Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

April 2, 2008
By: Kevin Drum

GUNS ON THE JOB....A delivery guy who shot an armed robber has been suspended by Pizza Hut because company policy doesn't allow employees to carry guns on the job. Glenn Reynolds is outraged:

Good thing he didn't listen or he might be being carried by six instead of subjected to mealy-mouthed HR flackery from one.

I guess this is the aspect of the gun rights crowd that perplexes me the most. It's easy to understand their view of the Second Amendment (a view that I partly share), and it's easy to understand, in general, their view that citizens should be free to own guns if they want to. But this Wild West mentality is much harder to fathom. Do they really think that, for example, pizza delivery guys should routinely wear sidearms and engage in gun battles with crooks, and that employers should (apparently) have no right to prevent it? Frankly, given the average age and disposition of pizza delivery guys, I'd just as soon not have a city full of sidearmed pizza deliverers, and Pizza Hut would probably just as soon not get sued when one of these guys ends up shooting someone who stiffed him on the bill or got into an argument over whether he ordered anchovies on his pie. What's more, Pizza Hut is in the business of making money, and I imagine that most of their customers would prefer not to deal with a company that sends armed young men to their door. Being responsive to all these issues is just sensible corporate and public policy.

My employer can restrict my speech on the job, can fire me without due process, and is not required to cater to my every religious belief. Likewise, they can also have rules preventing employees from carrying arms at work — and most of them do. The occasional angry postal worker to the contrary, workplaces would almost certainly be more dangerous on average if there were lots of loaded guns around, and surely employers have every right to make that assessment. Right?

Kevin Drum 12:44 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (177)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

What part of "crazy rightwing wackjob" are you having problems understanding?

Posted by: anon on April 2, 2008 at 12:49 PM | PERMALINK

If he actually thought things through, he wouldn't be the INSTA-pundit, now would he?

Posted by: tom veil on April 2, 2008 at 12:51 PM | PERMALINK

The same argument followed the Virginia Tech tragedy: "If the students were armed, they could have fought back!" Armed on campus, seriously? Just what is the position here? Is everyone supposed to go armed everywhere from the age of 18? Since when was the Wild West a safe, secure place for the whole family?

Posted by: mmy on April 2, 2008 at 12:52 PM | PERMALINK

Right.

Posted by: Barbara on April 2, 2008 at 12:52 PM | PERMALINK

Had to slide in the reference to postal workers, didn't you? Come on, Kevin, get with the times. It's alienated college students we should be fearing now. Postal workers is so nineties.

Posted by: mrgumby2u on April 2, 2008 at 12:53 PM | PERMALINK

Likewise, the really nutty ones like Malkin advocate college students and high school teaches being armed to stem school violence. WTF? If more guns made the country safer then shouldn't we be the safest country in the world? Not surprisingly that is far from the case. I had a rigorous debate with my landlord recently about gun rights. I firmly believe that people should be allowed to own guns and that what we need is stricter enforcement of the existing laws and strengthening of restrictions on gun shows, etc. It is also within the bounds of sanity to say that a city or state can ban handguns if they choose.

But you're right Kevin, the wild west mentality belongs in the movies not the modern world.

Posted by: K-Tron on April 2, 2008 at 12:53 PM | PERMALINK

I hate to defend Reynolds, but Kevin sets up a bunch of straw men here. Nobody says Pizza Hut doesn't have the right to prohibit firearms. What Reynolds says is that he bets the driver is glad he didn't follow the rules.

I bet the driver is glad, too. I'm glad, myself. I'd much rather an armed robber get shot than a working stiff.

Posted by: Arr-squared on April 2, 2008 at 12:54 PM | PERMALINK

Something tells me Instahack wouldn't be so thrilled if everyone was packing heat at his law school.

Posted by: Glenn on April 2, 2008 at 12:55 PM | PERMALINK

"Do they really think that, for example, pizza delivery guys should routinely wear sidearms and engage in gun battles with crooks, and that employers should (apparently) have no right to prevent it?"

Yes, they do. That is their position. The argument is that armed robbery would be less likely. Is that argument inherently flawed?

Posted by: Alan Vanneman on April 2, 2008 at 12:59 PM | PERMALINK

What is it about conservatives like Reynolds that they just instinctively want to trample on the right of big business to make its own rules?

Posted by: C.S. on April 2, 2008 at 1:00 PM | PERMALINK

It's not a straw man. Kevin's writing about the "mentality" that it's okay for an employee to walk around armed.

Posted by: K-Tron on April 2, 2008 at 1:00 PM | PERMALINK

Yes, they do. That is their position. The argument is that armed robbery would be less likely. Is that argument inherently flawed?

No, but to the reality-based observer, it entails that killings and maimings and would increase enormously. I guess if that's your goal, it makes perfect sense.


Posted by: goethean on April 2, 2008 at 1:06 PM | PERMALINK

My gun nut friends here in Texas, and that means most of the state, have a saying, "An armed society is a polite society." Not that this justifies everyone being armed but I thought it might be more food for thought. I personally think it would be extremely problematic to have an armed society especially from a corporate standpoint but in Dallas a pizza delivery job is probably just as dangerous as a police officer's plight.

Posted by: Paul on April 2, 2008 at 1:07 PM | PERMALINK

Maybe if criminals knew the delivery guys might be armed they might think twice . . . about getting a bigger gun themselves or killing the guy before robbing him.

But I actually was a pizza delivery guy in HS and a gun would have helped when waiting for the tip. I'm just saying.

Actually delivering pizzas in the early 70's was a great way to see a LOT of parties in progress. Imagine Cheech&Chong saying "Hey man, pizza guy's here!" That happened a lot.

Posted by: Tripp on April 2, 2008 at 1:09 PM | PERMALINK

I used to pump gas in a "high-crime area" at night. I didn't have a gun; I had a very simple policy. "You have a gun? You say you have a gun? Here's the money. Have a nice day, won't you?"
I'm here to talk about it. If I'd had a gun, and the urge to risk my life to protect my employer's money, maybe not.

Posted by: thersites on April 2, 2008 at 1:13 PM | PERMALINK

I think we would be better off if we banned all guns.

But, given that that's not going to happen, I think Pizza delivery guys are near the top of the list of people who need protection. One of them was murdered while delivering pizza on the next street over from mine a few years ago.

Posted by: Jim W on April 2, 2008 at 1:16 PM | PERMALINK

mmy: "Is everyone supposed to go armed everywhere from the age of 18?"

Why wait til 18? An armed kindergarten is a polite kindergarten.

Posted by: Grumpy on April 2, 2008 at 1:18 PM | PERMALINK

Putting non-lethal weapons in my employees hands has made a significant difference in the frequency with which they have to deal with violence, or the threat of violence, directed at them.

Posted by: Eric on April 2, 2008 at 1:19 PM | PERMALINK

Minimum-wage pizza drivers packin' heat sounds like a lovely scheme, right up until the time a bystander gets killed in a shootout and squadrons of the right's beloved "trial lawyers" descend on Pizza Hut and make them surrender their corporate cheese.

Naturally, Putz instructs HIS students that such actions wouldn't be patriotic.

Posted by: trollhattan on April 2, 2008 at 1:21 PM | PERMALINK

Here in the DC area we have the instructive case of Keith Washington-- who shot two furniture delivery men, killing one. He had a disagreement with them, apparently.

There really is problem with guns all over the place-- some people are, you know, crazy.

Posted by: MattF on April 2, 2008 at 1:23 PM | PERMALINK

Jim W.

It's of course a shame when a pizza delivery guy is killed. Senseless death is always terrible. But would a holstered gun have saved him from someone answering the door by sticking a loaded piece in his face?

Posted by: thersites on April 2, 2008 at 1:24 PM | PERMALINK

I imagine that most of their customers would prefer not to deal with a company that sends armed young men to their door.

That's what I said, but the cops keep showing up anyway...

Seriously, though, Prof. Reynolds never said the company can't have whatever rules it wants. Just that the rules could well have gotten this driver killed, if he'd followed them.

More broadly, your post assumes that anyone who gets a permit to carry a concealed weapon is just itching for a chance to shoot someone. Actual facts indicate the contrary. I don't have a CCL, but I'd have no problem having a pizza delivered by someone who does. I've delivered pizzas in my life, and it can be dangerous work. Maybe if there weren't company rules prohibiting drivers from carrying weapons -- rules muggers know well -- we'd have fewer muggings and fewer drivers getting knifed or shot.

Posted by: Shelby on April 2, 2008 at 1:25 PM | PERMALINK

My employer can restrict my speech on the job, can fire me without due process, and is not required to cater to my every religious belief. Likewise, they can also have rules preventing employees from carrying arms at work — and most of them do.

This is a really stupid analogy. None of these impairments of your rights can cost you your life. Apparently Kevin would have preferred the delivery guy be killed.

Posted by: Brad on April 2, 2008 at 1:25 PM | PERMALINK

"An armed society is a polite society."

Mom: Jimmy, would you like some more potatoes?
Jimmy: Yes.
Mom: [click-click] Yes, what?
Jimmy: Yes please...

Works for me.

Posted by: rusrus on April 2, 2008 at 1:27 PM | PERMALINK

Generally, deliverymen or anyone handling money should never feel they should use a gun to protect money or property-- especially if it belongs to their employer. It's all about protecting one's own life.

If it's a good idea for delivery men to remain armed, then they should form a union and go on strike until Pizza Hut allows them to do so. Instahack wouldn't have been upset if a delivery man got fired for voicing an unacceptable political opinion while on the job.

Posted by: Tyro on April 2, 2008 at 1:28 PM | PERMALINK

Maybe if there weren't company rules prohibiting drivers from carrying weapons -- rules muggers know well -- we'd have fewer muggings and fewer drivers getting knifed or shot.

Maybe there'd be more murders of drivers. Maybe drivers would wear kevlar and the perps would use armor piercing rounds. Maybe we'd deliver in humvees and the perps would use IEDs. Maybe drivers would be emboldened to go into more and more dangerous places. Maybe the crime rates would drop to zero and we'd live in a Libertarian paradise.

Posted by: Tripp on April 2, 2008 at 1:31 PM | PERMALINK

Apparently Kevin would have preferred the delivery guy be killed.

Apparently Brad cannot argue what is said and prefers to build his straw men by putting words in Kevin's mouth.

Posted by: Tripp on April 2, 2008 at 1:33 PM | PERMALINK

Tyro,

The NRA and Republicans supporting worker unionization. I love it.

Posted by: Tripp on April 2, 2008 at 1:35 PM | PERMALINK

It can seem like a happy ending when an armed pizza delivery guy successfully defends himself against a guy who tried to rob him.

But just think about it for a second.

There are a lot of pizza delivery guys. How often do they really get robbed? What are the chances that one of the pizza delivery guys who actually carries a sidearms also happens to be the one who gets held up, and then is able to successfully defend himself with the gun, making for a happy-ending to the news story. Seems to me like an almost astronomical coincidence.

Then again, the usual advice one gets from the police about what to do when someone tries to hold you up is not to resist- usually, a robber, just wants money, and doesn't want to risk a lot more prison time by also hurting or killing somebody. So, the cops think, why risk escalating the confrontation into a violent one with a possibly psychotic criminal just so you can save yourself a few hundred bucks, or fifty bucks, or whatever? It's only money.

So as a policy, doesn't it suck to encourage just any delivery guy to use a gun on the job?

Finally, robbers are mis-spending their lives when they're robbing people, but not all robber's lives are worthless. Pizza delivery guys aren't in danger of being raped or something by robbers really- they're in danger of having a few bucks taken from them. Sure, a robber is being a dick. But isn't it a worse policy to make it even more likely that every robber is risking his life when he makes the dumb mistake of trying to rob somebody? Our policy should be to try to rehabilitate guys who try to rob pizza delivery guys, not to blow their brains out.

Yeah, every once in a while, some robber is going to pull the trigger and kill somebody. But what kind of monsters do we become when we say that everybody who tries to steal $50 from someone forfeits his life? A life is worth a lot more than ten pizzas.

Posted by: Swan on April 2, 2008 at 1:36 PM | PERMALINK

I tend to be pro gun rights and pro concealed carry, although I don't have a permit. That said, I'm skeptical that arming pizza delivery drivers would cut down on injuries or injury or fatalities. It would probably cut down on robberies, but it would also probably greatly increase the percentage of robberies that involved violence rather than just a threat. A delivery driver is a lot more vulnerable than someone sitting at home or behind a counter.

Posted by: Whisper on April 2, 2008 at 1:40 PM | PERMALINK

Swan,

Not to an authoritarian. Why do you insist on clouding things by referring to the robbers as a person? And how do you know his name is Dick?

I prefer the term 'illegals' to reduce them to non-human icky things but that has already been used. Maybe 'perps' will have to do and we can hope most people understand the meaning. In case people don't know, 'Perps' is short for non-human criminal scum deserving death.

So to answer your question, no, a perp is not worth more than even a single pizza. A perp is actually worth less than a pizza because a perp will kill you quicker.

Posted by: Tripp on April 2, 2008 at 1:42 PM | PERMALINK

A perp is actually worth less than a pizza because a perp will kill you quicker.

Tripp, you ain't been to my local pizza shop.

Posted by: thersites on April 2, 2008 at 1:45 PM | PERMALINK

Two thoughts:

If, in fact, "an armed society is a polite society" than Mogadishu, Basra, and Baghdad should be the politest societies around, right? I mean, everybody has access to guns, and there is no busybody effective government preventing you from using them to protect yourself and your family, right?

And I am always alarmed by the supposition that shooting somebody to death is an appropriate response to their entering your house without permission, even if they're armed. Since when does robbing a pizza delivery guy carry the death penalty?

Posted by: Yagur on April 2, 2008 at 1:45 PM | PERMALINK

The more extreme Second Amendment advocates really do believe that if every one is free to carry weapons as they wish, there will be fewer gun crimes. Their argument in favor of concealed carry laws is that if criminals don't know who's armed and who isn't, they're less likely to commit crimes. By this line of reasoning we'll also have a more polite society if we bring back dueling.

Posted by: AK Liberal on April 2, 2008 at 1:55 PM | PERMALINK

Absurdly obvious point here: the point of a robbery is to rob. If the robber had wanted to kill the guy and take his money, he just would have shot him and taken the wallet from the dead body.

So they whole "oh you wish he was dead" is a particularly retarded argument even for rightwingers. No, I'd just prefer that delivery people not be armed. This isn't Baghdad.

Posted by: JoshA on April 2, 2008 at 1:57 PM | PERMALINK

It's an elaborate fantasy to alleviate their feelings of powerlessness in modern society. Since so much of their lives are out of their control, they routinely fantasize about being the lone hero who singlehandedly saves the day. The fact that most of them wouldn't be capable of saving the day if the opportunity actually arose just makes the whole thing sadder.

Posted by: F on April 2, 2008 at 1:59 PM | PERMALINK

For an interesting riff on this very idea, see the movie "He was a quiet man"

Posted by: F on April 2, 2008 at 2:00 PM | PERMALINK

Do they really think that, for example, pizza delivery guys should routinely wear sidearms and engage in gun battles with crooks, and that employers should (apparently) have no right to prevent it?

Come now, that's an oversimplification.

SHOULDN'T a man have the right to defend him or herself? Shouldn't all people of the world be free to defend themselves against aggression and tyranny? Guns don't kill people--people who use guns can kill people, but what really kills the people are the bullets that make them bleed and/or cause their organs to cease functioning when they explode. Show me how a ban on ammunition works in a society where you can buy knives at any grocery store.

If you banned guns, only the people who ignore the ban will have guns. And the police. And the Army. And anyone who is a gun collector and gets an exemption.

Another way to think of it is this--do you really think all of those illegal immigrants aren't carrying guns? Many of them are armed to the teeth. Who is going to defend us against them when the guns are all banned by the liberals?

Posted by: Norman Rogers on April 2, 2008 at 2:01 PM | PERMALINK

"An armed society is a polite society."

Huh?

1. The US is an armed society. But not so polite. So isn't the principle false?

2. Perhaps what's meant is this: "A society armed with concealed weapons is a polite society." The US is a society with concealed weapons--anyone can carry a knife, and many states permit concealed weapons. Again, though, the US isn't so polite. So isn't the principle false?

3. If an armed society is a polite one, then it follows by logic that an impolite one is unarmed. But, as numerous other posters have pointed out, that's false: Sudan is impolite yet not unarmed. Once more, isn't the principle false?

Am I missing something?

Posted by: James on April 2, 2008 at 2:01 PM | PERMALINK

Come on Kevin, the Wild West is the very symbol of a peaceful, law-abiding society--clearly the result of all those guns lying around.

Posted by: cramer on April 2, 2008 at 2:01 PM | PERMALINK

A life is worth a lot more than ten pizzas.

Yours? Two pizzas. Three if you leave.

Posted by: Norman Rogers on April 2, 2008 at 2:08 PM | PERMALINK

"An armed society is a polite society" - Nouri al-Maliki.

Posted by: Jeffrey Davis on April 2, 2008 at 2:11 PM | PERMALINK

Grumpy: Why wait til 18? An armed kindergarten is a polite kindergarten.

Perhaps you saw the recent story of the third-graders in Waycross Georgia that plotted an attack on their teacher?

Posted by: AJ on April 2, 2008 at 2:12 PM | PERMALINK

By the way, this is a circumstance in which I've got to say something for the cops, although I usually criticize them a little, just because so many other people won't do it, and our TV dramas lionize them to a ridiculous degree.

The armed cops who ultimately apprehend a robber are a little different than Stan the Pizza Delivery Guy. Many cops are ex-military, so they have weapons training even before they went to police academy. Then they go to police academy and get weapons training. They know that they have oversight for their actions and they get periodic evaluations of things like their eyesight and their ability to use their weapons. Apprehending a suspect is something they've trained for, thought about a lot, and that they can plan ahead of time and get help with from other polic officers. Finally, when a suspect sees a uniformed police officer and a police car and knows that is who is coming to get him, he knows that the power of the state is behind it, and that his chances to run from them or to defy them are very limited.

All of this isn't there when it's just Stan, the Pizza Delivery Guy, who maybe has been ambuscaded by a robber and who maybe carries a gun just because he's an immature, macho asshole who has been hoping and dreaming of the day he gets to intimidate or actually shoot another living human being with a loaded, deadly weapon.

Norman Rogers wrote:

Shouldn't a man [sic] have the right to defend him or herself?

Maybe not with a hand-gun. Guns are a lot more dangerous than not using guns. But people of course should have a right to defend themselves, and you are incorrect in claiming I wrote the contrary.

What I was saying is that pizza delivery guys shouldn't all carry weapons, not that weapons should be banned. That's another question entirely. Maybe the rule should be that you can only have a hand-gun to defend your house, and that you can't carry it around with you like a hoodlum.

Posted by: Swan on April 2, 2008 at 2:12 PM | PERMALINK

I think there's a difference between an employer banning an office employee from bringing guns to work versus a pizza delivery guy. What about a 7-11/convenience store worker? How would you feel if the 7-11 corp. office banned all employees from having guns at their work? It seems like there are jobs that are inherently more dangerous. While it's perfectly reasonable for a company to forbid an office employee from bringing a gun to work, I would understand it if a pizza delivery guy/7-11 employee chooses to have a gun hear his/her side.

Posted by: Andy on April 2, 2008 at 2:14 PM | PERMALINK

"Likewise, the really nutty ones like Malkin advocate college students and high school teaches being armed to stem school violence. WTF?"

Yeah, because the gun-free zones at VT and NIU really did a lot of good, didn't they moron? As stupid as you are, it is not surprising you have not heard of the case at the NC law school where two guys with concealed-carry permits stopped a psycho and his shooting-spree. But like I said, you are a moron.
And the handgun bans in Chicago and D.C. have worked wonders for the violent crime rates. As we all know, law-abiding individuals who have licenses to carry guns on campus are just a second away from gunning someone down, just for the hell of it.
You are an idiot.

Posted by: Leftiesaremorons on April 2, 2008 at 2:14 PM | PERMALINK

Quite frankly, I fail to see how pizza guys packing heat constitutes a "well-regulated militia". But what I really don't understand is why so many gun nuts want to conceal their weapons. How weak is that? Either grow some balls and face life without a gun, or at least have the common decency to sling that 12 gauge over your shoulder like a real man.

Posted by: Dave Brown on April 2, 2008 at 2:15 PM | PERMALINK

workplaces would almost certainly be more dangerous on average if there were lots of loaded guns around

Ya think?

BTW a couple of questions about the story: what was the robber armed with and did the Pizza Hut guy kill him?

Anyway, I agree with PH: if employees arm themselves, it's at their own risk. Better to suspend an employee for defending himself with unauthorized weapons than be liable when a company-armed employee goes on a rampage.

Posted by: Horatio Parker on April 2, 2008 at 2:18 PM | PERMALINK

It is always possible to find a particular case in which goes against a law or general rule proved to have a good outcome. This does not provide sufficient evidence to assume that the rule or law should be abandoned. People tend to fantasize counter-factuals in ways that fit with their ideologies. Would an armed student body at VTU have produced a quicker conclusion to the crisis, or would it have produced an even larger number of killed and wounded as a result of frightened, unprepared but armed students firing in circumstances where they were mistaken about the true source of the shootings or simply in accurate? The answer is that we cannot know--that is the nature of counter-factuals. What is clear is that the argument that well-armed societies are polite societies is a fantasy that fails under the examples of Afghanistan, the tribal areas of northwest Pakistan, Iraq, Somalia, and a hundred other places, not to mention our own frontier history.

Posted by: AmericaWIllBe on April 2, 2008 at 2:18 PM | PERMALINK

"Maybe the rule should be that you can only have a hand-gun to defend your house, and that you can't carry it around with you like a hoodlum."

Exactly how does carrying a concealed weapon turn a law-abiding citizen into a hoodlum? If I can own one to protect my home, why can't I own one to protect myself outside my home? After all, it is more likely I will be attacked outside my home. Once again, a moron on the left (sorry for the redundace) who doesn't like guns thinks the mere act of defending oneself with one is somehow inherently wrong.

Posted by: Leftiesaremorons on April 2, 2008 at 2:19 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin,

This so-called wild west mentality is a direct result of the militarized White society that was required to repress Black slaves who, in many areas, outnumbered the Whites.

The slave South was a militarized nation living in constant fear of slave revolts. The White militia was made up of almost all white males of military age and enforced curfews with nightly patrols throughout the South. College students were required to take military studies (explaining the generally better military quality of the South in the Civil War.) Most large cities had military barracks and redoubts in the center of town in order to deal with slave revolts, and they also had laws requiring White males to carry guns, even to church on Sunday.

The end of legal slavery did not end the fear of the Angry Black Male who was always ready to attack Whites. Nor did it end the attitude that every (white) man needs to own and carry a gun.

Don't forget that a lot of the expansion into the West and Southwest after the Civil War was by Southerners who couldn't find work in the South. Their attitudes were behind much of what we today view as the "Wild West" legends as shown in penny books and western movies.

The American attitude towards guns and the wild west mentality is easy to understand when seen in the context of the fear of slave revolt and the militarized South that resulted.

If you want to understand conservatives, find out what historical events led to their fear. That fear will be expressed in anger, and there are few objects that better express anger and fear than a gun.

Watch in a movie or TV show how the appearance of a gun resets the emotional tenor of the story to one that is more threatening.

It's cultural. It all goes back to slavery and the fear of black men revolting against whites.

And for anyone who argues that slavery ended a long time ago, the fear was perpetuated by segregation. Whites knew Blacks as stereotypes rather than as individuals, and the police were required to make sure whites did not have to know blacks personally and give up the stereotypes. As modern conservatives demonstrate daily, they prefer their fantasies to the real world and will fight hard to maintain those fantasies.

The wild west attitude towards guns is a part of the same package of attitudes tied up in the American attitudes towards race. Everytime you see the loop of Rev. Wright, it is reinforcing that same cultural fear of the "Angry Black Man who Threatens Whites" and hits directly back to the particularly (but not uniquely) Southern fear of slave revolts.

Posted by: Rick B on April 2, 2008 at 2:19 PM | PERMALINK

In Snow Crash, Neal Stephenson makes a good case for pizza deliverers being armed with powerful, high-tech weapons. His hero, code-named Hiro Protagonist, carries a handgun capable of vaporizing a baseball bat.

Note that a science fiction reference is appropriate here because most of these right-wing cowboys got the basis for their philosophical beliefs from Robert Heinlein. They all consider themselves a modern version of Lazarus Long (mixed with John Galt).

Posted by: Bob Munck on April 2, 2008 at 2:20 PM | PERMALINK

Maybe not with a hand-gun. Guns are a lot more dangerous than not using guns. But people of course should have a right to defend themselves, and you are incorrect in claiming I wrote the contrary.

I remember the part where I said your life wasn't worth three pizzas, and I remember telling you to leave, but I don't remember giving a damn whether you had something to say.

Liberals make these regular assaults on civil liberties every four years. It shores up their base and helps them to get the little old lady who got robbed in 1964 to go to the polls for them. You'll all stop singing this tune when the election is over.

Posted by: Norman Rogers on April 2, 2008 at 2:20 PM | PERMALINK

"If the students were armed, they could have fought back!" Armed on campus, seriously?

Yes, seriously. When a shooter appeared several years back on a campus in the Appalachians, several students went to their cars, got their hunting rifles, went back, and stopped the guy (they detained him without shooting him). Problem solved. The media, of course, played that down.

Posted by: JohnAnnArbor on April 2, 2008 at 2:21 PM | PERMALINK

Now see swan, when you are taking your ritalin properly you are capable of making sense. The only quibble I have with your last comment is that hand-guns are piss-poor home defense. For that, a pump-action shotgun is the definite preference. The distinctive sound stops an intruder dead in his tracks, and if it doesn't the chances of survival are not good. On the other hand, the chances that the discharge will penetrate the wall of your dwelling and kill your neighbor is virtually nil.

Posted by: volatile compound on April 2, 2008 at 2:22 PM | PERMALINK

By not arming pizza delivery drivers we are emboldening al-Qaeda.

Posted by: e henry thripshaw on April 2, 2008 at 2:23 PM | PERMALINK

Note that a science fiction reference is appropriate here because most of these right-wing cowboys got the basis for their philosophical beliefs from Robert Heinlein. They all consider themselves a modern version of Lazarus Long (mixed with John Galt).

Shows you what you know, which is nothing! I have never read Heinlein, although I have considered it. I have read books that celebrate the individual over the state, and books that show people defeating tyranny and letting the free market determine how things work. I have also read "The Celestine Prophecy," which is a book everyone should have.

Swan, you're not allowed to visit my blog. And the only reason why I post this link is because I don't care what you people think about me. It's done, it's finished, and I'm not ashamed of anything.

Posted by: Norman Rogers on April 2, 2008 at 2:25 PM | PERMALINK

*

Posted by: mhr on April 2, 2008 at 2:25 PM | PERMALINK

I used to pump gas in a "high-crime area" at night. I didn't have a gun; I had a very simple policy. "You have a gun? You say you have a gun? Here's the money. Have a nice day, won't you?"
I'm here to talk about it. If I'd had a gun, and the urge to risk my life to protect my employer's money, maybe not.

I once rode in a NYC taxi whose driver was a retired fireman, one of the first "gypsy" cab drivers in the city. At that time, there'd been a rash of murdered cab drivers, headlines all the time etc. When I asked him about that, he laughed, waved his hand deprecatingly and said, "You give it up. I been robbed so many times I couldn't count."

It's odd to hear these "let's all carry guns arguments" in times when crime is much lower than a generation ago. How low does crime have to go before we disarm?

Posted by: Horatio Parker on April 2, 2008 at 2:26 PM | PERMALINK

mhr:
But submission is no guarantee that after he is relieved of his money, the victim will not be executed.

Agreed. When I got held up at an ATM, my only thought was, take anything you want, just don't shoot me, and fortunately, I wasn't shot. The person who robbed me brandished a gun, and you have to assume that person is ready to use it. Although I don't believe the purpose of the 2nd Amend. is to thwart robbery (it's really a check on government), it's understandable for people to want protection.

Posted by: Andy on April 2, 2008 at 2:35 PM | PERMALINK

Rick B is on to something there. The U.S. isn't more violent because we have more guns than the Canadians, but because we're terrified of a large number of our own population.

Likewise the hyper-militarized Spartans got that way, not in response to external threats but because they lived in fear of the people whom they had enslaved.

Posted by: thersites on April 2, 2008 at 2:35 PM | PERMALINK

I'm a little bit stunned by the responses here. We're not talking about a hypothetical situation in which all pizza delivery boys everywhere are armed to the teeth.

We're talking about a real man having a real gun pointed against his very real head. And what I'm hearing more than anything else is people saying that he shouldn't have defended himself, but should have allowed the robber to take his money and then (depending on the disposition of the criminal) allowed the scumbag to paint the lawn with his brains.

We're not dealing with certainty here. This isn't a contractual obligation where, if a man gives the robber his money, the robber with always and everytime leave the man alone. They may still kill him. If someone points a gun at my head, I don't care if they want my money, my head emptied of gray matter or they just want to chat about their divorce... and I'm not interested in asking them about their intentions in detail. I will proceed to fire away.

Posted by: Matthias on April 2, 2008 at 2:37 PM | PERMALINK

The level of discourse in this thread really is pathetic.

Posted by: Rob S on April 2, 2008 at 2:40 PM | PERMALINK

All arguments about the worth of personal firearms for self defense are smokescreens, over the fact that the most likely use by far is for the male of the household to kill his wife, or himself, if life goes badly. Somewhere in the back of his head, at all times, that option exists. And that feeling of power, over family and authority, is what "self defense" firearms are really about.

Posted by: Bruce the Canuck on April 2, 2008 at 2:52 PM | PERMALINK

It's not just Heinlein. It runs all through science fiction. Ever read A. E. Van vogt's "The Weapon Shops of Ishar?"

It comes from the science fiction "space opera" {Westerns in space] tradition. And the gun attitudes still go back to the traditions of the militarized slave South.

Posted by: Rick B on April 2, 2008 at 2:52 PM | PERMALINK

Do they really think that, for example, pizza delivery guys should routinely wear sidearms and engage in gun battles with crooks...

deterrence

noun
1. a negative motivational influence [syn: disincentive] [ant: incentive]
2. a communication that makes you afraid to try something [syn: determent]
3. the act or process of discouraging actions or preventing occurrences by instilling fear or doubt or anxiety

Posted by: sjrsm on April 2, 2008 at 2:52 PM | PERMALINK

"The level of discourse in this thread really is pathetic."

No it aint! Fuck you! I'm awesome and you all suck! Wanna arm wrestle?1 Visit my blog now!! I'll blow your head clean of!

Posted by: Norman Rogers on April 2, 2008 at 2:55 PM | PERMALINK

Wow.

What happens if you have black skin and have a CCW?

Do you get a waiver for being an honorary militarized white?

You people... do you clothe yourselves in the morning, or is there a newsletter with a daily schedule?

Slogans, stereotypes, and platitudes. Y'all don't need a government. You need babysitters.

Posted by: TmjUtah on April 2, 2008 at 2:55 PM | PERMALINK

Did any of you guys know that MLK lived longer than he might have otherwise lived because Armed Black Men protected his home?

When attacked, they shot back.

Where do you think MLK stood on gun rights?

Posted by: M. Simon on April 2, 2008 at 2:56 PM | PERMALINK

Moderator! That was NOT me at 2:55PM!

Posted by: Norman Rogers on April 2, 2008 at 2:56 PM | PERMALINK

I agree, that probably wasn't Norman at 2:55. Norman would not have misspelled "off."

Posted by: thersites the blackguard on April 2, 2008 at 3:01 PM | PERMALINK

I can't believe so many people are missing the point. Pizza Hut has a corporate interest in having unarmed employees (insurance may play a role here). They are within their rights to enforce that policy. The driver chose to violate the policy. He dispatched the armed robber and thus limited harm to his person. For the driver violating the policy was the appropriate action. Pizza Hut is, however, obligated to enforce their policy (otherwise it really isn't a policy and any benefits accruing from the policy are lost). Thus the driver is suspended. It looks to me like this worked out pretty well for everyone (except the armed robber). What's the big deal?

Posted by: rk on April 2, 2008 at 3:02 PM | PERMALINK

matthias: We're not dealing with certainty here...

Without a doubt. But it's a gamble either way. What if the robber had been faster with the gun than the pizza guy, and hadn't originally intended to shoot? Then he sees the pizza guy reaching for his weapon...

Posted by: thersites on April 2, 2008 at 3:04 PM | PERMALINK

Bruce the Canuck:
Somewhere in the back of his head, at all times, that option exists. And that feeling of power, over family and authority, is what "self defense" firearms are really about.

That really is a disgusting accusation.

Posted by: Andy on April 2, 2008 at 3:09 PM | PERMALINK

But this Wild West mentality is much harder to fathom. Do they really think that, for example, pizza delivery guys should routinely wear sidearms and engage in gun battles with crooks, and that employers should (apparently) have no right to prevent it?

Yes.

As long as a large number of dumb fuck fellow citizens and our spineless and/or quasi-Fascist Supreme Court continues to interpret the 2nd Amendment as a right for private citizens to own hand guns and semi-automatic rifles, we will have this endless argument that should have been put to bed a hundred years ago.

Posted by: Jeff II on April 2, 2008 at 3:11 PM | PERMALINK

Regarding the comments from Swan and Andy:

-----------------------
Yeah, every once in a while, some robber is going to pull the trigger and kill somebody. But what kind of monsters do we become when we say that everybody who tries to steal $50 from someone forfeits his life? A life is worth a lot more than ten pizzas.
Posted by: Swan on April 2, 2008 at 1:36 PM"

-and-

Agreed. When I got held up at an ATM, my only thought was, take anything you want, just don't shoot me, and fortunately, I wasn't shot. The person who robbed me brandished a gun, and you have to assume that person is ready to use it.
------------------------

I think this reveals a profound philosophical difference. There are some of us who do not ever want to be in a position of having our future - live or die - determined by a stranger with a weapon. Its not about the value of the pizza, its about being threatened with death, and what that scenario/exchange means. Once someone threatens me with death, and obviously has the weapon in hand to bring that reality about, he or she has forfeit their own life if I should take their threat seriously and shoot them. It doesn't seem that complicated to me, but then again I'm probably an idiot and a whackjob. Again, it has nothing to do with the money; nobody is 'weighing' a human life against a sum of money. Indeed, if someone came to me, told me they were desperate, and begged me for money, I would probably give them as much as I could - as I often do for people who appear to be in real need in the streets. But once someone brandishes a deadly weapon, for whatever reason, and threatens my life, then the most fundamental, most basic human right, is for me to take that threat seriously and defend myself. Period.

Posted by: whackjob cowboy on April 2, 2008 at 3:15 PM | PERMALINK

They (Pizza Hut) should offer the employees training to allow them to be certified, if they so desire. All of the delivery cars should have, "Driver may be armed." printed on the side.

I understand why Pizza Hut did what they did, with insurance policies and what-not. Doesn't mean I think that whole frame is the best answer.

Posted by: sjrsm on April 2, 2008 at 3:17 PM | PERMALINK

There are some of us who do not ever want to be in a position of having our future - live or die - determined by a stranger with a weapon. Its not about the value of the pizza, its about being threatened with death, and what that scenario/exchange means.

If I saw someone pointing a gun at my son or daughter and stealing from them, it'd be a choice between positively ensuring my child lived or maybe ensuring my child lived.

Posted by: sjrsm on April 2, 2008 at 3:19 PM | PERMALINK

thersites:
"What if the robber had been faster with the gun than the pizza guy, and hadn't originally intended to shoot? Then he sees the pizza guy reaching for his weapon... "

You are assuming the pizza guy just necessarily HAS to reach for his weapon.

The point of contention is should we deprive the pizza guy of that option? If allowed a CCW he can elect to leave it concealed.

And that is the point of a CCW.

I clicked over to Instapundit, he must have since deleted the part where he is outraged.

Posted by: Gringo on April 2, 2008 at 3:19 PM | PERMALINK

Did any of you guys know that MLK lived longer than he might have otherwise lived because Armed Black Men protected his home? Posted by: M. Simon

Duh. However, as MLK was on par with the president in terms of political importance, and had received too many death threats to count (from racist shits with guns - probably your kind of folk), the people guarding him were undoubtedly professionally trained bodyguards.

Posted by: Jeff II on April 2, 2008 at 3:20 PM | PERMALINK

Gringo: The point of contention is should we deprive the pizza guy of that option?

Point taken. The argument could (and will) go on forever.

Posted by: thersites on April 2, 2008 at 3:27 PM | PERMALINK

Isn't this a case of a corporation putting profits over the safety of their workers? It's a cold calculus:

"We send these people into God-knows-what situations and some of them are going to get robbed, beaten or killed. So we have them sign this paper that says it's not our fault. If they get killed we might have to pay a little bit, but not anything like what happens if they harm a customer or bystander."

In the old days this kind of corporate thinking would be opposed by progressives. Is the hatred of guns so powerful that you choose the corporate side over the worker's side?

Maybe Pizza Hut would see things differently if they had to shell out $10 million every time an employee was killed. I mean, if it's just about money.

Posted by: Kevin Murphy on April 2, 2008 at 3:28 PM | PERMALINK

If I saw someone pointing a gun at my son or daughter and stealing from them, it'd be a choice between positively ensuring my child lived or maybe ensuring my child lived.

All your kid has to do is reveal where they hid the ticking timebomb and it will end!

Posted by: Just Sayin' on April 2, 2008 at 3:31 PM | PERMALINK

All this talk about pizza is making me hungry.

I see Normie is out today promoting his blog. I went to it yesterday - it really is quite spectacular, and I complemented him for it in my comment.

Thersites, could you call Nurse Ratched please?

Posted by: optical weenie on April 2, 2008 at 3:32 PM | PERMALINK

. . . (it's really a check on government), it's understandable for people to want protection.
Posted by: Andy

Right. A bunch yahoo self-styled militiamen and he-men-in-their-own-minds like Instadork with a 15-round Glock are going to prevent the the 10th Airborne from enforcing martial law after a cretinous piece of shit like Bush declares it?

The U.S. Constitution is a nice historical document several decades overdue for major re-write.

Posted by: Jeff II on April 2, 2008 at 3:33 PM | PERMALINK

A few years back while I was a pizza delivery driver, a driver for another company was lured to a hotel and beaten to death with a baseball bat. I carried from that point on, legally, but with the knowledge that I could get fired. I knew a number of drivers that did also and a few I suspected of it.

One night a car full of large Samoan/Tongan/Hawaiian man-boys blocked me in as I pulled into a strip mall parking space. They said I cut them off and they were pissed. I apologized to them for the percieved slight, but that did not calm them down. I was told that I would be beat down for what I did. The situation changed when I pulled out my little .357 revolver and asked them to leave me alone. They left peacefully, but probably a little upset. I did the right thing as I was taught and called the police right away. Officer responding took down my information and my statement and confirmed I took the appropriate steps for my situation. My company did not find out about this so I wasnt fired. I would have gladly traded being fired for the ablility to defend myself that night against five much larger than me aggressors.

Posted by: Tom on April 2, 2008 at 3:35 PM | PERMALINK

Don't gun-toting guys get themselves killed half the time by bringing guns into the equation? ("Mah aim is alwahs perfeck and ah never get overpowered.")

Posted by: Anon on April 2, 2008 at 3:36 PM | PERMALINK

"We send these people into God-knows-what situations and some of them are going to get robbed, beaten or killed. So we have them sign this paper that says it's not our fault. If they get killed we might have to pay a little bit, but not anything like what happens if they harm a customer or bystander."

In the old days this kind of corporate thinking would be opposed by progressives. Is the hatred of guns so powerful that you choose the corporate side over the worker's side? Posted by: Kevin Murphy

First of all, when was the last time you saw pizza delivered in shit neighborhoods? Companies like Pizza Hut have red line areas that they do not serve. So both you and the quoted executive are full of shit.

Posted by: Jeff II on April 2, 2008 at 3:38 PM | PERMALINK

"I imagine that most of their customers would prefer not to deal with a company that sends armed young men to their door"

You seem to spend an awful lot of time imagining. I wonder why.

Not that I'm a typical marker, but
1)I would be happy to take delivery of a pizza from a delivery person with a bona fide concealed carry permit
2)I have a bona fide concealed carry permit myself
3)because of this case I will no longer ever do business with this pizza vendor

I hope the pizza vendor realizes that this is not going to work out for them quite so simply.

And, I hope that you have to drive down to the local pizza joint to get all your pizzas from now on ... in a region where you have no right to defend yourself.

Good luck with the fear.

Posted by: paul a'barge on April 2, 2008 at 3:40 PM | PERMALINK

Your mistake is thinking that idiots like Instaputz base anything on principles. They believe that the end justifies the means -- all in cases. That is all you need to know.

Posted by: Orson on April 2, 2008 at 3:42 PM | PERMALINK

"Duh. However, as MLK was on par with the president in terms of political importance, and had received too many death threats to count (from racist shits with guns - probably your kind of folk), the people guarding him were undoubtedly professionally trained bodyguards."

Guns for the powerful and important.

No guns for the weak and unimportant.

Go democracy?

Posted by: just sayin on April 2, 2008 at 3:42 PM | PERMALINK

As a self-declared dyed in the wool liberal, I find the arguments on both sides irritating and full of non sequiturs. If someone points a gun at you or me, that person has forfeited the moral high ground; it's not that his life is worth more or less than the money in the deliveryman's pockets, it's that the robber should understand that the victim has the right to defend himself in whatever way he chooses; in other words, if the robber puts you at risk through no wish of your own, then you have a counter-right to assess the risk and take such other risky actions as you yourself choose. Perhaps you will hand over the money, perhaps you will run, perhaps you will attempt to defend yourself with a gun.

About half of the anti-gun arguments make the point that victims are often inept or untrained in the use of firearms. That may very well be so, but to insist that victims have no further rights, even to the extent of taking extremely dangerous actions in defense of their own lives, is to be arrogant beyond words.

At the same time, those who argue on the other side often pretend that a firearm would be useful in situations where even a trained police officer would hold fire.

What the pro-gun side typically misses is that situations involving gunfire can occur so fast and there can be such a shortage of useful information that it would be impossible to know what the right thing to do is. (The same argument holds for those who argue that nobody's life should be forfeited over the price of a pizza. We're not talking about whether the government should execute somebody for stealing a loaf of bread, but whether a crime victim has any rights at all during a few moments which are probably the most stressful that the victim will ever endure.)

One of the posters above is correct: The Rambo fantasies of a few gun advocates are absurd when applied to the urban nightmare that is the armed robbery. The passivism from the other side that allows all of the rest of us to become nothing but helpless victims is philosophically ugly.

Posted by: Bob G on April 2, 2008 at 3:45 PM | PERMALINK

"Our policy should be to try to rehabilitate guys who try to rob pizza delivery guys, not to blow their brains out."

ROTFLMAO

I heartily disagree.

Someone who is willing to KILL another human being for the few bucks in his pocket is not just making a little mistake, here. The life of someone trying to make an honest living actually DOES take precedence over someone who is willing to kill him. And yes, putting a gun to someone's head does indicate a willingness to kill him, more clearly than just about anything I can imagine.

Posted by: Barry on April 2, 2008 at 3:52 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin wrote: "It's easy to understand their view of the Second Amendment ...and it's easy to understand, in general, their view that citizens should be free to own guns if they want to."

The so-called "gun rights crowd" are cowards and hypocrites.

The Second Amendment says NOTHING about "guns". It does not even contain the words "gun" or "guns".

The Second Amendment says that the "right of the people to BEAR ARMS shall not be infringed."

This very clearly means that anyone and everyone has an absolute right to own and carry ANY weapon or armament that they are physically capable of carrying ("bearing").

That obviously includes not only "guns" but bazookas, rocket launchers, shoulder-mounted anti-aircraft missiles, and backpack nuclear weapons.

The argument that the Second Amendment was written at a time when the "arms" that an individual could "bear" were limited to single-shot flintlock pistols and muzzle-loading rifles is irrelevant. Clearly, the authors of the Second Amendment had the wisdom to foresee that someday an individual would be able to "bear arms" with a firepower far greater than an entire army's arsenal in 1776, and it was their intent that each and every citizen should be able to do so.

The NRA and their ilk are chickenshit poseurs and wimps, unless and until they begin fighting for every citizen's right to own and carry backpack nuclear weapons.

Posted by: Arms Not Guns on April 2, 2008 at 3:53 PM | PERMALINK

I actually think everyone is right here. Pizza Hut's policy is sound for all the reasons that Kevin mentions. But, pizza delivery can be dangerous, so being armed (if done legally) is not an unreasnable response. But, he broke the rules so he can be fired or suspended. Ever break a rule at work? Maybe snuck in with clothes on a Friday that didn't fit the dress code? Sent personal emails? So, he broke the rules of his work place. Maybe they would look the other way, maybe they wouldn't.

Posted by: do on April 2, 2008 at 3:58 PM | PERMALINK

It is just astounding how much better Norman Rogers' blog is than Swan's. Like a thousand levels better.

Posted by: bonds in seconds on April 2, 2008 at 3:58 PM | PERMALINK

You say it might not be so great if everybody who delivers pizzas or works in a convenience store were carrying guns. That may be the case, but I am not everybody, I am me.

Thirty years ago I myself had a job delivering pizzas for a while. Another job I had back in that decade was for a convenience store chain. It's a fact that the minimum-wage-plus-20% clerk at the 7-11 has about a 60% greater chance of being killed on the job than a construction worker or a policeman (55 per 100,000 per year compared to 30-35 per 100,000 per year).

I worked in a different store every day, so the regular clerks could get days off. After one of the regular guys I used to spell got murdered in a robbery I started carrying a handgun under my jacket. It was illegal and if my boss knew about it I would have got canned. Now you can argue that I was doing wrong but I will never, ever agree.

Posted by: W. Kiernan on April 2, 2008 at 4:06 PM | PERMALINK

That obviously includes not only "guns" but bazookas, rocket launchers, shoulder-mounted anti-aircraft missiles, and backpack nuclear weapons.

Don't forget biological weapons. And in fact, that's a possibility that some of the founding fathers could well have been aware of, given Amherst and others' thoughts about giving smallpox-laden blankets to the Indians.

Posted by: RSA on April 2, 2008 at 4:07 PM | PERMALINK

Anybody puts anchovies on my pie is gonna have to argue about it with my .357 magnum.
Anchovies! Forsooth!

Posted by: Mooser on April 2, 2008 at 4:09 PM | PERMALINK

they can also have rules preventing employees from carrying arms at work

But they can never prevent the women from having legs. And a good pair is all the weapon most broads need. It's always fatal when they use 'em on me.

Posted by: Mooser on April 2, 2008 at 4:12 PM | PERMALINK

If pizza delivery people were often armed, then the prototypical robbery of a pizza delivery person would involve shooting him or her first, before he or she had time to react by drawing their gun, etc. Increasing the stakes doesn't necessary improve the pizza person's odds.

And the other side of the coin is shown by something that happened in my home town a few years ago. Store owner pulls gun on would-be robber and chases him outside, firing six shots--al of which miss the robber, and by some kind of miracle, everyone else present downrange in a crowded pedestrian mall. Storeowner convicted of reckless discharge of firearm, and rightfully so. Leave it to the professionals to play hero.

Posted by: rea on April 2, 2008 at 4:18 PM | PERMALINK

I find myself in disagreement with many of my fellow lefties on this subject. Perhaps it is because I live in a rural area where all my neighbors and I have numerous guns. We hunt here, we trap shoot, we target shoot, and any would be robber probably knows that going after a bunch of farmers with guns isn't a good idea. But my real experience that makes me on the side of people in dangerous occupations arming themselves happened when I was a convenience store manager some years ago. We were robbed at gunpoint 4 days in a row by the same guy. The first two days we weren't armed and we gave the money away at first blush. We spoke to our company (who like Pizza Hut and 7-11 and all such places have corporate policies against armed employees) and told them if they would send a security man for 3 hours they would catch the robber, since he always came during that period. Nothing. The next day the robber came and pistol whipped my assistant manager before leaving with the cash. He was getting bolder. The police missed him by 2 minutes each day. The fourth day we took matters into our own hands, since our corporate masters appeared indifferent to their employees being pistol whipped and robbed repeatedly. Two of my employees brought guns to work with my permission. We waited for the guy and when we saw him across the street coming our way I called 911 and reported "Robbery in progress" even though he was still 100 feet away. When he came in with the gun the robber was very complacent and was surprised by the sawed off shotgun my assistant manager put into his face. The robber argued with us to let him go and then grabbed the shotgun, which went off into the ceiling. He then ran out of the store after my employee hit him over the head with the gun. Fortunately our early call let the police catch him before he could get out of sight. I quickly hid our guns before the police could get inside. While giving our statements the policeman said the robber had claimed we pulled guns on him and my employee said he had hit him in the head with a mop but no gun. Right over the cop's head while he spoke to us was the 1 foot hole in the ceiling panels from the shotgun blast, but he never noticed. Fortunately the robber was not believed since he was obviously high on crack at the time. Had the company found out we had armed ourselves, we'd have all been fired. But after the 3 days we had just lived through, that would have been a price worth paying if necessary. I've never been sorry we were armed when confronted with an armed thug.

So I suppose I'm somewhat ambivalent. Pizza delivery guys (I had that job in college) were targeted for robberies, since the robber could bring the delivery guy to a place of their choosing with a phone call. I might have carried myself in that situation. Corporate policy may dictate that this be a firing offense, and I don't say the company couldn't fire the driver over the incident. But I still say better to lose the pizza job than your life. And if you've never been in that situation, I care less about your opinion on banning guns than I care about protecting my own life and those I care about. Consider my experience; the company was more willing to let their employees be pistol whipped or killed and robbed repeatedly than to send a security man to our store for one day. In such a situtation, a good man with moral integrity can choose to arm himself and I wont say he can't.

Oh, just read Jeff 2! He's the one full of puckey. Pizza places often deliver to bad neighborhoods, they are often located in bad neighborhoods. So this means Jeff II is himself the ignorant one. If he doesnt' know this, he is bloviating about something for which he has no experience or knowledge.

I'm not on the bandwagon that says arm everyone. But concealed carry laws for law abiding and background checked citizens is not the problem. Inadequate education, jobs, illegal drugs, and crime are the problems that lead law-abiding citizens to have to defend themeselves on occasion.

Your views on this are highly based on your own personal experiences. Few learn those experiences from hearing from others. So those of us who had experiences such as mine don't find the upwardly mobile person who never had to defend himself a good authority to follow.

Posted by: Eclectic on April 2, 2008 at 4:19 PM | PERMALINK

First of all, when was the last time you saw pizza delivered in shit neighborhoods? Companies like Pizza Hut have red line areas that they do not serve.

I for one have delivered pizza for Pizza Hut in some shit neighborhoods. There were red zones, but there were still some pretty scary areas we delivered to.

Oh, and most (all?) Pizza Hut stores are franchises, and employee policy is set by the franchisee, not by Pizza Hut, Inc.

Posted by: Brock on April 2, 2008 at 4:21 PM | PERMALINK

As another poster said, it ain't about the pizza.

A gun is a behavior modification device. If a person walks up to me and says, "Give me all your money!" I'm going to laugh at them, and walk away. However, if a person walks up to me, pulls out a gun, and says, "Give me all your money" then my behavior is modified. The implicit/explicit threat is "Give me all your money or I'll shoot you!" Everyone will act differently if there's a gun involved.

At that point, the robber has made the decision that risking HIS life is worth whatever he hopes to make. More to the point, he's decided that YOUR life is worth less than what he can rob from you, and that he WILL shoot you if he deems it necessary. It's common knowledge that 'good guys' carry handguns, whether it's lawful or not. Being an armed robber means rolling the dice... is this particular victim armed, or not? The reason that pizza delivery folks (and convenience store clerks) loom high on the list for robbers is because it's also common knowledge that large corporations prohibit their employees from being armed.

The corporations have decided that it's less painful to lose a few hundred dollars than to defend themselves against a lawsuit regardless of the merits. There is no cost to the corporation (beyond insurance) when employees are injured or killed by robbers. That's a valid, rational decision for a corporation. It sucks for the employee. That's why many employees in dangerous professions (convenience store clerk, pizza delivery person, taxi driver, etc.) carry a handgun despite workplace rules preventing this. You can always get another job after you get fired for shooting a robber who threatened you with a weapon. Again, a valid rational decision for the employee.

And, to the person who believes that we shouldn't shoot armed robbers over a measly $50, it ain't about the money either. It's about the robber believing that YOUR life is worth less than whatever you have that he wants. Once someone points a gun at you, whether you live or die is up to that person and their judgment... unless you have the means and ability to alter the equation. I, for one, do not intend to cede the power to decide whether I live or die to anyone, and CERTAINLY not a person whose judgment is such that they believe armed robbery is a valid means of obtaining money. In such a situation, where my life is threatened, I will end the threat by any means possible as soon as possible, for that is the only rational choice. That may mean shooting the bad guy, or it may mean compliance, based upon my individual evaluation of the situation at hand based upon my knowledge, training, and experience.

I'm pro-choice when it comes to law-abiding people carrying guns. Don't like them? Don't own or carry one... and don't think for a minute that I care about your choices or your approval when I make my choices.

Posted by: Obijohn on April 2, 2008 at 4:33 PM | PERMALINK

"Open up! Pizza delivery! Open the door slowly and SHOW YOUR HANDS! Lay your money on the mat - DON'T FORGET THE TIP!!! - and back away with your hands up! That's it, good. Now, back away from the door and lay face down on the floor. I'll close the door - HEY, I SAID SHOW YOUR HANDS, BITCH!. Thank you for calling Pizza Hut!"

Posted by: CT on April 2, 2008 at 4:46 PM | PERMALINK

"You can always get another job after you get fired for shooting a robber who threatened you with a weapon."

Tell me, "Obijohn," what are the employment prospects for an employee whose stray bullet (and there are always those pesky stray bullets) killed an innocent person blocks away?

Posted by: CT on April 2, 2008 at 4:49 PM | PERMALINK

"What are the employment prospects for an employee whose stray bullet killed an innocent person blocks away?"

One hell of a lot better than the employee who's lying in a pool of blood with his brains blown out. Duh!

BTW, there AREN'T always stray bullets. That's one major reason for using expanding bullets; they don't overpenetrate.

Posted by: Obijohn on April 2, 2008 at 4:52 PM | PERMALINK

No weapons has been Pizza Hut policy since they started delivering pizzas way back in 1990. I drove for them when they first started, after they bought up a bunch of Winchells donut shops and made them Pizza Hut Delivery stores.

Were I a driver for them now, I would be carrying.

Posted by: Mark on April 2, 2008 at 5:18 PM | PERMALINK

"BTW, there AREN'T always stray bullets. That's one major reason for using expanding bullets; they don't overpenetrate."

More cowboy talk. You pro-gun types always you'll always hit your target regardless of the circumstances. That rarely happens in real life, even by police.

Posted by: CT on April 2, 2008 at 5:22 PM | PERMALINK

Even in the Wild West, town marshalls routinely forced people to check their guns at the Marshalls office.

Having everyone carrying just made things too difficult for law enforcement and regular citizens.

Posted by: zak822 on April 2, 2008 at 5:34 PM | PERMALINK

Isn't it pitiful hypocrisy for righters like Glenn to complain about company policy straitjackets, when out of the other sides of their mouths they almost always support the royal imperium of absolute power for employers? They are just so bound by whose ox is being gored and why, despite the professed devotion to principle and consistency.

Posted by: Neil B. on April 2, 2008 at 5:44 PM | PERMALINK

More cowboy talk. You pro-gun types always you'll always hit your target regardless of the circumstances. That rarely happens in real life, even by police.

Ain't that the truth! This happened just last week.


A 63-year-old man whose mother died while she was a patient in Doctors Hospital in Columbus, Georgia in 2004 armed himself with three handguns and went to the fifth floor of the hospital, the unit where his mother passed away, and started screaming "Where is he?" over and over. He wanted the floor nurse who had cared for his mother in her final days.

He found the nurse and shot him dead, after screaming at him that he was responsible for his mother's death. He then shot and mortally wounded another employee (the report linked says the other employee was an administrative assistant, but I would bet that victim was the unit clerk, because the only time you ever see AA's on the care floors, they are visiting relatives who are inpatients).

The man was able to exit the hospital and walk out the doors, where he shot another victim, a man who pulled up in a pickup truck. Thinking that the man in the pickup was trying to stop him, he shot him in the head, and he died later in surgery.

The shooter then exchanged gunfire with two different law enforcement officers; first with a deputy, then with a motorcycle officer who responded to the call for backup, but no one was hit. A detective in an unmarked car blocked his exit, and when the man shot at him, he stopped him with a shot to the right shoulder, and took him into custody.

Hospital security, apparently, never responded. He descended five flights and exited via the ER - where the security desk has been located in every freakin' hospital I have ever worked in.

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State on April 2, 2008 at 5:47 PM | PERMALINK

No weapons has been Pizza Hut policy since they started delivering pizzas way back in 1990. . . Were I a driver for them now, I would be carrying. Posted by: Mark

By all means, now that the violent crime rate is lower than it was back in the 1990s.

Moron.

Posted by: Jeff II on April 2, 2008 at 5:58 PM | PERMALINK

So, basically a prominent conservative is coming out in favor of ending at-will employment and summary firing, and drastically reducing the ability of employers to regulate the actions of their employees. Otherwise you're just going to have activist liberal multi-billion dollar corporations like Pizza Hut forcing employees to give up their guns.

Works for me. Welcome to the labor-left, Comrade Instapundit! You're a bit Marxist for my tastes, but no worries.

Posted by: Matt on April 2, 2008 at 6:08 PM | PERMALINK

Jeff II,

Are you going to continue to call people names instead of dealing with actual issue at hand?

Your side of the argument has no facts to stand on. We CCW permit holders are far and away more law abiding than the rest of the population, we don't go pulling our pistol out on people willy nilly, we don't kill people over parking spaces, and we damned sure don't carry because we are compensating for something or have a blood lust.

I will carry if I drive for Pizza Hut simply because a) I can, and b) I take responsibility for my own safety. I will also accept the consequences of such if found out by my supervisor.

If you want to dial 911 and defend yourself with a firearm by proxy, feel free to do so, but don't you dare deign to look down upon or otherwise impugn upon my choice to do otherwise.

Posted by: Mark on April 2, 2008 at 6:32 PM | PERMALINK

The Second Amendment is not about guns. It's about the Constitutionally protected right to kill in self-defense, which many Americans believe to be the true foundation of the republic.

Posted by: dr sardonicus on April 2, 2008 at 6:44 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin, the same arguments in favor of the corporation can be turned on the corporation. A pizza dude has a carry permit. The corporation does not permit the person to carry. The person gets killed. The estate sues in civil court on the grounds of wrongful death. As far as I know this have not happened yet. But all the components are there to have it happen.

The other factor you don't allow for is that many pizza delivery people work as contractors and not employees. So once the contractor leaves for delivery and there is no written defined agency relationship the employer has no basis for telling the contractor how to operate. To do so would violate precedent and would hold them liable to W2 wages per IRS rulings. Kinda defeats the purpose of having a contractor.

As to fears of people carrying guns. Like this does not happen today in many inner cities? So in your mind its ok that some hood will carry a gun but good citizen can't? Pleeeze. Before you go down that line of reasoning you better go do some research on the situation in England where they have banned guns. The only people who have guns now in England are hoods. Nice arrangements for the hoods -- they know the citizenry is defenseless.

Posted by: Dr. Dog on April 2, 2008 at 6:57 PM | PERMALINK

Neil B, I am a righty and you would be surprised how much hell I raise about corporate mentality. Conservatives don't always agree with the corp greed mantra.

Posted by: Dr. Dog on April 2, 2008 at 7:11 PM | PERMALINK

Jeff II, Are you going to continue to call people names instead of dealing with actual issue at hand?
Posted by: Mark

Yes. Especially semi-civilized fucktards with masculinity issues who only feel "protected" when they are packing.

Posted by: Jeff II on April 2, 2008 at 7:13 PM | PERMALINK

I do hate to say controversial things, especially in the presence of a garunteed minimum of 13.5 easily angered hippies and peaceniks, but gun control is completely absurd. Not only is it unconstitutional, but it doesn't make sense in the first place. The founding fathers were smart enough to realize that, but forget those rubes who got this country started. The enlightened elite knows better -___-

Look at it this way: If we outlaw semi automatic weapons (which leaves what, those guns pirates used? Rubber-band-and-a-stick slingshots?) in an effort to create a more peaceful and safer society, we're doing the opposite. Do you think criminals are going to start following laws when the law all of a sudden includes turning in their gun? Of course not! All it does is make sitting ducks of otherwise responsible, licensed gun owners. There are several European examples of gun control resulting in astronomical crime rates. I think it was switzerland that has one of the highest rates and those rates shot up after gun control was put in place. Why? Because the criminals (who don't give a hoot about the law anyway-hence the term "criminal") knew there wouldn't be much opposition from law abiding victims.

