• 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

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...



Extremely well-said.

The knowlege that staff are armed tends to discourage robbery in the first place.

I've repeatedly brought up Biggerstaff's, the store in the 'hood that cashes checks and has probably a hundred grand cash in the register... and has NEVER been robbed in sixty years, because the staff all wear Glocks on their hips in plain sight, and have a shotgun behind the lunch counter.
 
sangha said:
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.
Click to expand...

So it's not wrong in principal to de-arm people and prevent them from defending themselves in the event of an armed robbery? In such a case you are at the complete mercy of a robber, they may choose to use their weapon or not, but in the end you are powerless and rely on the idea that they won't use it if they get what they want. Preventing people from defending themselves is wrong, in principal, and just because the business owner doesn't have complete data either way doesn't make it right. In your view what is the proper principal? After all, if you say that mine is wrong then what is the right one?
 
Last edited:
digsbe said:
So it's not wrong in principal to de-arm people and prevent them from defending themselves in the event of an armed robbery? In such a case you are at the complete mercy of a robber, they may choose to use their weapon or not, but in the end you are powerless and rely on the idea that they won't use it if they get what they want. Preventing people from self defense is wrong, in principal, and just because the business owner doesn't have complete data either way doesn't make it right. In your view what is the proper principal? After all, if you say that mine is wrong then what is the right one?
Click to expand...


When someone sticks a gun in your face, they have lost the "benefit of the doubt" as to their intentions.
 
digsbe said:
So it's not wrong in principal to de-arm people and prevent them from defending themselves in the event of an armed robbery? In such a case you are at the complete mercy of a robber, they may choose to use their weapon or not, but in the end you are powerless and rely on the idea that they won't use it if they get what they want. Preventing people from self defense is wrong, in principal, and just because the business owner doesn't have complete data either way doesn't make it right. In your view what is the proper principal? After all, if you say that mine is wrong then what is the right one?
Click to expand...

If allowing them to work armed increases the risk that innocent people will be harmed, then there is nothing "principled" about allowing that.

There has been no evidence posted which shows that allowing them to worked armed decreases the risk that innocents will be harmed.

IOW, my principle is that policy should be based on fact, not emotionally driven supposition.
 
sangha said:
If allowing them to work armed increases the risk that innocent people will be harmed, then there is nothing "principled" about allowing that.
Click to expand...

Big word here is if. Show me evidence where this is the case.
There has been no evidence posted which shows that allowing them to worked armed decreases the risk that innocents will be harmed.
Click to expand...
No evidence has been posted either that says when people are armed there is a decreased risk that innocents will be harmed. I acknowledged that, I also stated that all we really have to go on are reports where guns helped or didn't help. To my knowledge there is no reliable study conducted that contrasts being armed with prevention of people being harmed in an armed robbery to those unarmed in similar situations. Absence of evidence is not evidence. The precedence is that people have a Constitutional right to be armed and defend themselves, to remove such ability without evidence that it is a beneficial policy is not rational.
IOW, my principle is that policy should be based on fact, not emotionally driven supposition.
Click to expand...

Seems like we have the same policy then. But as stated, there isn't facts that would support the notion that being armed, in the event of an armed robbery, results in more innocent people being harmed or in more deaths. In principal people should be allowed to defend themselves from robbers, especially if they are armed. It's wrong to subjugate people to the mercy of a robber and hope that they choose to not harm anyone if they get what they want. Nothing emotional about that.
 
digsbe said:
Big word here is if. Show me evidence where this is the case.
Click to expand...

You've got it bass-ackwards

You're the one claiming that employers should allow their employees to work armed, so you're the one who has the burden to show that doing so decreases the risk of innocents being harmed

I have not said anything about what a employer should do, so I have no obligation to post any evidence.

No evidence has been posted either that says when people are armed there is a decreased risk that innocents will be harmed. I acknowledged that, I also stated that all we really have to go on are reports where guns helped or didn't help. To my knowledge there is no reliable study conducted that contrasts being armed with prevention of people being harmed in an armed robbery to those unarmed in similar situations. Absence of evidence is not evidence. The precedence is that people have a Constitutional right to be armed and defend themselves, to remove such ability without evidence that it is a beneficial policy is not rational.


Seems like we have the same policy then. But as stated, there isn't facts that would support the notion that being armed, in the event of an armed robbery, results in more innocent people being harmed or in more deaths. In principal people should be allowed to defend themselves from robbers, especially if they are armed. It's wrong to subjugate people to the mercy of a robber and hope that they choose to not harm anyone if they get what they want. Nothing emotional about that.
Click to expand...

No, we don't have the same position. You assume that an owner needs to show evidence that allowing employees to carry increases risk in order to forbid the practice. My position is that since there is no evidence either way, either policy (allowing or forbidding carry while working) is equally justifiable.

Businesses are not run to allow their workers to exercise their rights. They are run to make a profit. Business owners set rules based on what they feel will further their goal of earning a profit,. Those business policies are not "subjugation". It's nonsensical hyperbole to claim it is "subjugation"
 
99percenter said:
What if the pharmacist had a gun and used it. Might have been charged with murder like this pharmacist.

Oklahoma Pharmacist and Dead Robber's Accomplices Get Life in Prison - ABC News
Click to expand...

World of difference between a pharmacist using a firearm in self defense and a pharmacist shooting a guy (knocking him unconscious), chasing his accomplices out of the building, returning indoors and retrieving a second gun and then pumping 5 shots into an unconscious individual.
 
VanceMack said:
World of difference between a pharmacist using a firearm in self defense and a pharmacist shooting a guy (knocking him unconscious), chasing his accomplices out of the building, returning indoors and retrieving a second gun and then pumping 5 shots into an unconscious individual.
Click to expand...


"Box told ABC News that his client saw Parker still moving and believed he was still a threat."

Shouldn't he be able to stand his ground?
 
99percenter said:
"Box told ABC News that his client saw Parker still moving and believed he was still a threat."

Shouldn't he be able to stand his ground?
Click to expand...
you bet. Sure.
 
TurtleDude said:
you don't know what the terms are do you?
Click to expand...

squire, the employees were present, working
since slavery has been made illegal, it can be presumed they were at the work site of their own volition
thus indicating they were acceptable to the conditions of employment established by the employer
provide us evidence that they were present at the work site under the owner's duress and your remark could have a basis. otherwise you are only exposing that you have no clue about this legal matter
 
justabubba said:
squire, the employees were present, working
since slavery has been made illegal, it can be presumed they were at the work site of their own volition
thus indicating they were acceptable to the conditions of employment established by the employer
provide us evidence that they were present at the work site under the owner's duress and your remark could have a basis. otherwise you are only exposing that you have no clue about this legal matter
Click to expand...

your constant attempts to try to prove you know more about the law than I do are amusing. we don't know what the contract was but it is my opinion that an employer that refuses to provide for an employee's safety should be liable
 
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...

That's why I didn't go to pharmacy school.
 
apdst said:
That's why I didn't go to pharmacy school.
Click to expand...

You didn't go earn a doctorate so you can get shot at by drug addicts? :mrgreen:

My goals are to do clinical/hospital, but I have utmost respect for my community counterparts.
 
digsbe said:
You didn't go earn a doctorate so you can get shot at by drug addicts? :mrgreen:

My goals are to do clinical/hospital, but I have utmost respect for my community counterparts.
Click to expand...

That's exactly right!
 
TurtleDude said:
your constant attempts to try to prove you know more about the law than I do are amusing. we don't know what the contract was but it is my opinion that an employer that refuses to provide for an employee's safety should be liable
Click to expand...

The NRA lovers idea of "freedom" means that employers should be forced to arm their workplaces. :screwy
 
So - what I still don't get is why No single pharmacy - stocking all sorts of abused and addicted drugs - doesn't have better security measures IN GENERAL.

Banks
Quick pay shops
Jewelry stores
Museums
Any and all Fed / State buildings
Airports
Gas Stations

All of these places have screening measures or security equipment/etc and most have hired security ON HAND at ALL TIMES.

But pharmacies - who are experiencing higher and higher rates of drug related crime - still haven't done a single thing to improve the safety for other customers and their pharmacists/other attendants.

Not a single damned thing.

No glass windows. No security doors. No security breach barriers (which instantly activate when a button is pushed) No security clearance required to get in back (key codes that can be viewed from across the store doesn't count). . . and so on, so forth.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
So - what I still don't get is why No single pharmacy - stocking all sorts of abused and addicted drugs - doesn't have better security measures IN GENERAL.

Banks
Quick pay shops
Jewelry stores
Museums
Any and all Fed / State buildings
Airports
Gas Stations

All of these places have screening measures or security equipment/etc and most have hired security ON HAND at ALL TIMES.

But pharmacies - who are experiencing higher and higher rates of drug related crime - still haven't done a single thing to improve the safety for other customers and their pharmacists/other attendants.

Not a single damned thing.

No glass windows. No security doors. No security breach barriers (which instantly activate when a button is pushed) No security clearance required to get in back (key codes that can be viewed from across the store doesn't count). . . and so on, so forth.
Click to expand...

Because there's a Federal law prohibiting armed personel from occupying pharmacies. Ironic, eh?
 
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...

But he's not a gun grabber, he's just a gun not-haver.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom