Gun-wielding pharmacist responds to drugstore cowboy
A string of "Drugstore Cowboy-esque robberies around Seattle, Washington have prompted one pharmacist to pack a Glock. Check out the surveillance video in this news report showing him chase off a robber. (via Dose Nation)
the latest
latest episodes
I had a similar experience with this guy trying to rob my rhinestone store.
Is it just me, or does the news program try to make it sound like the pharmacist is some gun-toting vigilante? It's obvious he has a concealed carry license. However, I believe proper concealed carry protocol would not encourage pursuing the criminal like he did in the security footage.
Isn't this maligning the good name of cowboys everywhere?
Great, turn a situation were the worst outcome is loss of (insured) property into a situation with a very high likelihood that someone will end up with a bullet in them.
I'm not trying to condone robbery here, but I think our society would be better off without panicked novices operating firearms in public places in defense of disposable goods.
Oh, it's a lot more than just one pharmacist. Maybe one willing to go on television about it. I'm just glad my brother-in-law was able to get out of retail pharmacy. Although at the time it wasn't the stress of dealing with robbers, it was the stress of dealing with insurance companies, and having to be the one telling people that their meds weren't covered.
Brother Provisional,
I agree that no commodity is worth a human life. The problem is that many times the robber kills the clerk to get rid of the witness or because they were so strung out on drugs...
At least that has been the case in Cleveland.
If you fear for your life, there is nothing wrong with defending yourself.
Serves the robber right for leaving a a hat on the bed.
Very bad luck.
@3 So we're certain that the worst outcome is loss of property? Because criminals that are stealing never commit other crimes like assault, rape or murder, right?
I am unable to access the video right now, but unless it states otherwise, how do you know the pharmacist is a "panicked novice"? Self defense classes and safe gun handling classes are available.
Reminds me of this pharmacist who was open late at night when I was a kid. He always wore twin revolvers, gunslinger style, and no one ever robbed him.
@ Brother Provisional
Actually, the worst outcome is the robber will panic and start shooting people, even if it's just accidentally. Such people are a menace, and need to have guns pointed at them.
Fuck society, btw.
I guess the next burglar will know to shoot this fella right off the bat.
How can you tell the hooded figure is a robber? I can't see any gun on him.
@3 I don't think he is a total novice, as when he drew the firearm, he did not put his finger through the trigger guard. It's possible someone told him not to for the cameras, or it's possible he knows what he is doing.
hopefully, now that word has gotten out that he is armed, his pharmacy will no longer be a target for the robbers.
#3: Don't assume everyone with a handgun is a panicked novice- to get a concealed handgun license, there is extensive training involved which includes operating the weapon in addition to the legal aspects, extensive background checks, and periodic re-licensing. Many of them also shoot (targets) for fun, so it is likely that they may have more experience with their weapon than a police officer. I've believe that the folks that take the time to get a concealed handgun license tend to be the people that are the most responsible handgun owners.
I'm not so quick to disparage the disposable goods Brother Provisional. Instead of spending time with my wife and kids or reading a good book, I toil away at a frequently crappy job in exchange for said goods. When somebody steals those goods, they are in essence, stealing chunks of my life.
I am a gun-control advocate, but I do admire this guy for taking personal responsibility for his "stuff". The thief was counting on this guy to do the prudent, statistically advantageous thing and roll over. Maybe the pharmacist's resistance will factor into his gain/risk calculations the next time he picks a victim.
Despite the hoodie, it's perfectly clear that robber was beloved actor Dick Van Patten.
a) awesome
b) KONG-TV??
double awesome.
Now i know where to get a gun.
Or get shot, Dross.
@13
If this guy is indeed in Washington state, he doesn't need to do much of anything to get a concealed carry permit. In places like Texas, you do indeed have to pass proficiency tests and such to get your permit. Washington, however, is a "must issue" state - if you apply for a license, and your background check passes, the state *must* issue your permit within a certain time period (60 days, I think it was). The logic being, I believe, that having tests and such imposes a filter on people's right to bear arms - limiting that right only to people who have leisure time to go to the state's classes.
Now, on the other hand, it *is* true that the person who bothers to go get a permit is more likely than others to be knowledgeable about the law, and have practice at a firing range.
@#9: "Reminds me of this pharmacist who was open late at night when I was a kid. He always wore twin revolvers, gunslinger style, and no one ever robbed him."
omg...I SO would go to this pharmacist.
Seattle's NBC station has Ch 5 (King) as it's primary station and Ch 16 (Kong) as it's offshoot - Kong does the 10 PM news, King does the 11 PM news.
I'm always surprised at the reaction here to any story where someone successfully defends themselves. I guess I shouldn't be, these are the same commenters that felt that a child molester with a sign on his car was being excessively punished and that his victims should get over it.
@4 Brother Provisional
When you face a robber, you do not know what the worst case will be - you know what the least case will be: You will at least get robbed. You also know you are facing a person who is willing to break society's laws and it is only prudent to think they might also be a threat to health and well-being.
8000 dollars a bottle on the street? How big is that bottle?!
I find it sad to see that these pharmacy companies feel it is more important to aim these cameras at their own employees rather than the criminals; That and the hesitation in investing in top notch surveilance equipment gives me the impression that saving money is more of a priority than saving lives for them.
8000 dollars a bottle on the street? How big is that bottle?!
Holy crap! I could be debt free in under a year by reselling my prescription.
Guidelines:
Discussing business owners arming themselves - yes. Links to gun/anti-gun lobby websites - no.
It's just another way of saying that the drug company makes a bottle that will fit $8000 worth.
But really, why not have remote locks on the doors?
it was all because of the hat, that goddamn hat on the bed
Yay! Armed citizens everywhere! Now we'll be safe, no doubt. Oh...wait...did someone say something about statistics? Nah, I didn't hear anything, I'm sure. Let's just hand out guns to every storeowner out there, yeah, that ought to do the trick. I'm sure no one will take them home and shoot their wife, their husband's girlfriend, the guy who rear-ends them in traffic, or the cop who's trying to do a job we all need done. Nahhhhhh, those things *never* happen.
I don't think it's a problem at all to have law-abiding citizens exercise their 2nd Amendment right.
The lesson to be learned is to behave yourself, you don't know who is packing heat.
The Seattle area is also experiencing an alarming rise in Midnight Cowboys, but so far no one is complaining.
@ 21 colonel gentleman
re your child molester comment. A friend of mine completed her PhD research on the release of sex offenders back into the community and found that having a place to live was a protective factor against sexual recidivism. Advertising sex offenders has the effect of ostracism and often (at least in New Zealand) expulsion from their community, thus potentially increasing the risk of re-offending. I would be against advertisement on cars for this reason based on empirical evidence rather than any homicidal gut instincts.
#4/Brother Provisional: When someone points a gun at you, they have already announced their intention to kill you. A spoken contingency that they *might* not do so if you comply with their demand for your money, dignity, virginity, etc. does not change this...how trustworthy is the word of an armed robber or rapist?
"If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun." -- The Dalai Lama, May 15, 2001, The Seattle Times
#28/EH: Remote locks? So the pharmacist is now locked in with an armed robber. Now what?
#24/Antinous: I'm allowed to state an opinion, but I'm not allowed to reference any statistics to back it up? That seems like a recipe for a useless discussion. Or am I allowed to quote statistics, but not link to them? Not sure what the limits are here.
@JeremyNYC Please stop being sarcastic and get real. Legally responsible gun owners are not the people we have to worry about. Merchants have a right to protect themselves in their own store.
While this report was talking about large chain pharmacies, I believe the pharmacist in the story was the owner of his pharmacy.
I can not speak for every state but I know that I live in one of the hardest states to legally get a handgun. Part of that process includes a background check. I think that may help weed out those people who are going to get a gun and shoot a wife, as you claim.
Plus, no matter what you think, it is still the second amendment. It was put at number 2 for a reason. The only one before it is the right to free speech and to peaceably assemble.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Regardless of the reason I follow the Constitution!
Or am I allowed to quote statistics, but not link to them?
Recognized news organization, accredited learning institutions, etc. are fine. Blogs and lobby websites, nope. The underlying principle here is that, if you can't make your own argument, you're indistinguishable from an astroturfer. Supporting citations are welcome if they come credible sources.
Is anyone else worried about the fact that the pharmacist wasn't using both hands? Most of the people I know who've undergone pistol training would be in the weaver stance or similar, with both hands on the weapon and they wouldn't be advancing toward the guy across the room. Why close to fist fight distance in a gun fight?
I'm all for this dude protecting himself, but I'm not sure he's got the skills to actually do that.
Its obvious this guy hasnt taken any state classes for his license. The first thing they teach you is to ONLY pull your gun if you intend to use it. NO running after a guy waving it around.
#34/Antinous: Thanks for the clarification.
#28/JeremyNYC: "Did someone say something about statistics?"
Yes. Americans use guns to successfully defend themselves against crime between 1.5 and 2.5 million times per year, depending on whether the survey was done by pro-gun (Kleck/Gertz) or anti-gun (Clinton DOJ) researchers.
Kleck/Gertz: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb6700/is_n1_86/ai_n28663294/
Clinton DOJ: http://www.ncjrs.org/pdffiles/165476.pdf
Furthermore, of prison inmates who used a gun during the offense that brought them to prison, 40% stole the gun or bought it on the black market, and 40% got it from friends or family...meaning that gun laws (licenses, background checks, waiting periods, restrictions on type or capacity) are irrelevant to 80% of criminals!
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/ascii/fuo.pdf
People who oppose the Constitutional right to bear any and all arms are effectively saying "Politicians and government employees are important, and deserve to defend themselves with the best technology available - military and automatic weaponry. My family is worthless and unimportant, we do not deserve the right to defend ourselves -- and neither do you or anyone else."
Gee, too bad people can't grow their own painkiller in their backyard or get a state run drug plan so that they wouldn't have to hold people up to avoid agony. But that would be B.C. where the hold up and murder rate is a teeny-tiny fraction of that across the border. Used to be very handy (pre-Afganistan mission) for training our army surgeons: just volunteer for ER duty in Washington State! You just can't find the infinite variety of gunshot wound cases in Canada that you get in the States.
My experience living in druggie/hold-up areas tells me that pistol packing store owners, even if they know exactly what they're doing, isn't going to help much. As soon as the robbers figure out that it's likely the shop keeps are packing they'll arm themselves with better guns. Then the robbery is only foiled if the owner out draws the robber; who is now going to fire on entry. If people start chasing robbers down like the guy in this video then it is rational for the robbers to gun down all the employees in the store as they leave in order to preserve their own lives from post-robbery retribution whereas before they might not have. Basically you're just guaranteeing gun fights in the stores.
Of course, the people that say that your life is in severe danger during a robbery are also correct. Stickup men are considered to be completely nuts, for good reason, even by other criminals. There are a LOT easier ways to get your dishonest buck or even drugs that don't involve the drama of a hold up.
I have to comment/laugh at the people saying that criminals, especially dope addicts, are capable of learning that something, like say holding up armed and dangerous shopkeepers, is a bad idea. Please. I could handcuff 100 junkies to a wall and release them, one at a time, pointing out as I do so that they mustn't go for a conveniently positioned stash of drugs: in that case I'd have to blow their heads off with my trusty shotgun. Having seen 99 guys get turned to hamburger, the 100th junkie would still go for the stash. Junkie logic = 1 - Imagine a future where I get some drugs, 2 - #1 is now reality. Why do you think that crack addicts' fingernails are all screwed up? It's because they spend a lot of time clawing at walls cause they imagine that maybe they stashed a hit inside the wall and forgot about it.
Gigglelicious, and so Seattle. Mom and Pop fends off robber Ballard style (if you've lived in Seattle long enough to know anything about Ballard you know what I mean) but mega-chains are the biggest targets.
Junkies with a social conscience, very Seattle. And how F'd up (or most excellent) is the response from big pharma?
This thread really has a lot of different inherent topics. All it needs now is a takedown notice for the clip.
Roku,
You should also know that the system may yank your comment if you include more than one link, especially to the same domain. Sometimes Movable Type fixates on a particular commenter and you seem to be the lucky one.
@18:
I think the term you were looking for was "may issue" vs. "shall issue" In a shall issue state, if the person meets the criteria, the state will issue the permit. Many states are "may issue" which translates to - they can deny you the permit for any particular reason. Texas and Washington both are shall issue states- but it appears that Washington has no training requirements- that's a shame.
If I was a junky trying to steal oxycoton i'd crap myself if an employee pulled a gun on me. And i sure as hell wouldn't go back to that place, i'd move on to the next unarmed guy who is scared of my gun in his face.
If proper training is involved this is a viable solution to a clearly growing problem.
I'm in favor of medicalizing drugs, though not legalizing them quite so much. The robber isn't really the problem, he's the symptom, therefore conceal and carry can't possibly be the solution. It will only further violentize society.
The real solution I believe is to deal with the underlying issue of drug abuse. People need access to affordable healthcare for treatment. It would also help if our government didn't perpetuate drug cartels in order to fund their secret wars. That would help.
I guess I sort of riled up a hornets nest with my previous post. Good. Guns are dangerous and we should be very careful/thoughtful about our attitudes towards them.
One point here I take exception to is the notion that a criminal willing to break one law is going to break all laws. I would argue that this is not true in most cases. Simple risk assessment of the legal punishment of armed robbery vs. assault with a deadly weapon or murder clearly shows that it is in the criminal's best interest not to open fire with their firearm. Granted, someone desperate or stupid enough to hold up a pharmacy is not likely thinking rationally about the risk assessment of their actions. What they are most likely thinking is that they're going to walk into the pharmacy, point their piece in the pharmacist's face and scare the shit out of him
I guess I sort of riled up a hornets nest with my previous post. Good. Guns are dangerous and we should be very careful/thoughtful about our attitudes towards them.
One point here I take exception to is the notion that a criminal willing to break one law is going to break all laws. I would argue that this is not true in most cases. Simple risk assessment of the legal punishment of armed robbery vs. assault with a deadly weapon or murder clearly shows that it is in the criminal's best interest not to open fire with their firearm. Granted, someone desperate or stupid enough to hold up a pharmacy is not likely thinking rationally about the risk assessment of their actions. What they are most likely thinking is that they're going to walk into the pharmacy, point their piece in the pharmacist's face and scare the shit out of him until he gives you the cash and dope, at which point you'll walk out. Armed robbery is often a bluff, a threat of deadly violence rather than an actual intent to commit said violence. (sorry for the armchair criminal psychology) Case in point, the pharmacist in question called the would-be robber's bluff, and he ran. But by doing so, you're also running the risk that the armed criminal you've just turned the tables on's fight-or-flight instincts work out to your advantage, rather than resulting in a bunch of gunfire. Its a tough call, and anyone willing to take it should damned well be prepared for all possible outcomes of their decision.
@28: If you are willing to look, you can find numerous cases documented where a city was afraid that authorizing concealed carry would result in road rage turning into shootouts, etc. It's never happened.
@37: I highly doubt that a criminal will *pre-emptively* turn their armed robbery into murder, and I doubt even more that they will do so as they are leaving. I suspect that someone trained in concealed carry can easily out-draw a thief - and you don't draw if you're already being held up, because then you're asking to get shot. Your wallet isn't worth your life - I think they teach that in concealed carry training.
@27 Bob Hughes
That or the dogs.
These guys are nothing like Matt Dillon.
And, though it may be really clear, and I'm just out of it, but how did they know that guy was a robber?
the video says the guy had literally just gotten back from the police station where he had ID'd a previous robber. he's been there and done this. At least 2 previous times he has pulled his gun on would be robbers it says. you'd think he would know what a potential robber looks like I guess.
after watching the video closer it's hard to see what this guy did to give any indication at all he was there to rob the place. it almost looks like he even has a piece of paper in his hands that could be a pickup ticket or something?
strange
This is exactly what needs to happen.
Somebody mentioned how criminals will just escalate, and that a pharmacist carrying a gun will "make" them do just that.
Guns are just a form of security, and all forms of security are imperfect. The only purpose for security of any kind is to deter someone from stealing/damaging whatever you're trying to protect. Any security is defeatable, given enough time/resources on part of the security breaker. The equation for the effectiveness of your security is as follows. If the value of whatever you are trying to protect is not exceeded by the resources required to break the security protecting it and obtain it, then your security is effective. Basic security theory.
Of course, crack heads do not understand basic security theory, so irrational thought makes basic security fall apart.
And thats when you shoot first.
Err, correction
"If the value of whatever you are trying to protect is exceeded by the resources required to break the security protecting it and obtain it, then your security is effective"
By looking at the angles and editing, I'm pretty sure this video was staged.
#47/BrotherProvisional:
Fortunately, the American people aren't as dumb as the experts say we are, and we own and use our guns safely, even in critical situations.
"...Only 2 percent of civilian shootings involved an innocent person mistakenly identified as a criminal. The 'error rate' for the police, however, was 11 percent, more than five times as high."
Newsweek, quoting Don Kates: http://www.newsweek.com/id/124951/page/3
Yet somehow this happens without government-mandated licensing and training!
Furthermore, murders are not committed by average citizens who snapped because a gun was present: they are generally committed by career criminals.
"Though only 15% of Americans over the age of 15 have arrest records, approximately 90 percent of adult murderers have adult records, with an average adult criminal career [involving crimes committed as an adult rather than a child] of six or more years, including four major adult felony arrests." -Don Kates and Gary Mauser, Harvard Law Review
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf
Also note that felons cannot legally own or possess guns, meaning that most murders are committed by people already legally prohibited from owning a gun.
Look, we all know ED-209 is the best protection.
#54 Fortunately, the American people aren't as dumb as the experts say we are, and we own and use our guns safely, even in critical situations.
I don't recall making the claim that American gun owners are dumb in post #47, nor do I make any mention of expert opinions of any sort. What I said is that guns are dangerous, and we should be mindful of our use of them. I'm fairly certain that we both agree on this point. Gun culture in America places a high value on safety and responsibility, right?
If you're curious, I personally have no problem with gun ownership. I don't own a gun, and probably never will, but I grew up in rural Washington where game hunting was pretty much the only pastime practiced besides trout fishing, so I've shot since childhood.
Nonetheless, if someone wants to play vigilante, I would appreciate it if they wouldn't do so using sloppy "bang-bang you're dead" combat techniques.
Ignoring all the dinks who think self-defense is "stupid", can someone fill me in on the legality of assaulting a robber if you're a store owner.
In NYC there was a recent attack of a shopper by a store owner. The store owner has to pay damages for attacking the shopper because while the shopper was threatening and menacing his nephew nothing illegal actually happened. This, the store owner is guilty of assault. Which makes sense.
But what if the shopper was armed or attacked the store owner. Would the outcome be different? I've seen more than a few store owners with baseball bats and worse behind the counter. Unless the weapon is licensed, will there be an issue of liablity?
It's all murky. And it's sad. Because I remember when small stores trusted customers, employees and others who came in. Nowadays, trust is gone.
#56/BrotherProvisional: Well said, and I believe we agree. My unease was because arguments like that are usually followed by "...and that's why we need to ban/register handguns/"assault weapons"/all guns."
#57/Jack: The legality varies dramatically by state. In some states, the Castle Doctrine extends to the workplace, and even to public places (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_doctrine). These are also known as "stand your ground" laws.
In other states, one has a "duty to retreat." This means that one must first attempt to retreat as far as possible from the conflict...even, in some states, abandoning one's own house to an intruder. Furthermore, it can also mean that deadly force is only permissible in response to the immediate threat of deadly force, and must be announced prior to its use. (How one identifies the permissible level of force to use against a dimly seen shape in one's house at night is unclear.)
Again, these laws vary dramatically from state to state, and you need to do your own research before choosing to arm yourself in any situation.
Ok, there shouldn't be robberies in the first place. And if there are, it's certainly not because we fail to shoot the robbers. The problem obviously lies somewhere else.
"...Only 2 percent of civilian shootings involved an innocent person mistakenly identified as a criminal."
Two out of hundred people were killed because of the stupidity and fear of people who still advocate the right to own a gun.
Do you realize that you wouldn't need a gun to defend yourself if others didn't have a gun to attack you? I'm not saying that criminals would attack less, but the amount of criminals holding guns would be considerably reduced. In other words, to get shot by a criminal in Europe, you need to be messing around with some pretty nasty people. In America, every stupid, fragile, needy, badly educated kid could be legally owning a fucking killing machine.
The 2nd amendment has long struck me as a non sequitur; why did they think a 'well regulated Militia' would flow from encouraging everyone to run around shooting each other?
"We need a well drilled and disciplined force, so I've given all the lads in the pub an AK47." "Yup, that'll do it." Bonkers.
@60 Paul Bowen
It is called historical context and given the world that they lived in when they wrote that it was one of the most reasonable things I can think of for them to write.
I think Red Dawn is the answer here. What will you do when the Ruskis invade, put your hands up or shoot back...
Wolverines!
I would have thought that "Probably a good idea if we don't all run around shooting each other in the face for the next few centuries" might have a better chance of passing the reasonableness test than the proposition that a "well regulated Militia" might be one outcome of giving just anyone a gun but I daresay that's me missing the context business again.
The Constitution is a fine document, but some people do seem to regard it as a magical compass that always points to The Correct Answer. Constitutional fundamentalism.
@ Paul Bowen
As you say, you think that because you are not taking into consideration the aforementioned historical context.
The framers were not nearly as forward thinking as we may want to give them credit for and everything they wrote can be seen as directly the result of their situation at the time. We can argue the extent to which they may have considered the long term future as they wrote the constitution but it is just plain silly to think that what they wrote wasn't explicitly about their own predicaments and experiences.
Guns and gun ownership in the colonies was a much different proposition than it is in our modern world, in short it was almost, if not, a necessity - particularly if you were going to defend your rights and/or fledgling nation.
The most forward-thinking aspect of the Constitution is the ability for it to be amended as society and its values evolve. The framers were flawed men, but at least they recognized that they were capable of flaws.
#59/Failix: "Do you realize that you wouldn't need a gun to defend yourself if others didn't have a gun to attack you?"
Yes...and if everyone had a unicorn, we could all ride it to the moon. We've already established, with official statistics, the following:
Anti-gun laws do not keep criminals from getting guns (#38).
The overwhelming majority of murders are committed by career criminals (#54) who are already barred by law from possessing guns.
Civilians, like you and I, use guns to prevent 1.5-2.5 million crimes per year (#38).
Approximately 99.98% of these uses are nonviolent, and in the rare cases when violence is necessary, civilians have a much lower error rate than the police (#54).
"In 2004, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences released its evaluation from a review of 253 journal articles, 99 books, 43 government publications, and some original empirical research. It failed to identify any gun control that had reduced violent crime, suicide, or gun accidents."
Kates and Mauser again:
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf
Referring to:
http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=10881
Seriously: Alcohol prohibition didn't work. Abortion prohibition didn't work. Marijuana prohibition isn't working. How can any rational person believe that gun prohibition can possibly work?
Finally: #60/PaulBowen
First, in the 1700s, the "militia" consisted of every able-bodied male citizen, as opposed to the formal military. As such, firearm ownership was frequently mandatory: if you didn't have a rifle, it would be purchased for you and billed to you in installments! The present-day National Guard is only a small part of the militia.
Second, the word "regulated" has several definitions, including an obsolete definition in common use when the Constitution was written. The relevant definitions (OED, 1989):
4. To put in good order.
b. Of troops: Properly disciplined. Obs. rare.
Reading things like the Federalist Papers, and other documents of the time, make this very clear.
Third, prefatory clauses explain...they do not limit. The Constitution begins " We the People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, ..." but only an insane person would claim that since the Union is not perfect, the Constitution must be revoked.
There is a great discussion of this on guncite, but I'm not allowed to link to it as per rules of the thread.
Guns and gun ownership in the colonies was a much different proposition than it is in our modern world
I see. What a shame they can't change it to something that would make sense in the now context.
"In America, every stupid, fragile, needy, badly educated kid could be legally owning a fucking killing machine."
yes they could own a car..a pipe..a kitchen knife. rocks in a sock. all killing machines.
your argument sucks. if anything the argument you are making is for better education and supervision of our kids.
people kill people, not guns.
at some point, if those who cry for an end to an armed citizenry will end up regretting their choice.
criminals don't care about your laws, or your rights to property, or security.
personally, i support mandatory open carry, because when all are armed, there are no victims.
an armed society is a polite society.
@Roku
"Seriously: Alcohol prohibition didn't work. Abortion prohibition didn't work. Marijuana prohibition isn't working. How can any rational person believe that gun prohibition can possibly work?"
How can any rational person compare a weapon to drugs?
As for the "gun control doesn't impeach crime", this is a joke. please tell me why where I live I don't have to fear to get shot in the head. It's not because people don't get killed or that there's no crime, it's because it's so expensive in money, time, and resources to get guns. That's why smaller criminals (the ones you are more likely to encounter) just use knives or similar weaponry.
For the sake of argument: If it was possible to ban knives I'd be against knives too. The difference is that we need knives for other tasks than killing... I could challenge you to name just one other task than killing a gun is good at, and don't say protection! A shield is for protection, an armour is for protection, a ballistic vest is for protection, not a gun.
@ WarEagle #69
people kill people, not guns.
This thought suggests a fallacious argument. People in fact do kill, a lot, but why would you want to make it as easy as possible for people who kill, to buy tools specifically designed for the task of killing? It doesn't make any sense. Thats why I said a "killing machine". A car is NOT a killing machine, I think I don't need to mention the rocks and the socks.