I'm sorry if that came across as condescending. Well, not that sorry.

Posted by: mollay_melee on April 2, 2008 at 7:20 PM | PERMALINK

If Pizza Hut had a corporate rule that when hiring a driver, the candidate is informed of the number of assaults (including robbery,muggings murder, etc.) on drivers and then the potential driver can decide for him/her self. If you need to carry to do the job, you shouldn't want to work there.

Posted by: TJM on April 2, 2008 at 7:21 PM | PERMALINK

The delivery guy is alive. Which he might not be, if he hadn't been armed. My own daughter delivered pizzas for a time, sometimes to bad neighborhoods, and I worried every night. These days, if I have to choose a side, I side with the honest working people who have to protect themselves from conscienceless a**holes out for drug money.

Posted by: RebeccaH on April 2, 2008 at 7:46 PM | PERMALINK

Before you go down that line of reasoning you better go do some research on the situation in England where they have banned guns. The only people who have guns now in England are hoods. Nice arrangements for the hoods -- they know the citizenry is defenseless. Posted by: Dr. Dog

Actually, Doggie-Style, it is you who needs to do the research. While it's true that gun violence increased in England (but with gun deaths actually down last year), it's still much lower than it is in the U.S., where people are allowed to lawfully pack heat to "protect" themselves from all the roving bands of thugs hoping to jack pizza delivery people.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/feb/01/uk.ukcrime

http://www.neahin.org/programs/schoolsafety/gunsafety/statistics.htm

More people die in a week from gun shot in the U.S. than die in the UK in a year.


Posted by: Jeff II on April 2, 2008 at 7:52 PM | PERMALINK

Mark -

I applaud your civility and logic.

Whatever possessed you to display those qualities here? The locals don't speak that lingo.

Posted by: TmjUtah on April 2, 2008 at 8:34 PM | PERMALINK
Don't gun-toting guys get themselves killed half the time by bringing guns into the equation? ("Mah aim is alwahs perfeck and ah never get overpowered.")

Actually, no.

According to DOJ statistics, if you attempt to resist a violent crime (like this clearly is) with a firearm, you're half as likely to be injured or killed than you are if you do everything your assailant tells you to without resistance.

Posted by: jesse on April 2, 2008 at 8:48 PM | PERMALINK

The key word in "An armed society is a polite society." is "society". If you don't have a society, but rather chaos (as is the case in Mogadishu, Basra and Baghdad), adding guns will not increase politeness much. Recall also how Michael Moore wondered why the Canadians, with roughly the same proportion of guns as the US, had so much less gun violence.

As to England, they've had increasingly draconian gun restrictions since the 1920s (they were worried about socialist revolutionaries), culminating in a total ban and confiscation of handguns, yet their gun crime stats have gotten consistently worse over time. Note also that they changed their counting methods when the ban went through (remember how Reagan lowered the unemployment numbers through the magic of changing the way they were calculated?) and may well have changed them again since.

Behold the law of unintended consequences.

And -- almost forgot -- oh Great Gazoogle, what say you about dead pizza deliverers?

"Results 1 - 10 of about 1,840,000 for pizza delivery shot killed. (0.29 seconds)"

Posted by: Forrest on April 2, 2008 at 9:06 PM | PERMALINK

Bob Munck said:

In Snow Crash, Neal Stephenson makes a good case for pizza deliverers being armed with powerful, high-tech weapons. His hero, code-named Hiro Protagonist, carries a handgun capable of vaporizing a baseball bat.

Note that a science fiction reference is appropriate here because most of these right-wing cowboys got the basis for their philosophical beliefs from Robert Heinlein. They all consider themselves a modern version of Lazarus Long (mixed with John Galt).

Bob Munck, better get used to the end of your Mister Rogers World. The technological trends of this century (ex. Personal Fabrication) pretty much points towards a future similar to Snow Crash. Homemade high-tech personal weapons means no more gun control and statism. Can't have a socialist utopia when its enforcers in the police and army can be easily defeated by anybody.

Seriously, back on topic, I believe a corporation has a right to prohibit its workers from carrying arms during working hours. BUT if it does so, it should be financially liable for the safety of its employees. Failure to protect its employees who it disarmed should render such a corporation vulnerable to a financially ruinous class-action lawsuit.

Posted by: Robert on April 2, 2008 at 9:18 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin misses a few things. The first is that the fellow had a concealed carry permit, which means he has passed the State course on proper use of a firearm. The second is that the 9th "job most likely to get you dead" is the category under which a pizza delivery person falls; and that is by violent crime not a log falling on your head or falling overboard your fishing vessel. The third is that the desire to be tried by twelve instead of carried by six is an outrageous position. One has the right to defend oneself, it might get you fired (which I have no quarrel with), but it isn't an outrageous prospect particularly given the fact the delivery drivers are often shot after they have given up the dough...so to speak.

The final, and a truly vile, assertion that Mr. Drum makes is the back hand slap at people who deliver pizza.

Frankly, given the average age and disposition of pizza delivery guys,

Exactly what statistics do you have for that Drum, you jackass? Virtually all of them that I have known are working a second job; I have the same couple of men come to my door with pizza and all are working to either pay off debt or to survive in this middle-class crushing economy. Which was why I used to deliver pizza in my 40's.

Drum? You, sir, are an ass. What is it about you that you have to simply make things up to make a point?

Posted by: Jody Dorsett on April 2, 2008 at 9:34 PM | PERMALINK

My state will soon pass a law allowing teachers to carry guns.

Posted by: Brojo on April 2, 2008 at 9:36 PM | PERMALINK


"The occasional angry postal worker to the contrary, workplaces would almost certainly be more dangerous on average if there were lots of loaded guns around..."

Wrong. Everywhere it's tried, it's safer.

People don't mess with you if they think you might be armed.

A 5-year-old in a playground understands this.

Posted by: Chester White on April 2, 2008 at 9:48 PM | PERMALINK

Pizza Hut doesn't want to mess with armed delivery persons, nor do their clients.

Posted by: Brojo on April 2, 2008 at 10:04 PM | PERMALINK

Jody Dorset, Kevin Drum is part of the contemptible ruling class of the West. People like him have no respect for ordinary workers like pizza drivers that take the necessary steps to defend themselves. Another reason to consider the ruling class of the West to be illegitimate. I do not respect its authority nor the authority of its lackeys such as Jeff II.

Posted by: Robert on April 2, 2008 at 10:17 PM | PERMALINK

It's amusingly clear that those spittle-flecked commenters attacking Glenn Reynolds know nothing of his actual beliefs on gun control, or, evidently, on anything else. God forbid anyone should educate themselves just a bit before shooting off (so to speak) their keyboards! Cheaper than an anger-management class, huh? Anyway, thanks for the laughs, folks, and take care.

Posted by: solidstate on April 2, 2008 at 10:27 PM | PERMALINK

While waiting for my earlier post to appear, here is a link for gun banners to ponder for the future. (It was in my earlier post).

http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/90?gclid=CLCN-tfLx5ECFRUmawodbmha3Q

Posted by: Robert on April 2, 2008 at 10:39 PM | PERMALINK

I do not like being around people who carry guns. They might shoot me. At some of the Mexican Hate demonstrations going on in my city, the biker meth pushers flaunt their weapons to intimidate poor Mexicans and their supporters. And they do it with county sheriff deputies standing nearby. I think tacit threats with weapons of deadly force should be a crime.

A few years ago two small business owners who did not know each other started shooting at each other on the freeway. Some guy in another car died. American assholes shoot at each other because they think they can intimidate other people with guns. They probably kill more people than armed robbers do.

Posted by: Brojo on April 2, 2008 at 10:47 PM | PERMALINK

Brojo said:

American assholes shoot at each other because they think they can intimidate other people with guns. They probably kill more people than armed robbers do.

And Mexican assholes don't do it either? Looks like you have sympathy for the robbers but contempt for the American working class.

Posted by: Robert on April 2, 2008 at 10:51 PM | PERMALINK

TmjUtah, what should scare you is that those with the emotion based reasoning on this subject vote.

I normally don't engage the willfully ignorant in comment pages. Consider this a moment of personal weakness.

For all of the "spittle-flecked commenters" (nice one, solidstate), you will never know that I am armed if you are standing next to me in line somewhere. Don't let it worry you, for I believe strongly in "concealed means concealed."
For most of you (except for those living behind enemy lines in the usual suspect states like California or Illinois), you have at some time likely stood next to, or been in line with, someone who was carrying concealed. The firearm didn't jump out of it's holster and shoot you on it's own accord, and the person carrying it didn't have his brain corrupted by the evil nefarious emissions that you scardycats all believe firearms emit. We CCW permit holders are out there in the hundreds of thousands, carrying every day without incident, silently going about our lives despite the mealy mouth protestations of the hoplophobes.

Posted by: Mark on April 2, 2008 at 11:11 PM | PERMALINK

Wow. I honestly can not believe that there are people out there with philosophies so incredibly detached from reality. It boggles the mind that people can actually be so dead set against the basic human right of self defense. Do you people TRULLY believe some of the things you are saying?

Oh, and Jeff II: Perhaps I should point out that many of these WONDERFUL gun control laws we have today were CREATED by racist white men to keep those 'uppity blacks' down? After all, if they didn't do something, black men could get guns too! Best to pass some gun control laws QUICK before the downtrodden and oppressed could get any funny ideas!

Of course, those laws didn't apply to white folk. They could have all the guns they wanted with a wink and a nudge from the authorities. I wonder if things might have got a little different for groups like, say, the KKK... If there hadn't been any gun control and blacks had an easier time getting weapons to defend themselves with.

A century and a half later, and some things haven't changed. The rich, powerful, and politically well connected get to carry guns (and hire armed bodyguards) even as they tell just about everyone else that they can't have any for themselves. It's just less dependent on skin color these days.

And Bruce the Canuck? that's by far the most sexist and disgusting load of BS I've read in some time. And that is more response than your comment truly deserves.

Posted by: Robert1_1 on April 2, 2008 at 11:11 PM | PERMALINK

In the fantasy world of the gun nuts pizza delivery people are walking down the street with their BFG primed and ready - just itching for the moment the bad guys pop out into plain view before shooting.

Of course, the violence for violence sake morons also imagine that difference between a pizza guy carrying a weapon and one who is not is that the guy without a weapon is automatically going to be shot and killed.

Neither of these represent the real world. In the real world the pizza guy has his hands full at several points in the transaction, is distracted by his expected duties, and once the money has changed hands there is little reason for the murder of the pizza guy. If murder were the point then it's a hell of a lot easier to do that first. Which means that the armed pizza guy is no more likely to survive than the unarmed pizza guy; if you are just going to kill someone then you do what all cowards do - you keep yourself out of harm's way and kill from a distance.

Posted by: the on April 2, 2008 at 11:17 PM | PERMALINK

"the" said:

Neither of these represent the real world. In the real world the pizza guy has his hands full at several points in the transaction, is distracted by his expected duties, and once the money has changed hands there is little reason for the murder of the pizza guy. If murder were the point then it's a hell of a lot easier to do that first. Which means that the armed pizza guy is no more likely to survive than the unarmed pizza guy; if you are just going to kill someone then you do what all cowards do - you keep yourself out of harm's way and kill from a distance.

This one is definitely a troll. Didn't even read the fucking story. Google "Poe's Law" to find out.

Posted by: Robert on April 2, 2008 at 11:26 PM | PERMALINK

Here's a definition and example of Poe's Law:

Similar to Murphy's Law, Poe's Law concerns internet debates, particularly regarding religion or politics.
"Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humor, it is impossible to create a parody of Fundamentalism that SOMEONE won't mistake for the real thing."
In other words, No matter how bizzare, outrageous, or just plain idiotic a parody of a Fundamentalist may seem, there will always be someone who cannot tell that it is a parody, having seen similar REAL ideas from real religious/political Fundamentalists.
The following is an actual Internet post to Biblically defend a flat Earth:
"All I was saying was that either the earth is flat, and the bible is correct, or the earth is round, and the bible is incorect, i'm going to study the issue more and deside for myself which route I want to take. Either Atheist evolutionist, who agrees with all of mainstream sciences, or flat earth litteral bible believer. I'm leaning toward being an atheist, because if I can't believe the bible to be completly litteraly true, then I can't believe Jesus when he speaks about heaven, etc.. That would make the moon landing a fake, and pretty much all of modern science false..."
Response:
"That's it, I'm claiming Poe's Law on this guy."
Posted by: Robert on April 2, 2008 at 11:39 PM | PERMALINK

People don't mess with you if they think you might be armed. A 5-year-old in a playground understands this. Posted by: Chester White

Undoubtedly written by someone who as a five-year old got his ass kicked a lot on the playground.

