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

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

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?

Right.

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.

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.

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.

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

"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?

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?

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

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

"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.

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.

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.

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.

Tyro,

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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

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?

"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?

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.

A life is worth a lot more than ten pizzas.

Yours? Two pizzas. Three if you leave.

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

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?

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.

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.

"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.

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.

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.

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.

"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.

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.

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).

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.

"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.

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.

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

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.

*

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?

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.

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.

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.

The level of discourse in this thread really is pathetic.

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.

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.

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

"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!

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.

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?

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

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

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?

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...

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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?

. . . (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.

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.

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.")

"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.

"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.

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.

"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?

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.

"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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

"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!"

"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?

"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.

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.

"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.

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.

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.

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.

No weapons has been Pizza Hut policy since they started delivering pi