• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Shooting at My Safeway

jbone

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2008
Messages
2,230
Location
WA
imported post

New Daddy wrote:
Things may have changed, but most companies don't want their stores to have armed security. I worked as store security back in the 80s for a grocery store, which I believe was owned by the same company that now owns Safeway.

They paid for us to go through firearms training, then decided that we couldn't carry. Seems that in one of the Chicago area store an off duty police officer that was carrying got into an out and out firefight with a couple of gangbangers who decided to rob the store. Over 50 rounds fired and all that (don't remember if anyone was shot). At that moment, the company decided that they didn't want the liability of having armed security.
Well the least they could do is post signs at the enterances;

*Warning* Armed criminals areconducting hazardous activities to shoppers in the store.Shopat your own risk, not responsibility for loss of life, injury, money or any other personal property while shopping at Safeway. Thank you for shopping at Safeway! Please Duck and Cover, and please come again!
 

Tawnos

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2008
Messages
2,542
Location
Washington
imported post

Mainsail wrote:
America already has among the toughest prisons, and highest incarceration rates in the first world. What makes you think more of the same will somehow magically work where it hasn't thus far?

That’s why I proposed something that wasn’t more of the same. I think you missed something in my reply. Toughest in the free world? Who cares? It’s not a contest and setting up a legal system based on such a metric is self defeating. Right now inmates have free time to use as they please; I got less than that in basic training. Prison, especially for a repeat offender, should be so horrific that it gives one pause, a long pause at that, before one repeats the behavior.

Rosa Parks should have just gone to the back of the bus. She deserved to be punished for civil disobedience of an unjust law.

Let the big kids talk for now, ok? Judging from that response it might be better if you listen instead.
Maybe you miss the point. Setting up a system of law that is brutally punishing and has mandatory minimum sentences causes more problems than it solves. A prosecutor, judge, and jury are often given situations such as the one I proposed on page 1. If the person is sentenced under such harsh conditions, a person who only was trying to help a friend will be put in the same harsh treatment as a hardened criminal with no remorse. The result is often that prosecutors or juries are reluctant to convict on crimes because the sentencing guidelines are seen as overly punitive for the situation, but no alternative exists except to declare "not guilty." With that comes variability and, as psychology will tell you, variable reward is the most addicting kind. Criminals (real ones, ones who harm others) lose their fear of the justice system. It's not because the punishment isn't harsh enough, but because the risk is small compared to the rewards. Moreover, they know that so many bullshiat laws are being prosecuted, they'll likely serve only a fraction of any sentence they receive.

The alternative to this seems clear. Decriminalize those crimes that don't victimize another. If you want to smoke cannabis, inject heroin, or snort cocaine, go ahead. If the result of that directly impacts another - you abuse your children, crash a car, whatever, then you get prosecuted for that harm. Same goes for imminent threat of such harm - getting caught driving under the influence, for example - it's assault. With the resulting massive decrease in the imprisoned population, punishments can be carried out in full, and some of their efficacy can be restored.

Beyond that, my comment about Ms Parks was to point out the absurdity of saying "what's illegal is illegal." Without a challenge to the law, pointing out its injustice, many never get fired up enough to change it. The question shouldn't be "is it illegal?" but "why is it illegal?" and "is making it illegal effecting the desired outcome?" Prohibition has repeatedly shown that NO, making something illegal doesn't get the desired outcome (e.g. gun ban in DC/Chicago - high gun murders). After 75+ years of prohibition, 25+ years of the "drug war", and no clear progress on any front, it shocks me that anyone still thinks it's effective. The affect, if any, has simply been to strengthen ruthless international gangs, operating in a paramilitary fashion to deliver the goods the American public demands. Those laws have made the criminals rich, destabilized worldwide governments, and have utterly failed to remove the targeted goods from our streets.

So sure, advocate that unjust laws should stick around. Imply that I lack mental acuity because I challenge your notion of justice. But know that in doing so, you show only your own unwillingness to think, to put forth topical reasoning, and to actually show how my argument is flawed.
 

grishnav

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 31, 2008
Messages
736
Location
Seattle, Washington, USA
imported post

Mainsail wrote:
I think the answer is making prison a lot less fun than it already isn't.
That's only because you haven't thought enough.

Ok, so lets say you're Magic Mainsail and any policy you come up with gets applied magically if you want it to. Magic Mainsail goes ahead and decrees this new justice system into existence. What happens?

Drug dealers know that the first time they get caught, it's a cakewalk. They use this time between when they start dealing and when they first get caught to establish their business. Advertise, win clients, lock down their supply chain, etc. Do all the really risky stuff involved in starting a business.

Enter Danni Dealer. Danni Dealer has established a good business, is making lots of money, and has already done his cake walk. In fact, he remembers his cakewalk fondly, as it actually got him street cred among the other dealers as "the real thing" and it opened doors to new suppliers and clientele for him. After all, no cop would do the cake walk, and snitches don't have to do the whole thing, so everyone knows that Danni is clean to do business with. Getting caught for the first time becomes somewhat like getting your CHL: Not strictly necessary, but helpful. It's your "good guy" (or in this case, "bad guy") card.

Danni's business is more successful than ever. With his new connections, he's been able to expand his business beyond his wildest dreams. Unfortunately, today is an unlucky day for Danni. Today is the day he runs into Officer Friendly.

As Danni see's Officer Friendly approaching, he knows he's already done his cakewalk. He knows that, no matter what, he can't go back to jail, as the second time won't be so much fun. He's already made his millions, and he's ready to split town, but he has to deal with this Officer Friendly situation. As Office Friendly approaches, Danni is acutely aware of the fact that his risk of getting caught has just shot up to nearly 100%, and he doesn't want to pay out the cost of that risk. So Danni starts running through his available risk management strategies. Danni knows that the officer has already called in his location, but figures there's a good chance he hasn't called for backup yet, especially since his pistol is holstered. Danni outdraws Friendly and guns him down. Friendly wasn't even approaching Danni, he was walking past him to the Starbucks behind on his lunch break.

Danni knows everyone in the area is in the process of calling 911 and reporting the gunshots. He knows he's got only precious few minutes before the cavalry shows up. Danni spots a car he's proficient at stealing, hops in, and drives away, never to be heard from again.

As a result of the tragedy, the city went around collecting the handguns of everyone, so that they wouldn't have to have another officer shot for going to Starbucks. Danni retired in Canada, where he spends his days skidding around the icy roads in his Maserati. He opened a business selling the same plants he sold down here, legally, and employs several. The owner of the stolen Honda Civic was proud to get out of his piece of @#$% car. The Friendlys still mourn the loss of their husband and father to this day.

Net result of Magic Mailsail policy: Danni retires a millionaire, 1 cop dead, 1 car stolen. Some people smoke pot.

Net result of Grishnav policy: Danni is still a struggling, tax paying small business owner, who would never even think of stealing a car or killing a cop. Some people smoke pot.

Which world do you want to live in?
 

Mainsail

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
1,533
Location
Silverdale, Washington, USA
imported post

Tawnos wrote:
Mainsail wrote:
America already has among the toughest prisons, and highest incarceration rates in the first world. What makes you think more of the same will somehow magically work where it hasn't thus far?

That’s why I proposed something that wasn’t more of the same. I think you missed something in my reply. Toughest in the free world? Who cares? It’s not a contest and setting up a legal system based on such a metric is self defeating. Right now inmates have free time to use as they please; I got less than that in basic training. Prison, especially for a repeat offender, should be so horrific that it gives one pause, a long pause at that, before one repeats the behavior.

Rosa Parks should have just gone to the back of the bus. She deserved to be punished for civil disobedience of an unjust law.

Let the big kids talk for now, ok? Judging from that response it might be better if you listen instead.
Beyond that, my comment about Ms Parks was to point out the absurdity of saying "what's illegal is illegal." Without a challenge to the law, pointing out its injustice, many never get fired up enough to change it.
Not quite. I challenge the ridiculousness of comparing a racially biased law (Rosa Parks) with the distribution of dangerous, unregulated, non-prescribed, and illegal drugs. I’m not going to debate the worthiness of the current drug laws, it won’t get us anywhere and is off the already off topic. The OP described a shooting at a grocery store between drug pushers; I contend the laws that would punish them have proven ineffective. We can discuss that without allowing the debate to degrade into broad-brush nonsense. If you believe legalizing drugs that’s your opinion and I’ll entertain it. If, however, your argument is so vacuous that you’re going to use foolish comparisons in a weak attempt to make your point, I will not.
 

grishnav

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 31, 2008
Messages
736
Location
Seattle, Washington, USA
imported post

Machoduck wrote:
Legal drugs have regulations as to purity, strength, labeling, etc., where illegal drugs have none precisely because they are illegal.

MD
Oh. Now I get what he was trying to say. Lol!

None the less, if being "unregulated" is a bad thing, the legalize them so that you can regulate them. :)
 

Tawnos

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2008
Messages
2,542
Location
Washington
imported post

Mainsail wrote:
Not quite. I challenge the ridiculousness of comparing a racially biased law (Rosa Parks) with the distribution of dangerous, unregulated, non-prescribed, and illegal drugs. I’m not going to debate the worthiness of the current drug laws, it won’t get us anywhere and is off the already off topic. The OP described a shooting at a grocery store between drug pushers; I contend the laws that would punish them have proven ineffective. We can discuss that without allowing the debate to degrade into broad-brush nonsense. If you believe legalizing drugs that’s your opinion and I’ll entertain it. If, however, your argument is so vacuous that you’re going to use foolish comparisons in a weak attempt to make your point, I will not.
If you read the history of Marijuana prohibition in this country, including such upstanding men as Anslinger, you'd realize that the basis for most drug prohibition was racial. I contend that the gangbanging drug pushers wouldn't exist if you had, say, Marlboro greens, Pfitzer psilocybin, etc. For the same reason you don't see people getting poisoned daily from drinking moonshine, moving production and control out of the domain of the gangs and into the domain of corporations and/or small businesses would reduce the harm. Not only would it help MachoDuck's question of purities, but it would eliminate the flow of money into the pockets of gangsters.

Without that money, without that incentive, there would be no drug-pushers to shoot each other at the grocery store.

The benefits extend beyond that, though. By removing or at least reducing the stigmatization of drug users, those addicted could seek help without fearing the repercussions. Less money would need to be spent on government-driven policing efforts both here and abroad.

To bring this back onto the topic of firearms, though, look at where some of our most restrictive laws have come in response to. Gangsters during alcohol prohibition used automatic weapons in the commission of their crimes. With the rise of gangs and "gangster weapons," the government cracked down on the weapons. The result hurt all of us, as it lead up to the Miller decision which has, until Heller, been the horrible court ruling that has upheld egregious restrictions on our rights. Hence why I think equating legality with morality is dumb. Hence why I use an example where an illegal act was morally just. The argument is neither vacuous nor foolish, because it relates profoundly to our modern situation, and may in fact be something we have to consider in the future. If 9.41.290 is ever repealed, we may be forced to engage in civil protest, and be arrested for it, in order to show the lunacy of prohibiting law abiding citizens from bearing arms. I hope that day never comes, but I think the mere fact we'd consider it shows that not all laws are created equal.
 

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,188
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
imported post

Excellent point.

Folks tend to see such discussions as off-topic; I see these issues as inextricably linked.

The fact is that the US does have higher handgun homicide rates than most of the first world. "Liberals" blame a lack of gun control, "conservatives" blame a lack of severe criminal justice; neither is something I believe we need in our country, nor something I want.

But the reality is that these high homicide rates are mostly gang-on-gang violence. Even gang-on-citizen violence is likely encouraged by the violent lifestyle gang members live. And what drives the gang problem? Why is that worse than in other first-world countries? As grishnav's hypothetical scenario demonstrated, it's precisely the severity with which we (attempt to) prosecute our War on Drugs that drives the profits up (static demand and increased risk of supply), and impel so many inner city youths into lives of violence.

As long as our country seems as violent as a South American country (they tend to have nasty prisons too, BTW. Lot of good it does them :quirky), the gun control agenda will have fuel. Ending prohibition is the most practicable way to reduce the gun violence, eliminate the Brady Bunch's steam, all the while expanding liberty rather than restricting it with ever more authoritarian, ineffective, barbaric penal practices.

I want to live in a free country. I'd like to live in a peaceful country. The solution advocated by DEROS and Mainsail will only dig us inextricably deeper. The alternative promises both FREEDOM and a peaceable society.
 

SigPacker

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2009
Messages
116
Location
, ,
imported post

Right now I'm chilling at the Safeway with DEROS72 drinking coffee... so far nothings happening... I'm going to start editing photos here in a bit.
 

Manu

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2009
Messages
504
Location
South Puget Sound, Washington, USA
imported post

I was there at US Bank saw Deros as I started walking towards him saw him with few other folks so I decided to crash party. So I walked out. Yes I was OCing. Bank tellers like always admired me/my gun :)
 

DEROS72

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 18, 2008
Messages
2,817
Location
Valhalla
imported post

Manu why didn't you come over? Would love to see ya.I honestly didn't see you there.
 

SigPacker

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2009
Messages
116
Location
, ,
imported post

The quick meetup was great - I was surprised at how many people came up and said hello to Deros72 - the starbucks cashier didnt even notice me carrying for quite some time - her reaction was priceless "You have one too!!???"

Only "negative" reaction was the disgusted look the people had in the line behind me - but then again their faces could be permanently stuck that way... lol

Hope to head that way again! Its only about 10 min from my place!
 
Top