Advocacy Group Wants 'Guns For All' Bodega Owners
- Thread starter Cavalier Knight
- Start date
- Status
xcgates
Member
"Arming ourselves is not the response."
"Legal guns with a permit are the solution!"
::EDIT:: It is nice to see someone on TV saying that when someone try to rob someone, they justly run the risk of loosing their life, and not be portrayed as a nutcase. I know that some people I talk to can't fathom that I am of the opinion that if you try to hold me up, rob me, break into my house, etc, I can't be certain that you draw the line at actually hurting me, and I will assume you have the worst intentions for me. A criminal has already violated my rights, therefore I will respond as appropriate. If that involves him getting shot, so be it, it is a terrible thing to take a life, but much worse to stand by and let someone take your life. Or dare I say, the lives of those you love.
"Legal guns with a permit are the solution!"
::EDIT:: It is nice to see someone on TV saying that when someone try to rob someone, they justly run the risk of loosing their life, and not be portrayed as a nutcase. I know that some people I talk to can't fathom that I am of the opinion that if you try to hold me up, rob me, break into my house, etc, I can't be certain that you draw the line at actually hurting me, and I will assume you have the worst intentions for me. A criminal has already violated my rights, therefore I will respond as appropriate. If that involves him getting shot, so be it, it is a terrible thing to take a life, but much worse to stand by and let someone take your life. Or dare I say, the lives of those you love.
Last edited:
Looks like the advocate for bodega/store owners clearly explained the issue and his body language and attitude clearly communicated contempt for the anti. Overall very well handled by the bodega owners advocate.
I would have liked it if the bodega owner's advocate had pinned the anti down to force him to provide credible citations on what "studies" show that you're 5 times more likely to end up shot if you have a gun in the store.
I think an important lesson here is to be certain that we should all be comfortable debating these issues whether on TV or in person. If you're going to have someone speak for a group make sure that they're articulate and well prepared instead of overly emotional and repetitive.
I would have liked it if the bodega owner's advocate had pinned the anti down to force him to provide credible citations on what "studies" show that you're 5 times more likely to end up shot if you have a gun in the store.
I think an important lesson here is to be certain that we should all be comfortable debating these issues whether on TV or in person. If you're going to have someone speak for a group make sure that they're articulate and well prepared instead of overly emotional and repetitive.
Last edited:
Luis Leon
Member
This issue hits close to home... My dad was a bodega owner in the South Bronx in the early 70s. I worked the candy section of the store. Many a times we stared down the wrong end of a gun. We were lucky in that criminals were less blood thirsty back then. But, I never forgot that feeling of powerlessness, of your life being in the hands of some unknown person. I feel that the politicians who restricted honest, law-abiding folk from protecting themselves ARE the real criminals.
best regards,
Luis Leon
best regards,
Luis Leon
Kalashnikovkid
Member
This was an interesting segment, though there are a few points that I would like to investigate.
I heavily agree with HSO that it would have been a crucial move for the bodega advocacy member to ask for the sources of these statistics, and to have had knowledge of their origins before the debate began. I'd be willing to bet that they most likely came from the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, and a quick search on their research methodology would have shown some dubious investigation. For example, that tired old stat of "businesses that have firearms on their premise are 5 times more likely to result in employee fatalities" could potentially be attributed to an outside variable, such as businesses that require firearms on their presence are businesses that operate in areas where violent crime is ALREADY common. This would have nothing to do with the mere presence of a firearms. This gets to me as a Sociology student who regularly deals with this qualitative/quantitative research. I've seen too much research that did not follow the proper methodology and ended up being used to back some pretty serious, false claims.
I must admit that I found the anti member to come across as extremely haughty, in that he would not live as he preached and go work in a dangerous bodega, but expected those who owned them to do so without a means of self defense. As someone who has been researching the empirical evidence on the gun control topic for 4 years, I have yet to see valid research that shows that within the contemporary US, banning firearms leads to less violent crime. Of course, does the anti mention any sort of research that backs up what he ultimately wants, which is to disarm the general population-no. If anyone can provide such research, I'd LOVE to see it!
I heavily agree with HSO that it would have been a crucial move for the bodega advocacy member to ask for the sources of these statistics, and to have had knowledge of their origins before the debate began. I'd be willing to bet that they most likely came from the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, and a quick search on their research methodology would have shown some dubious investigation. For example, that tired old stat of "businesses that have firearms on their premise are 5 times more likely to result in employee fatalities" could potentially be attributed to an outside variable, such as businesses that require firearms on their presence are businesses that operate in areas where violent crime is ALREADY common. This would have nothing to do with the mere presence of a firearms. This gets to me as a Sociology student who regularly deals with this qualitative/quantitative research. I've seen too much research that did not follow the proper methodology and ended up being used to back some pretty serious, false claims.
I must admit that I found the anti member to come across as extremely haughty, in that he would not live as he preached and go work in a dangerous bodega, but expected those who owned them to do so without a means of self defense. As someone who has been researching the empirical evidence on the gun control topic for 4 years, I have yet to see valid research that shows that within the contemporary US, banning firearms leads to less violent crime. Of course, does the anti mention any sort of research that backs up what he ultimately wants, which is to disarm the general population-no. If anyone can provide such research, I'd LOVE to see it!
Karlzbad
Member
I realize already that i will probably regret getting involved in this discussion, but while you and I both appreciate our gun rights, it isn't hard at all for me to imagine being armed robbery victims being armed, at least in convenience stores, greatly increasing the chances of loss of life. I think though most armed robbers are bound to be messed up, they generally realize the distinction between armed robbery and murder. Of course I did say loss of life. I think really its not implausible that being armed increases the clerk's chances of being shot. I mean the perp almost inevitably already has the drop on you. I sure as hell am not going to shop somewhere where the clerk points a gun at me until he decides I'm not going to rob him.
That being said, knowing that I myself am very comfortable and effective with my guns, I would prefer to have one if I'm going to be robbed, and certainly if the perp starts herding people into a back room, if I'm feeling rational myself at that point, I'm going to think about shooting it out with them, but otherwise, I think your odds have to be way better off having a time lock safe and letting them get away with the 50 bucks you leave in the register. Even if they deserve to get shot and sitting in your living room you think you want to shoot them, are you going to be glad you killed somebody for 50 bucks 30 years from now?
What about the $8/hr people working for you? Do they have less right to self defense than the person who stands to profit from the store's existence(the owner?) Of course not, but do you want every convenience store clerk who's never held a gun till this act was passed ready to pull a gun every time someone looks at him cross eyed because he thinks they're going to rob him?
I think the anti guy probably rightly wants some help from the city, say in the form of a sales tax credit for some bullet proof glass and remotely locking doors, and given that they almost definitely have to employ people whom they don't want to arm, I don't think arming them is sufficient. A lot of people in NYC dont have access to any other groceries than bodegas, which makes their viable existence important to the quality of life and health of the residents of the city.
That being said, knowing that I myself am very comfortable and effective with my guns, I would prefer to have one if I'm going to be robbed, and certainly if the perp starts herding people into a back room, if I'm feeling rational myself at that point, I'm going to think about shooting it out with them, but otherwise, I think your odds have to be way better off having a time lock safe and letting them get away with the 50 bucks you leave in the register. Even if they deserve to get shot and sitting in your living room you think you want to shoot them, are you going to be glad you killed somebody for 50 bucks 30 years from now?
What about the $8/hr people working for you? Do they have less right to self defense than the person who stands to profit from the store's existence(the owner?) Of course not, but do you want every convenience store clerk who's never held a gun till this act was passed ready to pull a gun every time someone looks at him cross eyed because he thinks they're going to rob him?
I think the anti guy probably rightly wants some help from the city, say in the form of a sales tax credit for some bullet proof glass and remotely locking doors, and given that they almost definitely have to employ people whom they don't want to arm, I don't think arming them is sufficient. A lot of people in NYC dont have access to any other groceries than bodegas, which makes their viable existence important to the quality of life and health of the residents of the city.
Last edited:
xcgates
Member
Except that what they are doing now isn't working, and some people ARE willing to kill for the $50 or whatever it is they can get out of the register. So why not have a way to fight back? Who says you just roll over, play dead, and hope that the people who already have shown huge disregard for your rights as a human by robbing you, don't cross the line into taking your life?
And it sounds like you want to have a gun for yourself, but don't think that a different group of people, the folk who work the shops, should have guns. Don't you think that is a bit hypocritical(sp?)?
And it sounds like you want to have a gun for yourself, but don't think that a different group of people, the folk who work the shops, should have guns. Don't you think that is a bit hypocritical(sp?)?
cambeul41
Member
Laws based on imagination should not be laws.
Karlzbad
Member
Well that's all well and good, but are you are you really saying that pulling a gun on an armed robber pointing a gun at you doesn't multiply your chances of getting shot?
Edit yeah I regret jumping in.
Edit yeah I regret jumping in.
Last edited:
Luis Leon
Member
Karlzbad, If you really are in Chicagoland then I understand the elitism of your post. You feel comfortable owning and using a gun. But too many OTHER people wouldn't be as skilled or willing to learn? Only those willing and approved to carry would be vetted. Not EVERYONE, there is not a single thing that applies to everyone... other than eventually dying. Who cares who has the drop on who? If things go south quickly. All an honest law-abiding citizen needs is a fighting chance vs. no chance at all.
Luis Leon
Luis Leon
Harley Quinn
Member
These are good discussions and all who participate have pro and con going for them...Training is the key and awareness is important...Timing is critcal, some should not drive a car, either... Many in the inner cities don't own cars or firearms...Decisions are important for all, if allowed the right, that is all most are asking for IMHO...
Regards
Regards
stchman
Member
When are these anti gun idiots going to realize that more legislation is not the answer. Criminals are going to ignore the new legislation just like they did the old legislation.
I laugh about gun show loopholes. So it's the rest of the country's fault that NY City has crime???!!!!!!
I thought it was funny when he refused to work in a bodega unarmed at night. He knows he would have been in danger.
I laugh about gun show loopholes. So it's the rest of the country's fault that NY City has crime???!!!!!!
I thought it was funny when he refused to work in a bodega unarmed at night. He knows he would have been in danger.
Karlzbad
Member
Whats that supposed to mean?
Kalashnikovkid
Member
Karlz Bad does raise what some here have defined as an elitist view, but it appears as if he is only offering it as a viewpoint, and that he isn't saying it is normative. Who here would disagree that when someone decides to arm themselves, they have an obligation to themselves and those around them to make sure that they are competent in deploying their weapon? This requires extensive education and training, and I don't think he is out of line by mentioning this.
He raises a good point in considering how you might feel in 20 years if you have to kill someone over 50 dollars, and that perps do tend to differentiate between armed robbery and murder. In addition to his point, I am very much in favor of people being rationale and picking their battles. As a person who is very opposed to killing, if a robber got the drop on me in a bodega, and all he is demanding is money, I would most likely give him just that. However, I still want the option of pulling a gun if I feel as if the situation has escalated above more than just his desire for my materials, such as herding me towards the back room and closing the blinds.It is with this that I will always be in favor of shall-issue, with the implicit obligation of the person applying for the permit to be well trained. This gets iffy when we start REQUIRING education classes, as these can be tools for unlawful discrimination, so I won't get into that.
He raises a good point in considering how you might feel in 20 years if you have to kill someone over 50 dollars, and that perps do tend to differentiate between armed robbery and murder. In addition to his point, I am very much in favor of people being rationale and picking their battles. As a person who is very opposed to killing, if a robber got the drop on me in a bodega, and all he is demanding is money, I would most likely give him just that. However, I still want the option of pulling a gun if I feel as if the situation has escalated above more than just his desire for my materials, such as herding me towards the back room and closing the blinds.It is with this that I will always be in favor of shall-issue, with the implicit obligation of the person applying for the permit to be well trained. This gets iffy when we start REQUIRING education classes, as these can be tools for unlawful discrimination, so I won't get into that.
stchman
Member
To Kalashnakovkid:
Agreed, I would not want to kill someone over $50. However there is no guarantee that the ARMED robber will stop after you give him/her the $50. They may shoot you so you can't ID them. I don't want to take the chance. I would rather be armed and ready to defend myself.
I believe all 50 states should be a WILL ISSUE for CCW.
Agreed, I would not want to kill someone over $50. However there is no guarantee that the ARMED robber will stop after you give him/her the $50. They may shoot you so you can't ID them. I don't want to take the chance. I would rather be armed and ready to defend myself.
I believe all 50 states should be a WILL ISSUE for CCW.
We're supposed to all be mature enough here to carry out an adult debate without tossing imprecations and thinly veiled insults. Any urge to stoop to such tactics should stop immediately to avoid any post deletions or temp or permanent banning of members.
Luis Leon
Member
Karlzbad,
I apologize if I have insulted you it was not my intent.
best regards,
Luis Leon
I apologize if I have insulted you it was not my intent.
best regards,
Luis Leon
That's a good point, pulling a gun on someone who's already aiming at you is a good way to get shot. If I had a gun on a robber and they went for a weapon I'd shoot, so it's only fair to assume the robber would do the same if the state of 'armedness' were reversed.
However I doubt that the intent of arming the shopkeepers is to mandate self defense regardless of circumstance. The purpose is to give them the option of self defense. If the attacker has a knife, then the shopkeeper has a gun. If the attacker lowers his weapon while taking the cash, then the shopkeeper has a gun. If the attacker gives himself away before doing the deed, then the shopkeeper has a gun. If the attacker shows no weakness and maintains his aim, then discretion is the better part of valor and the shopkeeper gets robbed.
It's like the guy in the video said, the point is to level the playing field. The robbers being criminals are armed in spite the law, but the shopkeepers being law-abiding are not. Giving the shopkeepers guns won't stop them from being robbed or even shot, but it gives them a fighting chance.
As for a time lock safe, I suppose that might work if the entrance was a spring loaded trapdoor located right behind the cash register, or better yet, right in front of it. Any other location involves the owner getting to it. And if you had a gun on someone and they bolted for the back of the store where they just might have a shotgun, what would you do?
Last edited:
Kalashnikovkid
Member
Stchman,
I very much understand this viewpoint, which is why I am advocating concealed carriers to be smart. If you give the SOB robber the money in the cash register and he starts to motion for you to go to the back room, then I think it might be in your best interest to take lethal action. However, the caveat was added "he has the drop on you" just to illustrate this point. If you preemptively notice a robbery about to happen, then by all means get the drop on the perpetrators and diffuse the situation.
I also very much agree that responsible citizens should have access to firearms to give themselves such options, which is where I disagree with those who typically use this hypothetical situation to illustrate the reasons for people to not be able to own guns, which is kind of what brings me here to THR in the first place
I very much understand this viewpoint, which is why I am advocating concealed carriers to be smart. If you give the SOB robber the money in the cash register and he starts to motion for you to go to the back room, then I think it might be in your best interest to take lethal action. However, the caveat was added "he has the drop on you" just to illustrate this point. If you preemptively notice a robbery about to happen, then by all means get the drop on the perpetrators and diffuse the situation.
I also very much agree that responsible citizens should have access to firearms to give themselves such options, which is where I disagree with those who typically use this hypothetical situation to illustrate the reasons for people to not be able to own guns, which is kind of what brings me here to THR in the first place
Karlzbad
Member
Its cool I know people get emotional thanks for the support. Aside from everyone's lives, my real concern is for the $8/hr 20 year olds who cant afford or honestly shouldn't be concealed carrying just yet. I think the effort and money would be much better spent giving the bodegas a sales tax credit to install bullet proof glass, remotely locking doors, and a firm committment for a rapid response to silent alarms from the NYPD(just getting them to say they will would put them under a lot more scrutiny which should result in them doing so).
Sure probably everyone should have access to self defense, but just telling them, "buy a gun". Yikes.
As an amusing aside which I suppose is evidence against my point, I know a sergeant of the city of Chicago police who has told me more than once that when he gets a call to the effect of "there's someone in the house, please hurry", he takes the long way.
Edit: I know the CCW training and certification is supposed to be designed to be sufficient, but I'm really not cool with someone like many people in poor neighborhoods in NYC's first exposure to firearms being the class. My kids certainly are at least going to know how to steer a car before they start driver's ed.
I just can't get past my suspicion that the motivation is this guy's feeling that after a couple of robbers get killed, the robberies will decrease in frequency.
Sure probably everyone should have access to self defense, but just telling them, "buy a gun". Yikes.
As an amusing aside which I suppose is evidence against my point, I know a sergeant of the city of Chicago police who has told me more than once that when he gets a call to the effect of "there's someone in the house, please hurry", he takes the long way.
Edit: I know the CCW training and certification is supposed to be designed to be sufficient, but I'm really not cool with someone like many people in poor neighborhoods in NYC's first exposure to firearms being the class. My kids certainly are at least going to know how to steer a car before they start driver's ed.
I just can't get past my suspicion that the motivation is this guy's feeling that after a couple of robbers get killed, the robberies will decrease in frequency.
Last edited:
I don't think that's the message in the piece. Instead they're saying "Don't deny us the ability to defend ourselves". I don't think the bodega owner's representative said anything other than that.
Now, if the city wanted to promote the installation of safety equipment to help protect the bodega owners and their employees it would be a reasonable thing to do. We advocate defensive security measures to help reduce the need to use a firearm as the last resort, BUT denying someone the ability to defend themselves when all else fails is faith over fact.
xcgates
Member
So a few robbers die.
Do I sound cold and heartless? Maybe. But if it shows the risks of being a criminal, maybe that is what it takes to deter people. In some times violence is the answer. And I am all for someone able to defend themselves. If that means armed self defense, then that is what it means.
Did everyone when I went to my version of driver's ed have wheel time in a car? No. Will my kids (heaven help the poor schmucks!) have wheel time? You betcha! But what about those whose parent's don't have a car? For that matter, do I know people who should never get on a motorcycle? H-E-Double-Hockeysticks yes! However, if they decide they really want one, I will educate them, give them all the advice and mentoring I have to give, then the rest is up to them. Free will. Sometimes it can be a pain-in-the-butt to say the least.
To answer the question, no, I am not "politically correct." I am sorry if someone is offended.
::EDIT:: And to piggy-back on what you said about the cop, time and time again it has been reinforced that the cops are not responsible for your personal safety. So if I may borrow an age-old cliche(sp?), when trouble is mere seconds away, the cops are mere minutes away.
Do I sound cold and heartless? Maybe. But if it shows the risks of being a criminal, maybe that is what it takes to deter people. In some times violence is the answer. And I am all for someone able to defend themselves. If that means armed self defense, then that is what it means.
Did everyone when I went to my version of driver's ed have wheel time in a car? No. Will my kids (heaven help the poor schmucks!) have wheel time? You betcha! But what about those whose parent's don't have a car? For that matter, do I know people who should never get on a motorcycle? H-E-Double-Hockeysticks yes! However, if they decide they really want one, I will educate them, give them all the advice and mentoring I have to give, then the rest is up to them. Free will. Sometimes it can be a pain-in-the-butt to say the least.
To answer the question, no, I am not "politically correct." I am sorry if someone is offended.
::EDIT:: And to piggy-back on what you said about the cop, time and time again it has been reinforced that the cops are not responsible for your personal safety. So if I may borrow an age-old cliche(sp?), when trouble is mere seconds away, the cops are mere minutes away.
DT Guy
Member
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2003
- Messages
- 1,837
Having seen firsthand the result of a crackhead 'deciding' (which implies thought of some type, something I'm not absolutely sure was involved) that it would be fun to stab a victim who'd already surrendered his cash, I prefer to to retain the option of shooting back.
There's nothing that says I have to go for a gun when the odds don't support doing so, but I know for sure I won't be going for it when they do if I'm not allowed to have it at all.
I always wonder when I hear things like 'people in poor neighborhoods' and '$8/hour 20 year olds' if the writer really understands the concept of freedom; if I would have it, I must give it to you. And whether I think you're rich enough or smart enough, too. To be free, I have to allow others to be free, regardless of how I view their social status.
Larry
benEzra
Moderator Emeritus
Having a gun lawfully concealed doesn't obligate you to use bad tactics. What it *does* give you is options.
- Status