Posted by: Jeff II on April 2, 2008 at 11:42 PM | PERMALINK

If the robber had known the pizza person was armed, he would have shot him in the back then taken the money.

Posted by: Brojo on April 2, 2008 at 11:48 PM | PERMALINK

Robert, you are a fucking moron. Where does my post talk about "the story?" My post is based on general principles. Sure, you're too stupid to understand general principles, but that doesn't mean everyone else on the board is too.

Posted by: the on April 2, 2008 at 11:48 PM | PERMALINK

"the" said:

Robert, you are a fucking moron. Where does my post talk about "the story?" My post is based on general principles. Sure, you're too stupid to understand general principles, but that doesn't mean everyone else on the board is too.

The "Poe" strikes again!

Posted by: Robert on April 3, 2008 at 12:41 AM | PERMALINK

Hey "Poe" err.. I mean "the".. Do you recommend that manned spacecraft be equipped with buggy whips for their horses?

Posted by: Robert on April 3, 2008 at 12:45 AM | PERMALINK

I might point out the obvious, that the the man was able to defend himself despite all of the naysaying here.

While I understand the corporate outlook, better a lowly faceless employee die than expose the company to liability, I can't agree with it.

No one has a right to deny another the inherent right of self defense and no one should have the ability either. A company that denies an employee the right to defend himself should be held criminally and financially liable in the event the employee is harmed because his ability to defend himself goes against "policy".

Reading the comments here it is easy to pick out the individuals who would be, at very best, absolutely useless under pressure in any kind of tough situation. My what a worthless limpwristed bunch we have here.

Posted by: Amused Observer on April 3, 2008 at 12:50 AM | PERMALINK

"the", your general retard principles are the equivalent of you telling me the sky is green and when I look up and see it is not, you tell me my eyes are lying. Your retard principles argue that an armed pizza driver would be too distracted to defend himself yet the real world account shows that he did. Your "truthful" statements or my "lying" eyes, hmmm. Why should I honestly argue with you? You're an obvious troll playing a parody of a doctrinaire gun banner. Don't forget to put your /Sarc tags on next time.

Posted by: Robert on April 3, 2008 at 1:22 AM | PERMALINK

Hey "Poe" err.. I mean "the".. Do you recommend that manned spacecraft be equipped with buggy whips for their horses?
Posted by: Robert

"the" used to go by "heavy" which was awfully close to "dense". It made sense. For some reason the mods here are protective of it and allow it to post under multiple names.

[Checking IPs does not bear this out.]

Posted by: sjrsm on April 3, 2008 at 1:37 AM | PERMALINK

1. Reynolds is a ridiculous person.

2. Like someone said above, I suspect delivering pizzas may be as or more dangerous than being a fireman. Driving a taxi or working at a convenience store is. We need those people too. They makes less far money, receive little or no respect, and they don't get those cushy 24/48s.

3. I delivered for a deli/wings place for a summer during college. By far the least respect I've ever gotten at a job.

Posted by: Mike on April 3, 2008 at 1:43 AM | PERMALINK

Oh look, an troll is insulting me - don't worry gun baby, I have more important things to do than to continue an argument with someone too dense to understand simple English.

Here's a clue for you lackwit, the plural of anecdote isn't data. Does this story demonstrate that in the general case those attempting to rob a pizza guy will always make it easy enough for him to get to his weapon?

Also, does this story demonstrate that this person's actions saved his life? Or have you merely assumed that the only other possible outcome is that his assailant would have murdered him? Where's your support?

Oh that's right, gun huggers aren't required to support their arguments, they can just make claims that the sky is green and we are supposed to believe them.

That's why you are a fucking moron and the fact that you have only come here to support the further descent of our society into a libertarian nightmare marks you as our newest troll.

Congrats.

Posted by: the on April 3, 2008 at 1:45 AM | PERMALINK

It takes three elements to make a hot headed vigilante wannabe: Hollywood hero fantasies, Hollywood physics and the fundamental selfishness shared by all conservatives.

Unlike Hollywood bullets, real bullets ricochet unpredictably and can blow right through a wall or a car door. Real bullets are a hazard to everyone in the room, not just the bad guys. But hot headed vigilante wannabes are going to protect themselves, dammit. They neither know nor care about the threat they pose to everyone around them.

Posted by: Aatos on April 3, 2008 at 2:06 AM | PERMALINK

"the" said:

Oh look, an troll is insulting me - don't worry gun baby, I have more important things to do than to continue an argument with someone too dense to understand simple English.

Here, let me fix your English, "Oh look, a troll is insulting me". There, all better now.

Here's a clue for you lackwit, the plural of anecdote isn't data. Does this story demonstrate that in the general case those attempting to rob a pizza guy will always make it easy enough for him to get to his weapon?

First you need actual data to bolster your point.

Also, does this story demonstrate that this person's actions saved his life? Or have you merely assumed that the only other possible outcome is that his assailant would have murdered him? Where's your support?

Hmmm, lets see, the story (which is the support dumbass) says he used his weapon to save his life. Of course that requires actual English comprehension to understand this.

Oh that's right, gun huggers aren't required to support their arguments, they can just make claims that the sky is green and we are supposed to believe them.

Funny, coming from somebody with no support for his claims. Gun bans prevent criminals from getting guns eh?

And here's something to ponder about the future:

http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/90?gclid=CLCN-tfLx5ECFRUmawodbmha3Q

Care to debunk my link?

You might as well argue that manned spacecraft should have buggy whips installed for their horses. Your gun ban notions are obsolete for the Twenty-First Century.

That's why you are a fucking moron and the fact that you have only come here to support the further descent of our society into a libertarian nightmare marks you as our newest troll.

Ahh, the moralistic value judgement of a fundamentalist, you certainly are a "Poe". Are you going to argue next that the invention of portable molecular manufacturing devices is a diabolical plot by the Evil Demonic Libertarian CabalTM to create rebellion against the Holy and Almighty Righteous Ruling ClassTM?

Now to prevent further confusion, feel free to inform others that you are a "Poe" by using the /Sarc tag.

Lets see if you can debunk my other links on these next posts.

Posted by: Robert on April 3, 2008 at 2:20 AM | PERMALINK

Ex 1

http://www.thehomegunsmith.com/zoomedschematic.shtml

Posted by: Robert on April 3, 2008 at 2:22 AM | PERMALINK

Ex 2


http://iwpr.net/?p=crs&s=f&o=161041&apc_state=henicrs2004

Ex 3

http://books.google.com/books?id=rJMvxL3aa3kC&pg=PA116&lpg=PA116&dq=northwest+frontier+province+homemade+ak&source=web&ots=1VwQrDOfpJ&sig=aHN-sz7reuBizjhujEaZCNpFOaI

This means that even if you somehow make black market gun smuggling dissappear, if criminals have a demand for guns, they will still get them.

Posted by: Robert on April 3, 2008 at 2:24 AM | PERMALINK

I would like to see some more information. If Pizza Hut forces drivers to deliver unarmed in bad neighborhoods, logically they should be liable for putting employees in jeopardy.

There are unwritten rules of driving that suburban libs might not appreciate, like if you find the address you're delivering to is a project with gang members handling security at the doors and elevators and someone is firing from the windows. I know a medicar driver who ran into that situation. Like Sgt. Phil Esterhaus used to say on Hill Street Blues, "Let's be careful out there."

Posted by: Luther on April 3, 2008 at 2:26 AM | PERMALINK

Aatos said:

Unlike Hollywood bullets, real bullets ricochet unpredictably and can blow right through a wall or a car door. Real bullets are a hazard to everyone in the room, not just the bad guys. But hot headed vigilante wannabes are going to protect themselves, dammit. They neither know nor care about the threat they pose to everyone around them.

Another ignoramus speaks. The idiot doesn't even know a thing about hollowpoints or Glaser slugs. I guess that pizza driver was a "hotheaded vigilante" for defending his life. Way to blame the victim jackass.

Posted by: Robert on April 3, 2008 at 2:28 AM | PERMALINK

the - The onus is not on us "gun nuts" to prove our case. It is on you and yours to prove that what you claim increased "gun control" laws are intended to do actually happens as a result of the more restrictive law.
Thus far, your side has a .000 average.
No "gun control" law in the United States has ever worked as a crime control measure.
So, instead of "try the same old failed policy again, but harder this time!", how's about thinking of something else, and leave us "gun nuts" alone?

Posted by: Mark on April 3, 2008 at 4:31 AM | PERMALINK

1. Civilian gun bans don't work:
See Great Britain as example
2. States with concealed carry laws have seen a reduction in gun crimes. (muggers/thieves want to live)
3. Nowhere has a 'wild west' scenario been reborn. Anti-gun nutjobs have no evidence of this.

Conclusion: falliable bleeding heart antics will always be disproven by logic and the cold hard facts.

Posted by: patriot on April 3, 2008 at 8:27 AM | PERMALINK

Of course this could change the punch line of one of my favorite jokes: How do you get the drummer off your front porch? Pay for the pizza.

Armed drummers? Probably a big mistake.

Posted by: dcBill on April 3, 2008 at 9:35 AM | PERMALINK

The gun huggers still at it I see. Still thinking that one story makes for a trend. Still claiming that the lower gun violence in Great Britain means that "gun bans don't work." And posting non-sequitors about black market guns.

The question isn't "gun ban, or no?" the question is - should food delivery people go about armed, or is that just an invitation to more violence?

What a pack of nitwits. It's as if they had an agenda, used that agenda to pick their facts, and then ignored everything else. Clue: the sky - still not green and someone saying that a gun saved their life doesn't prove that, in the absence of the gun they would have been murdered - it just means that your typical gun hugger can't think beyond black and green.

Posted by: the on April 3, 2008 at 11:26 AM | PERMALINK

Here's the only link needed to refute the gun nuts:

Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt

Why? Because it shows what happens when you begin to differentiate between small probability events and high probability events.

Posted by: the on April 3, 2008 at 1:11 PM | PERMALINK

No "gun control" law in the United States has ever worked as a crime control measure.Posted by: Mark

That's because relatively few crimes committed in the U.S. involve guns. However, gun laws go a long way in preventing gun related crimes, and would go a lot further if it weren't for the shits in the NRA and other gun nuts that prevent the truly draconian kind of gun laws we really need.

Posted by: Jeff II on April 3, 2008 at 2:58 PM | PERMALINK

Bah! New gun laws don't prevent gun related crimes. They just CREATE gun related crimes. Hey, guess what? You know all those gang bangers, drug dealers, and career criminals who produce most of the gun violence in this country? They're ALREADY criminals. Many of them already have rap sheets and felonies. And guess what that means? That's right! They're not allowed to own guns! But hey, why not pass a new law saying any weapon with a bayonet lug and a barrel shroud is illegal? Sure, it changes nothing for the crooks and scumbags who ALREADY illegaly own weapons. But it turns a whole bunch of otherwise law abiding citizens into criminals if they don't fork over their weapons.

Anyway, it's a lot easier to harrass law abiding gun owners than those pesky criminal ones who have a tendancy to shoot back. Much easier to pass some more stupid gun laws, then enforce them against the newly created criminals who are least likely to be doing anything else wrong. It's a great way to show that the police are 'Doing Something.'

A couple of months ago they nabbed some guy in my area. He was a 60 or 70 year old man who had a collection of old WWII pistols and rifles. As I ecall they were 'kind' enough not to prosecute him on weapons charges. Instead they 'only' seized his collection, which will now be destroyed. Yeah, it's a good thing the cops god those weapons off the streets. Who knows WHAT kind of damage that old man might have caused if they hadn't!

Posted by: Robert1_1 on April 3, 2008 at 4:38 PM | PERMALINK

Jeff II said:

That's because relatively few crimes committed in the U.S. involve guns. However, gun laws go a long way in preventing gun related crimes, and would go a lot further if it weren't for the shits in the NRA and other gun nuts that prevent the truly draconian kind of gun laws we really need.

So what does one call someone who continously posts statements that have been falsified by previous posters?

A rotten scumbag LIAR.
Good job little Goebbels.

Posted by: Robert on April 3, 2008 at 5:32 PM | PERMALINK

I don't have time to read all the other comments, so please forgive me if I repeat something that has gone before.

It seems to me that Mr. Drum is seriously confusing cause and effect in his op-ed. We can see it in the following passage...

"Do they really think that, for example, pizza delivery guys should routinely wear sidearms and engage in gun battles with crooks, and that employers should (apparently) have no right to prevent it?"

Mr. Drum seems to think that it is more important for employers to prevent an employee from lawfully defending themselves from violent criminal acts, instead of preventing the attack in the first place. Don't employers have a duty to provide a safe work environment?

Armed people act as a deterrent to violent criminal acts, which is why banks have armed guards.

But Mr. Drum seems to think that someone who is legally entitled to carry a concealed weapon is a danger to public safety...

"Frankly, given the average age and disposition of pizza delivery guys, I'd just as soon not have a city full of sidearmed pizza deliverers, and Pizza Hut would probably just as soon not get sued when one of these guys ends up shooting someone who stiffed him on the bill or got into an argument over whether he ordered anchovies on his pie."

The driver in question had a CCW license, and it has been proven again and again that they are the least violent and most law abiding members of our society. Why do people who favor gun control laws keep repeating the falsehood that law abiding people who carry guns are more likely to become a danger to others, when it is so clear that the reverse is true?

I can only conclude that Mr. Drum is a prejudiced bigot, and the facts simply don't matter.

James R. Rummel

Posted by: James R. Rummel on April 3, 2008 at 6:10 PM | PERMALINK

Glibertarians and republicans like Insta are primarily motivated by penis issues. Consequently, the prospect of simply handing over your employer's $ or pizza to an armed robber isn't considered; it's all about how you can resist this insult to your manhood by risking your life for $20 of someone else's money.

The fact that studies show you're far more likely to get killed resisting an armed robber than giving them what they want is beside the point, since that would be a fate worse than death to an insecure male. (I.e. a right wing male.)

Posted by: Flux on April 3, 2008 at 6:20 PM | PERMALINK

Flux said:

Glibertarians and republicans like Insta are primarily motivated by penis issues. Consequently, the prospect of simply handing over your employer's $ or pizza to an armed robber isn't considered; it's all about how you can resist this insult to your manhood by risking your life for $20 of someone else's money.

So Dr. Helen has penis issues? You do know that people can be killed after they complied, right?

The fact that studies show you're far more likely to get killed resisting an armed robber than giving them what they want is beside the point, since that would be a fate worse than death to an insecure male. (I.e. a right wing male.)

Good to know that you have the Big Lie technique down pat.

Posted by: Robert on April 3, 2008 at 7:01 PM | PERMALINK

At the Phoenix Open a few years ago a man was verbally harassing Tiger Woods. A plainclothes policeman asked the man, without identifying himself, to stop his verbal assault. The man told the person asking him to stop shouting at Tiger that he had a gun and he could not stop him. He was then arrested. The gun holder had a concealed weapons permit. He used his concealed weapon to intimidate someone who confronted his antisocial behavior at an event with tens of thousands of people standing around. A concealed weapon permit is not a validation the gun holder is not an asshole or a racist or a mass murderer.

A couple of years ago up in the woods a retired man, a teacher, was taking a walk alone on a park trail. This man was armed. Another man was on the trail with two unleashed dogs, who broke and ran at the retired man. The retired man said he felt threatened by the dogs and pulled out his gun. The person walking the dogs saw this and ran towards the man with the gun yelling not to shoot his dogs. The man with the gun shot the man walking his dogs. The man walking his dogs had no weapons. The man with the gun was not bitten or attacked by the dogs, even after shooting the person who was walking them. The man with the gun argued self-defense at his trial. He received a life sentence. He was not responsible enough to carry a gun and he killed an innocent man because he was scared. He had a gun and he found a reason to use it.

The prisons are filled with people who would not have killed their loved ones, or because they were unjustifiably scared and killed other innocents, if they would not have had a weapon of deadly force available for use. Guns are very deadly weapons, and easy to use without having to move close to the victim or make a mess.

Too many Americans want guns. Too many guns are already owned by them. Guns cannot be outlawed because of the constitution and because of the reaction gun owners have when threatened with disarmament. They want to shoot the people who want to take away their guns.

Taking away a weapon when no crime has been committed stimulates its use. Since that is the case, civil responses other than gun prohibition to the epidemic of gun usage might be to make unjustifiable gun usage very punitive, that guy at the Open should have been given jail time or fined to hell, encourage social intolerance of gun ownership and culture, and tax them like cigarettes.

Posted by: Brojo on April 3, 2008 at 9:44 PM | PERMALINK

"the" Puppet of the Overclass said:

The question isn't "gun ban, or no?" the question is - should food delivery people go about armed, or is that just an invitation to more violence?
What a pack of nitwits. It's as if they had an agenda, used that agenda to pick their facts, and then ignored everything else. Clue: the sky - still not green and someone saying that a gun saved their life doesn't prove that, in the absence of the gun they would have been murdered - it just means that your typical gun hugger can't think beyond black and green.
Here's the only link needed to refute the gun nuts:
Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt
Why? Because it shows what happens when you begin to differentiate between small probability events and high probability events.

"the" is then refuted by James R. Rummel on April 3, 2008 at 6:10 PM .

In another post "Poe" err... "Heavy" err... I mean "the" said:

Still claiming that the lower gun violence in Great Britain means that "gun bans don't work."

With this sentence, I presume that "the" is implying that the UK's gun bans are the cause of lower gun crime rate instead of differences in criminal culture (Idaho is awash in guns with classically liberal gun laws, Louisiana is awash in guns with classically liberal gun laws yet Louisiana has a gun crime rate that is an order of magnitude greater. Can you guess why? Culture). "the" drone has posted this sentence after I posted links that falsified the notion that gun bans can stop criminals from getting guns. Remember "the" has failed miserably to debunk my links yet decided to post that sentence.

Ladies and Gentlemen, by posting a statement that was refuted before (P.R.A.T.T.) means that "the" is a fucking liar. This fascist pig is practicing the tried and true technique of fascists, the Big Lie. Maybe this robot of the Ruling Class should be programmed in a continuous loop, repeating false notions on a thousand posts in order to "win" an argument.

Posted by: Robert on April 3, 2008 at 10:08 PM | PERMALINK

Brojo said this,

At the Phoenix Open a few years ago a man was verbally harassing Tiger Woods. A plainclothes policeman asked the man, without identifying himself, to stop his verbal assault. The man told the person asking him to stop shouting at Tiger that he had a gun and he could not stop him. He was then arrested. The gun holder had a concealed weapons permit. He used his concealed weapon to intimidate someone who confronted his antisocial behavior at an event with tens of thousands of people standing around. A concealed weapon permit is not a validation the gun holder is not an asshole or a racist or a mass murderer.

even after James R. Rummel and other earlier posters posted data that refutes this anecdote. Issuing P.R.A.T.T.'s is a classic fundamentalist tactic.

Brojo said:

Too many Americans want guns. Too many guns are already owned by them. Guns cannot be outlawed because of the constitution and because of the reaction gun owners have when threatened with disarmament. They want to shoot the people who want to take away their guns.

You wonder why this is? Because the same people like you want to send armed thugs against Middle America while coddling gang bangers at the same time. You have contempt for the American working class while having sympathy for armed robbers and you wonder why we consider your authority to be illegitimate!

Have fun being a marionette for the Lords and Masters.

Posted by: Robert on April 3, 2008 at 10:26 PM | PERMALINK

The concealed weapon harasser and the scared old man were typical gun owners. Using guns to bolster a weak ego or to defend against nonexistent demons is why most people own guns.

Posted by: Brojo on April 4, 2008 at 12:12 AM | PERMALINK

The Ruling Class's Butt-Boy Brojo repeats his Big Lie after it was refuted by earlier posters:

The concealed weapon harasser and the scared old man were typical gun owners. Using guns to bolster a weak ego or to defend against nonexistent demons is why most people own guns.

Serial lying is a pathology.

defend against nonexistent demons is why most people own guns

Oh this is easy to refute. Here is the rebuttal:
The process of evolution by natural selection for approx. 3.5 billion years is not a "nonexistent demon".

Posted by: Robert on April 4, 2008 at 12:30 AM | PERMALINK

Careful Drum, your ignorance is showing...

"To my mind it is wholly irresponsible to go into the world incapable of preventing violence, injury, crime, and death. How feeble is the mindset to accept defenselessness. How unnatural. How cheap. How cowardly. How pathetic."

--Ted Nugent

Posted by: retro on April 4, 2008 at 11:03 AM | PERMALINK

The employer has the right to make it their policy that employees don't carry guns. People who disagree with their dumb policy also have the right to ridicule it and to not patronize them. Just because you criticize something doesn't mean you think it should be illegal. No one would have ever known this guy carried a weapon except that he needed to use it. If a lot of delivery drivers carried weapons (with proper permits) they would probably be victims of violence a lot less. The company doesn't have to encourage their driver's to carry in order to not penalize someone who used a firearm appropriately on the job. Just because you have a policy doesn't mean you have to fire someone for breaking it. I for one won't be going to KFC, Taco Bell, A&W, Long John Silvers, Pizza Hut or any other Yum Brands stores if they don't treat this victim of crime properly. Breaking the company policy saved his life. Seems appropriate for the company to exercise a little prudence in enforcing its policy.

Posted by: TheSnakeGuy on April 4, 2008 at 1:23 PM | PERMALINK

"Apparently Kevin would have preferred the delivery guy be killed."

I believe so. First, because the guy was a gun owner and Kevin obviously hates us gun owners and secondly it'd give him another reason to scream about banning guns.

I fully believe that if businesses like Pizza Hut advertised that their delivery people were armed there'd be a sharp decline in robberies/attacks on pizza delivery people.

Posted by: Ironweed on April 4, 2008 at 1:32 PM | PERMALINK

It's astounding to me to see how many non-gun-owning types in this discussion believe that an inanimate object like a gun has the ability to magically change its possessor from a normal law-abiding human being into a psycho killer. And, how many slurs are made against people merely because they own a gun. Where's that tolerance that liberalism espouses?

The UK may have an overall crime rate lower than the US, but the crime rate in London, including the violent crime rate, is much higher than in New York City. Why is that? The crime rate in Seattle is much higher on a per-capita basis than it is in Redmond (a suburb). Why is that?

Several years ago, a comparison of the homicide rate was made between Vancouver BC Canada and Seattle WA USA... two cities about 200 miles apart. Seattle's homicide rate was much higher, until it was adjusted by race. When blacks as victims were excluded from the stats, Seattle actually had a much LOWER homicide rate? Why is that?

The answer is simple: culture (socio-economic factors). The crime level in inner city Los Angeles is astoundingly high. The crime level in Beverly Hills and Bel Air is astoundingly low. Low income areas with low percentages of intact families are rife with violence, regardless of the ethnic constituency. Combine a lack of role models for positive values with a premium based upon 'macho' illegal role models (drug dealers, pimps, gangsters, etc.), and you have a recipe for violence.

As someone said, rural areas that are conservative and strongly religious have very low levels of violent crime, even though the percentage of gun owners is very high (the vast majority). Therefore, guns cannot be a causative factor in crime. However, guns can, and are, an exacerbative factor (they make violence-prone people more effective, i.e., deadly).

Here's my solution, which I know 'liberals' will find unacceptable: let everyone who wants to own a gun, and then make murder (the killing of another without justification, e.g., that person was trying to injure or kill you, or steal your property) of any sort, with any weapon a capital crime punished by public executions. Sounds harsh... but since it's a well-known fact that a very small percentage of the population commits nearly all of the violent crime, the murder rate would eventually diminish to very low numbers.

The problem with most liberals, though, is that they're perfectly willing to infringe upon the rights of the collective while lacking the integrity to hold individuals responsible for their own behavior. Liberals don't trust others.

Posted by: ObiJohn on April 4, 2008 at 5:25 PM | PERMALINK




 

 

Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM



buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly