• 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:
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
Click to expand...

care to show where you got your .0001% data from?

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
Click to expand...
why would I want to pass an amendment banning handguns cause some people don't want others defending themselves? The better question is if you don't like people having the right to own handguns, why don't YOU move to a country that doesn't allow them?
Click to expand...
 
sangha said:
Nonsense. Most robberies do not end with people getting shot
Click to expand...

This one did. So if you hate people having the right to own handguns why don't YOU move to a country that doesn't allow them?
 
Lutherf said:
Actually quite a few pharmacies have prohibitions on their employees carrying firearms.
Click to expand...

The owners of a business have the freedom to decide the policies of the business that they own

Their employees are free to find other employment.

I guess to some people, "freedom" means "anyone can do whatever they want on another person's property" :screwy
 
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...

well clearly the estate of the dead pharmacists should have a righteous claim against their employers for their deaths. If you prevent people from defending themselves and refuse to provide them protection, its certainly forseeable that this sort of tragedy could happen.
 
TurtleDude said:
well clearly the estate of the dead pharmacists should have a righteous claim against their emplo
yers for their deaths. If you prevent people from defending themselves and refuse to provide them protection, its certainly forseeable that this sort of tragedy could happen.
Click to expand...

thought you were a member of the legal profession, which should cause you to then recognize that the deceased agreed to the conditions of employment. your proposed action would be immediately tossed
 
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...

He literally said nothing about gun laws or prohibition.

Strawman.
 
TheNextEra said:
care to show where you got your .0001% data from?
Click to expand...
same place you got your data, to which i responded
swag


why would I want to pass an amendment banning handguns cause some people don't want others defending themselves? The better question is if you don't like people having the right to own handguns, why don't YOU move to a country that doesn't allow them?
Click to expand...

i have lived in a country which forbade the possession of handguns. it was a peaceful experience. i would want my own country to share that sense of safety that comes from being rid of handguns
 
justabubba said:
thought you were a member of the legal profession, which should cause you to then recognize that the deceased agreed to the conditions of employment. your proposed action would be immediately tossed
Click to expand...

you don't know what the terms are do you?
 
sangha said:
Since you want to be clear:

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

Incorrect. All pharmacy employers I worked for prohibited employees from bringing guns or any weapon to work. We were specifically trained to give in to the demands of robbers, make no eye contact, and essentially hope that they choose not to hurt anyone. In most cases they do just want drugs and to leave, but in all cases the employees are unarmed, unguarded, and if the robber gets violent there isn't much that can be done aside from physical force against someone that has a gun.
 
digsbe said:
Incorrect. All pharmacy employers I worked for prohibited employees from bringing guns or any weapon to work. We were specifically trained to give in to the demands of robbers, make no eye contact, and essentially hope that they choose not to hurt anyone. In most cases they do just want drugs and to leave, but in all cases the employees are unarmed, unguarded, and if the robber gets violent there isn't much that can be done aside from physical force against someone that has a gun.
Click to expand...

That's the owner's policy, not the law so it's not a prohibition.
 
sangha said:
That's the owner's policy, not the law so it's not a prohibition.
Click to expand...

Maybe not prohibition at the legal level, but it's still prohibiting people from bringing guns into pharmacies for the purpose of self defense.
 
digsbe said:
Maybe not prohibition at the legal level, but it's still prohibiting people from bringing guns into pharmacies for the purpose of self defense.
Click to expand...

Nope. Not a "prohibition" at any level. You're just using hyperbole to make your argument look stronger than it is because your argument needs all the help it can get.

The only way your use of the word prohibition makes sense is if your view is so perverted you believe that business owners should not be allowed to make policy for their own businesses and have to allow employees to carry while on the job.
 
sangha said:
Nope. Not a "prohibition" at any level. You're just using hyperbole to make your argument look stronger than it is because your argument needs all the help it can get.

The only way your use of the word prohibition makes sense is if your view is so perverted you believe that business owners should not be allowed to make policy for their own businesses and have to allow employees to carry while on the job.
Click to expand...

Is it prohibited? Yes.

PS, I never argued using the term "prohibition." I was correcting your statement that there isn't prohibition of guns in pharmacies (which was false). I do think business owners can set policy, it's their private property. However, such policy is wrong and if they aren't going to allow employees to carry they should have an armed guard there. Such policies are not usually based on employee safety but rather on business liability.
 
digsbe said:
Is it prohibited? Yes.

PS, I never argued using the term "prohibition." I was correcting your statement that there isn't prohibition of guns in pharmacies (which was false). I do think business owners can set policy, it's their private property. However, such policy is wrong and if they aren't going to allow employees to carry they should have an armed guard there. Such policies are not usually based on employee safety but rather on business liability.
Click to expand...

You have no evidence that employees carrying guns in a pharmacy leads to fewer employees being shot. It is just as likely that the presence of firearms would lead to more employees and customers being shot.
 
sangha said:
You have no evidence that employees carrying guns in a pharmacy leads to fewer employees being shot. It is just as likely that the presence of firearms would lead to more employees and customers being shot.
Click to expand...

I know that the people murdered execution style were not armed and killed anyway. The fact is that they were murdered without even a proper way to defend themselves. Their lives were robbed of them and they didn't even have a fighting chance. This, in principal, is wrong.
 
digsbe said:
I know that the people murdered execution style were not armed and killed anyway. The fact is that they were murdered without even a proper way to defend themselves. Their lives were robbed of them and they didn't even have a fighting chance. This, in principal, is wrong.
Click to expand...

And I know that people have tried to defend themselves with guns and ended up shooting innocent people and getting shot themselves in situations that would not have resulted in anyone being shot if not for the presence of a gun.
 
They were going to be executed whether they complied or not. Sooner if not.
 
sangha said:
And I know that people have tried to defend themselves with guns and ended up shooting innocent people and getting shot themselves in situations that would not have resulted in anyone being shot if not for the presence of a gun.
Click to expand...

And I know of cases where guns saved lives, foiled a robbery, and prevented innocent lives from being taken :shrug:

But what I said though is that it is wrong in principal to deny people the ability to protect themselves or even so offering no armed protection against an armed robber via an armed guard.
 
digsbe said:
And I know of cases where guns saved lives, foiled a robbery, and prevented innocent lives from being taken :shrug:

But what I said though is that it is wrong in principal to deny people the ability to protect themselves or even so offering no armed protection against an armed robber via an armed guard.
Click to expand...

Yes, sometimes it saves lives, and sometimes it costs lives. You have presented no evidence that one outweighs the other.
 
sangha said:
Yes, sometimes it saves lives, and sometimes it costs lives. You have presented no evidence that one outweighs the other.
Click to expand...

And neither have you. Yet you want to change the current rights of people in this country because of your opinion. Why do you feel your opinion is justification to remove rights of people to carry firearms?
 
sangha said:
Yes, sometimes it saves lives, and sometimes it costs lives. You have presented no evidence that one outweighs the other.
Click to expand...

Which is why I argued that it is wrong in principal, I have it bolded now instead of italicized as before. We have reports of guns stopping crimes and protecting innocent lives, there are also reports where the gun on the scene may have had things work out worse. There isn't any evidence, to my knowledge, that proves guns are a danger or an absolute help. But in principal is it wrong to keep people unarmed and prevent them from defending themselves against armed robbers.
 
TheNextEra said:
And neither have you.
Click to expand...

Right, which is why I make no claims about whether being armed will result in more or less people being shot. You, on the other, have made claims even though you admit you have no evidence to support your claim

Yet you want to change the current rights of people in this country because of your opinion. Why do you feel your opinion is justification to remove rights of people to carry firearms?
Click to expand...

You are lying.

Please quote where I have called for any rights to be limited or admit that you lied.
 
digsbe said:
Which is why I argued that it is wrong in principal, I have it bolded now instead of italicized as before. We have reports of guns stopping crimes and protecting innocent lives, there are also reports where the gun on the scene may have had things work out worse. There isn't any evidence, to my knowledge, that proves guns are a danger or an absolute help. But in principal is it wrong to keep people unarmed and prevent them from defending themselves against armed robbers.
Click to expand...

You are still wrong. Since the business owner does not know the intent of the robbers before the crime, there is no way to know if allowing his employees will increase or decrease the risk of harm.

IOW, your principle is nonsense.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom