The Tale of Two Pharmacies

[gipper]

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

It's not illogical at all. You just don't have the capacity to understand what I was telling you. You seem to lack the ability to understand that anecdotal evidence is not meaningful. You are making the logical jump of assuming that because you saw one instance of something, than all instances must also be like the one. There is no line of reasoning that can get you to that conclusion. It's void of logic. The fact that you call me illogical only makes it more amusing. You just did the logical equivalent of saying " I just saw a red car get into an accident, but that blue car there just missed the accident. Red cars must be less safe than blue cars". That is precisely what you did and yet you call me illogical.

The MI case does not prove anything. When you pull a gun on an armed assailant, the only thing you are assuring is that someone is going to get shot. Most armed robberies don't result in shootings. The gun is simply used as a threat of violence to get compliance from victims. The second you respond to that threat with another gun, you are assuring that the situation will end in shooting and death. It may be the criminal who gets shot, but maybe not. What you have accomplished is that you have removed from the universe of possibility the potential outcome where no one gets shot.

Also... you totally ignored that section where I talked about a private company's right to determine it's own terms of employment. I guess it didn't fit with your viewpoints or caused some sort of contradiction in your half functioning mind which simply couldn't be resolved so you ignored it.

Okay. That again is most illogical.

You concluded that even if those in the NY case were armed the crime would still have occurred. That is what you actually posted above. It is illogical that you would conclude this unless you are a very good physic. And, you continue this absurd argument even though the MI case proves you could be wrong. You see I have evidence (the MI case) showing armed law abiding citizens prevent crime and you have NO evidence at all to support your argument.

Of course, there is no guarantee the NY case would have had a different result if those murdered were armed, but for you to conclude that even if they were armed the result would be the same, is completely and utterly illogical and has no basis in reality.

The private company part has nothing to do with our debate.

[WickedLou9]

Originally Posted by gipper

Okay. That again is most illogical.

You concluded that even if those in the NY case were armed the crime would still have occurred. That is what you actually posted above. It is illogical that you would conclude this unless you are a very good physic. And, you continue this absurd argument even though the MI case proves you could be wrong. You see I have evidence (the MI case) showing armed law abiding citizens prevent crime and you have NO evidence at all to support your argument.

Of course, there is no guarantee the NY case would have had a different result if those murdered were armed, but for you to conclude that even if they were armed the result would be the same, is completely and utterly illogical and has no basis in reality.

The private company part has nothing to do with our debate.

How many cases have occurred of armed robbery where no one was shot? That is the factor you have not considered. If you arm the employees of these companies, I can assure you that more shootings would happen. If you encourage all employees to intervene with deadly force, you are going to end up with more shooting victims, not fewer. Some of those victims will be innocent bystanders, some will be the perpetrators and some will be the employees. By encouraging people to being guns to work like that you remove the possibility that no one gets shot.

Also, of course the private company thing is relevant. Even if we come to the conclusion that guns are 100% certain to make the whole world safe and stop all crime, it's still within a private company's discretion whether or not to allow it within their doors, and you can't force them to change. So the answer may end up being, "so what?".

[gipper]

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

How many cases have occurred of armed robbery where no one was shot? That is the factor you have not considered. If you arm the employees of these companies, I can assure you that more shootings would happen. If you encourage all employees to intervene with deadly force, you are going to end up with more shooting victims, not fewer. Some of those victims will be innocent bystanders, some will be the perpetrators and some will be the employees. By encouraging people to being guns to work like that you remove the possibility that no one gets shot.

Also, of course the private company thing is relevant. Even if we come to the conclusion that guns are 100% certain to make the whole world safe and stop all crime, it's still within a private company's discretion whether or not to allow it within their doors, and you can't force them to change. So the answer may end up being, "so what?".

I am not proposing that private companies change their policies. A private company can do as they wish as long as they do not break the law. The firing of the shooter in Michigan was expected because he broke the company policy. I have no problem with this, though I think it is stupid.

Your belief that shootings will increase if employees have guns has absolutely no basis in fact. Your argument is the same one proven false in many states where cancelled carry laws were enacted. Those like you claimed cancel carry would be like the wild west with blood flowing in the streets. Of course, they were wrong just like you are wrong.

If a criminal believes employees are defenseless because of store policy, is it likely the criminal will stick up that store and commit murder? Conversely, if the criminal believes employees are likely to be armed, will the criminal stick up that store?

[DosEquis]

First question I have, is what the hell is going on with pharmacies?

Second thing is, this person received life in prison after "defending" himself. He shot one perp in the head, chased the other off, then returned to put 5 more bullets in the guys stomach after the fact.

And this was in Oklahoma City, likely not some liberal paradise where guns and usage of guns is frowned upon.

Pharmacist gets life for killing would-be robber - US news - Crime & courts - msnbc.com

[illavbill]

Originally Posted by DosEquis

First question I have, is what the hell is going on with pharmacies?

Second thing is, this person received life in prison after "defending" himself. He shot one perp in the head, chased the other off, then returned to put 5 more bullets in the guys stomach after the fact.

And this was in Oklahoma City, likely not some liberal paradise where guns and usage of guns is frowned upon.

Pharmacist gets life for killing would-be robber - US news - Crime & courts - msnbc.com

I'm pretty sure it had to do with the whole coming back and shooting him 5 more times in the stomach. The deal with pharmacies is fucking heroine/oxy addicts wanting a fix and realizing that their fix is inside.

Life in prison is pretty harsh. I could see some time in jail but shoot the guy in the head, kick his gun away and wait for police. No threat any more = not self defense to keep shooting.

[DosEquis]

Originally Posted by illavbill

I'm pretty sure it had to do with the whole coming back and shooting him 5 more times in the stomach. The deal with pharmacies is fucking heroine/oxy addicts wanting a fix and realizing that their fix is inside.

Life in prison is pretty harsh. I could see some time in jail but shoot the guy in the head, kick his gun away and wait for police. No threat any more = not self defense to keep shooting.

I agree. It is pretty clear the guy is on the ground with a bullet wound to the head. He is no longer a threat, thus no longer self defense, thus jailtime.

I do think 1st degree murder is a bit much.

[illavbill]

Originally Posted by DosEquis

I agree. It is pretty clear the guy is on the ground with a bullet wound to the head. He is no longer a threat, thus no longer self defense, thus jailtime.

I do think 1st degree murder is a bit much.

I work at a hospital and I've seen people with head wounds survive and come back to almost 100%. Dude was obviously not a threat any more.