carrying firearms.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom