Music store to arm employees

[Stuart]

. . .I take it you didn't actually read the article. They stole guitars worth a good chunk of change, and they were robbing the store at night already.

Oh, I read it. What it shows is that the store is in a high-crime area and is thus (and by inevitable implication its staff and customers) is at risk. The fact they had three robberies in quick succession means the store is targeted. What the staff carrying guns leans is that any further robberies will take place at night - which is better than in daytime. A nightime robbery means no cash therefore the thieves have to fence the goods - and fences are usually police informers. So, that gives an extra chance at catching them.

The idea of the guns isn't to stop the night-time crimes, its to stop the local perps from trying something worse.

[The Romulan Republic]

Take a look at TDCJ website and read the details of the offenses for which people are on death row. Then follow it up with every other DCJ website (the Clark County one HERE is good. At least half and probably more are on people who robbed a store and then killed the store clerk(s) to eliminate the witness(es). It may not be every robbery but are you prepared to bet your life that a criminal robbing your store isn't going to kill you? And if you're not, why should you demand that somebody else should take that risk?

Well, I suppose there's a risk either way. The robber might have been going to kill the employees, but if they try to physically take him down (weather with a gun or by some other means) and don't quickly succeed, he is probably a lot more likely to kill them afterward as a result.

Also, start a firefight in a store, and you risk "friendly fire" killings of customers/passersby on the street.

[fgalkin]

Take a look at TDCJ website and read the details of the offenses for which people are on death row. Then follow it up with every other DCJ website (the Clark County one HERE is good. At least half and probably more are on people who robbed a store and then killed the store clerk(s) to eliminate the witness(es). It may not be every robbery but are you prepared to bet your life that a criminal robbing your store isn't going to kill you? And if you're not, why should you demand that somebody else should take that risk?

You mean, people on death row are there for murder? What an amazing revelation!

Now, please enlighten us as to what a percentage of robberies end up with killing the staff. You know, the question being asked?

Now, arming the employees would have made sense....if the store was robbed during the day. As it is being robbed at night, quite successfully, I don't see what arming employees during the day does to help it.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[Stuart]

You mean, people on death row are there for murder? What an amazing revelation!

No, not really. But, the important point is that the prevalence of people there who killed their victims as part of a robbery establishes the fact that it an event that does occur.

Now, please enlighten us as to what a percentage of robberies end up with killing the staff. You know, the question being asked?

ahhh, you mean the question that doesn't matter. It doesn't matter what the percentage is, it could be one percent, ten percent or a hundred percent. What matters is that it does happen and that people knew it does happen and that it could happen to them if they go along meekly with the criminals. The idea that cooerating with the perps will save your life died on 9/11/01. The fact is that once the perps burst in and stage their robbery, you have no knowledge of whether they will kill you or not.

Put it another way. If you are kneeling down in the store with a gun to your head and the firing pin about to hit the exposed primer, will it really comfort you to think "Ah well, there was only a three percent chance of this happening."

The actual percentage doesn't matter because to the person it happens to, it's a 100 percent chance.

Now, arming the employees would have made sense....if the store was robbed during the day. As it is being robbed at night, quite successfully, I don't see what arming employees during the day does to help it.

It makes sure that the night robberies stay night robberies. We know that store is targetted as being vulnerable and lucrative; it's a racing certainty that the crimes will escalate and eventually involve daylight robberies when the till is full and there are people there to be looted. The fact the staff will be armed and able to resist makes that eventuality less likely. It's not perfect but it is the best we can hope for.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin[/quote]

[Lord of the Abyss]

Now, please enlighten us as to what a percentage of robberies end up with killing the staff. You know, the question being asked?

ahhh, you mean the question that doesn't matter. It doesn't matter what the percentage is, it could be one percent, ten percent or a hundred percent. What matters is that it does happen and that people knew it does happen and that it could happen to them if they go along meekly with the criminals.

And resisting could also get them killed. And having guns on site could easily mean that they kill each other or a customer when someone loses his temper or screws up and discharges a gun accidentally. If percentages don't matter, how do you decide between the competing dangers?

Personally, guns or not I'd expect the workers to most likely run or let the thieves have what they want.

[fgalkin2]

No, not really. But, the important point is that the prevalence of people there who killed their victims as part of a robbery establishes the fact that it an event that does occur.

No one disputed that. The question is how likely it is.

ahhh, you mean the question that doesn't matter. It doesn't matter what the percentage is, it could be one percent, ten percent or a hundred percent. What matters is that it does happen and that people knew it does happen and that it could happen to them if they go along meekly with the criminals.

That is a silly way to approach it. Pulling a gun on an armed robber is almost certain to result in violence. Not doing so only might do so. To justify the risk of doing so, one must compare the two. If one is far more likely to be killed by an armed robber if one resists, then your advice is counterproductive and is a sure way to get one killed. To decide, one needs to see the statistics for the incidence of deaths during armed robbery.

The idea that cooerating with the perps will save your life died on 9/11/01.

Only if your store is being robbed by jihadist suicide bombers.

The fact is that once the perps burst in and stage their robbery, you have no knowledge of whether they will kill you or not. Put it another way. If you are kneeling down in the store with a gun to your head and the firing pin about to hit the exposed primer, will it really comfort you to think "Ah well, there was only a three percent chance of this happening."

Actually, one can determine the robber's intent by seeing whether they are trying to conceal their identity in any way, although it's hardly foolproof.

The actual percentage doesn't matter because to the person it happens to, it's a 100 percent chance.

To the person being shot in the face while going for his gun, or shooting his long-time customer by accident, it's also a 100 percent chance. What's your point, exactly?

It makes sure that the night robberies stay night robberies. We know that store is targetted as being vulnerable and lucrative; it's a racing certainty that the crimes will escalate and eventually involve daylight robberies when the till is full and there are people there to be looted. The fact the staff will be armed and able to resist makes that eventuality less likely. It's not perfect but it is the best we can hope for.

So, you're trying to encourage them to do something they're already doing- robbing the store at night. A very worthy investment of a grand or so, indeed.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[Stuart]

And resisting could also get them killed.

Once again. The perps are not interested in robbing one particular store, they are interested in robbing a soft target. A target with armed staff is not soft so they go somewhere else. The defense job is done without the guns ever being used,

And having guns on site could easily mean that they kill each other or a customer when someone loses his temper or screws up and discharges a gun accidentally.

This is the standard anti-gun scare scenario. It doesn't happen that way as people are finally beginning to admit.

If percentages don't matter, how do you decide between the competing dangers?

See first comment

Personally, guns or not I'd expect the workers to most likely run or let the thieves have what they want.

See first comment.

[Stuart]

That is a silly way to approach it. Pulling a gun on an armed robber is almost certain to result in violence. Not doing so only might do so. To justify the risk of doing so, one must compare the two. If one is far more likely to be killed by an armed robber if one resists, then your advice is counterproductive and is a sure way to get one killed. To decide, one needs to see the statistics for the incidence of deaths during armed robbery.

No, it isn't. It's cold hard logic. Once again, the perps are interested in soft targets. Armed targets are not soft targets. Perps go somewhere else. Or give up.

Only if your store is being robbed by jihadist suicide bombers.

Or rapists or murderers or muggers or criminals in general. The "go along with it" advice doesn't work.

Actually, one can determine the robber's intent by seeing whether they are trying to conceal their identity in any way, although it's hardly foolproof.

No, one can't. There are multiple reasons why somebody has their face concealed or not. Including store cameras to name just one. And doing that kind of cold analysis in any case is rough under those circumstances.

To the person being shot in the face while going for his gun, or shooting his long-time customer by accident, it's also a 100 percent chance. What's your point, exactly?

That being killed is final. I thought that was quite clear. There's no getting up and saying "let's retake that scene" if you get it wrong. Most, overwhelmingly most, criminals flee or give up when faced with a gun. So defending yourself is the safe option.

So, you're trying to encourage them to do something they're already doing- robbing the store at night. A very worthy investment of a grand or so, indeed.

If it stops the situation escalating to a daylight store invasion, yes, it's a very worthwhile investment.

[fgalkin2]

That worked out well in this case, and this.

Unless the fact that the store employees are armed is heavily advertised (and most often it isn't as it scares some customers away), and the robber is already committed, pulling a gun is all but certain to result in violence.

It might work in this case (or it might not, we can't exactly tell), as the store made the news. But overall, you still need to prove that it is worth it.

If it stops the situation escalating to a daylight store invasion, yes, it's a very worthwhile investment.

You must prove that it would have been robbed in daylight in the first place for that to be true. Night and day robbers are after different things- a music or electronics store carries expensive instruments and equipment, but its register and patrons may not have much cash (for the above reason- one generally does not carry thousands on their person, especially when one has checks and credit cards). A grocery or gas station are different.

Or rapists or murderers or muggers or criminals in general. The "go along with it" advice doesn't work.

Says who?

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[Starglider]

It doesn't matter what the percentage is, it could be one percent, ten percent or a hundred percent... The actual percentage doesn't matter because to the person it happens to, it's a 100 percent chance.

That is a gross misrepresentation of decision theory and I'm pretty sure you know it. There are an indefinite number of potential disasters that one could prepare for, yet it is impossible to be prepared for them all. Life is inherently risky, and the question is which risk mitigation measures are worth the time and monetary cost and which aren't. Acquiring a handgun and learning how to use it is a significant investment of both, and it is by no means a reliable solution; occasionally it may even increase risk, due to criminals being motivated to shoot first.

Of course, the right choice for maximising personal benefit isn't necessarily the same as the right choice for a society. Personally, if I had a job like that in an area like that, I would consider the handgun+training a worthwhile investment. My general view of (hand)gun control in the US is that it does more harm good, because it's a society completely flooded with cheap, concealable weapons (the obvious 'it only disarms the law-abiding citizens' argument). That does not mean I want to legalise handguns in the UK.

We know that store is targetted as being vulnerable and lucrative; it's a racing certainty that the crimes will escalate and eventually involve daylight robberies when the till is full and there are people there to be looted.

No, it is not. I could equally argue that since the modus operandi of night robberies is working very effectively, the thieves will try it on other stores (criminals tend to be creatures of habit even moreso than the norm). Of course without statistics both of us are speculating wildly on this point.

[Stuart]

That worked out well in this case, and this.

In your second case, the clerk prevented the crime and suffered only a minor injury. The first, at least one of the perps is dead. Now look at the number of defensive uses of handguns that prevented a crime being committed. You can start HERE

survey data show that guns are used defensively by private citizens in the U.S. from 1.5 to 3.4 million times a year, at least three times more frequently than guns are used to commit crimes.

Unless the fact that the store employees are armed is heavily advertised (and most often it isn't as it scares some customers away), and the robber is already committed, pulling a gun is all but certain to result in violence.

Absolutely untrue.

Other studies give similar results. “Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms,” by the Clinton administration’s Justice Department shows that between 1.5 and 3 million people in the United States use a firearm to defend themselves and others from criminals each year. A 1986 study by Hart Research Associates puts the upper limit at 3.2 million. Those studies and others indicate that often the mere sight of a firearm discourages an attacker.

Source: Can Gun Control Reduce Crime? Benedict LaRosa. A historian and writer with undergraduate and graduate degrees in history from the U.S. Air Force Academy and Duke University, respectively.

Polls by the Los Angeles Times, Gallup, and Peter Hart Research Associates show that there are at least 760,000, and possibly as many as 3.6 million, defensive uses of guns per year. In 98 percent of the cases, such polls show, people simply brandish the weapon to stop an attack

It might work in this case (or it might not, we can't exactly tell), as the store made the news. But overall, you still need to prove that it is worth it.

I just have.

You must prove that it would have been robbed in daylight in the first place for that to be true.

That's absolute nonsense, You;re saying somebody must prove their house is about to burn down befroe taking out fire insurance. The place has been attacked three times. It is demonstrably a marked target. Crimes tend to escalate. QED.

Night and day robbers are after different things- a music or electronics store carries expensive instruments and equipment, but its register and patrons may not have much cash (for the above reason- one generally does not carry thousands on their person, especially when one has checks and credit cards). A grocery or gas station are different.

Agreed, but the ultimate end is the same - easy cash. And stealing valuable instruments means they have to be fenced. And fences double as police informers.

Says who?

Sociologists James Wright and Peter Rossi surveyed 1,900 convicted felons and concluded that 40 percent decided to forego committing a crime at one time or another because they believed their intended victims were armed. A 1979-1985 National Crime Survey report indicated 50.6 percent of victims who resisted physically were injured, 40.3 percent who resisted with a knife were injured, 34.9 percent who offered little resistance or tried to flee were injured, but only 17.4 percent of victims offering armed resistance were injured.

And the last I can attest to form personal experience. Yes, I do always carry a gun.

[Stuart]

That is a gross misrepresentation of decision theory and I'm pretty sure you know it. There are an indefinite number of potential disasters that one could prepare for, yet it is impossible to be prepared for them all. Life is inherently risky, and the question is which risk mitigation measures are worth the time and monetary cost and which aren't. Acquiring a handgun and learning how to use it is a significant investment of both, and it is by no means a reliable solution; occasionally it may even increase risk, due to criminals being motivated to shoot first.

US studies quoted above show otherwise. Once again, you're making the standard mistake. Perps aren't interested in a specific target, they are interested in an easy target. If they think somebody is armed, they pick somebody else. There is no easy money in a gunfight.

And the decision theory is quite simple. Get it wrong, you're dead. In a store that has a demonstrated prediliction for being robbed, being a victim isn't a question of if its when. And you'll feel terribly silly telling the perp "you can't shoot me, this only happens in three percent of cases."

Of course, the right choice for maximising personal benefit isn't necessarily the same as the right choice for a society. Personally, if I had a job like that in an area like that, I would consider the handgun+training a worthwhile investment. My general view of (hand)gun control in the US is that it does more harm good, because it's a society completely flooded with cheap, concealable weapons (the obvious 'it only disarms the law-abiding citizens' argument). That does not mean I want to legalise handguns in the UK.

It is a worthwhile investment, very much so. All the more so since funerals are so expensive. And embarrassing for the funeralee

No, it is not. I could equally argue that since the modus operandi of night robberies is working very effectively, the thieves will try it on other stores (criminals tend to be creatures of habit even moreso than the norm). Of course without statistics both of us are speculating wildly on this point.

I disagree there. I would suggest that once an area becomes crime-riddled, the nature of all offenses goes up. However, there are only a certain number of stores and with an icreasing number of criminals, the sheep have to be sheared more often. Evidence from, for example American Police Beat (the national US police newspaper to which I subscribe) is that once crime sets into an area, it quickly becomes a 24 hour occurrance. Liquor stores start being robbed close to closing times and the crimes progress earlier and earlier from that point with each group of criminals trying to get in first. Eventually, the store either closes or the owner gets killed. By the way, we had a liquor store robbery ot far from where I live a few years back. Woman who owned it put up a "gun-free zone" sign in her window. Within a week she was robbed, taken into the back of the store and beaten to death. Perps were never caught. Another by the way, there was a deadly home invasion not far from here two years back. Husband was beaten and left for dead, his wife and daughters were raped, tied to their beds, soaked in gasoline and burned alive. They were picked out and followed home because they had gun-ban stickers in their car. (CT State Police Report).

Oh, and a PS. I avoid stores that have "no guns" signs in the windows and preferentially go to those that are gun-friendly.

[Simon_Jester]

And having guns on site could easily mean that they kill each other or a customer when someone loses his temper or screws up and discharges a gun accidentally.

This is the standard anti-gun scare scenario. It doesn't happen that way as people are finally beginning to admit.

Why are they beginning to admit it?

US studies quoted above show otherwise. Once again, you're making the standard mistake. Perps aren't interested in a specific target, they are interested in an easy target. If they think somebody is armed, they pick somebody else. There is no easy money in a gunfight.

And the decision theory is quite simple. Get it wrong, you're dead. In a store that has a demonstrated prediliction for being robbed, being a victim isn't a question of if its when. And you'll feel terribly silly telling the perp "you can't shoot me, this only happens in three percent of cases."

There is a catch: you can get it wrong both ways.

You can, of course, get it fatally wrong by being robbed by someone who is willing to kill you to keep you from testifying against him. But you can also get it fatally wrong by being robbed by someone too clueless to know your store clerks are armed and dying in the resulting shootout. It's not a one-sided calculation. I don't presume to know enough to know which way the calculation should go, but I don't agree that it's a trivial one.

I do, however, agree that publicly and loudly volunteering to remain disarmed in a high crime area is stupid.

[Glocksman]

As I've mentioned in previous threads, I used to work part time at a local 'stop and rob' part time on the Saturday overnight shift.

I also in direct violation of company policy carried a Smith Centennial or a Glock 19 under my shirt while working.
I was 'legal' because I had/have a valid Indiana CCW and didn't need my employer's permission to carry, though I could have been legally fired if my manager chose to make an issue about it.

If some SOB came in demanding money, I'd have complied with his orders and given a description to the police.
If he came in and ordered me into the back room or onto my knees, well, let's just say that I used to practice a lot and at the time could consistently empty a 15 round magazine into a 3 inch group rapid fire.

My point is that while I considered the potential loss of my own life and/or the loss of a customer's life to be grounds to shoot someone, I didn't consider the $150 or so in the till to be worth it.

IOW, the rational criminal Stuart mentions would never know about my concealed firearm.
The irrational criminal who gets his 'kicks' threatening innocent bystanders would have discovered my gun when the first rounds penetrated his chest.

[Lord of the Abyss]

And resisting could also get them killed.

Once again. The perps are not interested in robbing one particular store, they are interested in robbing a soft target. A target with armed staff is not soft so they go somewhere else. The defense job is done without the guns ever being used,

Assuming of course that the criminals in question have any idea that the guns are there. And assuming they care. You are all over the map on this; on one hand you talk about these people as if they are cautious and rational; the next you talk about them like they are the equal of mass murdering terrorist fanatics.

And having guns on site could easily mean that they kill each other or a customer when someone loses his temper or screws up and discharges a gun accidentally.

This is the standard anti-gun scare scenario. It doesn't happen that way as people are finally beginning to admit.

Nonsense. You give people weapons, there's always a chance they'll use it for some unauthorized reason.

Personally, guns or not I'd expect the workers to most likely run or let the thieves have what they want.

See first comment.

Oh, please. What comment? What have you said that makes it likely that some minimum wage guy is going to choose to risk death for the shop? Some sort of retail bushido code?

At most you'd get someone like Glocksman, who'd be willing to defend himself but no further.

[Mr. Coffee]

Oh, please. What comment? What have you said that makes it likely that some minimum wage guy is going to choose to risk death for the shop? Some sort of retail bushido code?

He never said that employees would lay down their lives for the store, you dishonest asshole. He said that they'd be able to defend themselves and their customers in the event a robbers was intent on harming themselves or said customers.

Jesus, no wonder you still have that custom title...

[Lord of the Abyss]

Oh, please. What comment? What have you said that makes it likely that some minimum wage guy is going to choose to risk death for the shop? Some sort of retail bushido code?

He never said that employees would lay down their lives for the store, you dishonest asshole. He said that they'd be able to defend themselves and their customers in the event a robbers was intent on harming themselves or said customers.

He's been fearmongering about how every robber should be assumed to be a mass murdering lunatic regardless of the probabilities. And therefore, that any robbery should be answered with a gun battle.

Jesus, no wonder you still have that custom title...

I still have the title because I've never asked for it to be removed, and I've never asked because by the rules I'd have to admit I was wrong, and I don't think I was. And since all the evidence is that we really did do all sorts of awful things in Iraq, I never will.

[Mr. Coffee]

He's been fearmongeringI've been making shit up about how Stuart's positions is that every robber should be assumed to be a mass murdering lunatic regardless of the probabilities. And therefore, that any robbery should be answered with a gun battle.

There, fixed.

I still have the title because I've never asked for it to be removed, and I've never asked because by the rules I'd have to admit I was wrong, and I don't think I was. And since all the evidence is that we really did do all sorts of awful things in Iraq, I never will.

No, it's because you're a fucking idiot and should really think about not posting anymore.

[Aaron]

So if I read the OP correctly the business does not require a license to purchase a firearm nor do the employees require one if they only carry it at work?

My concern is simply how much time and money the owner is going to invest in training his employees in using it, besides the "don't shoot a customer" are they going to be trained to an extent that they won't be a liability instead of an asset. And if no licensing is required then how is anyone going to know if they are competent?

[Stuart Mackey]

snip

My point is that while I considered the potential loss of my own life and/or the loss of a customer's life to be grounds to shoot someone, I didn't consider the $150 or so in the till to be worth it.

As a current security guard, this is quite correct, one does not risk your life for money. Having said that, I cannot count the times I have dealt with thieves who run like a scalded cat when I confront them about their misdeeds (kind of funny when you consider that I am a skinny white guy, albeit one that can handle himself), or just give up and come quietly.

Crooks are after the loot, in my professional experience, not a fight that could get them badly injured and/or arrested/killed. It should also go without saying that one should rigorously train how to defend oneself and deal with these situations.

In short, with all other things being equal in a situation, Slade is quite correct, as is Glocksman, from my perspective and direct experience.

edited 03:35 local time (insert word 'other')

[ray245]

Just a quick question, is the police force in the US really that useless that the only way for anyone to defend themselves is to buy firearms?

[Stuart Mackey]

Just a quick question, is the police force in the US really that useless that the only way for anyone to defend themselves is to buy firearms?

Police do not have star trek transporters and cannot be at the scene at the push of a button in any country, it does take time for a car to get somewhere, even with lights and sirens going; A robbery can be over in done with in under a minute.

[[R_H]]

Just a quick question, is the police force in the US really that useless that the only way for anyone to defend themselves is to buy firearms?

Rural areas for example. Not that many law enforcement officers and a low population density result in long response times.

[Solauren]

Why not change the set up of of the store so that at night, you pull the merchadise out of the store window? Like pulling it out of a display case?

One of the stores up here as a set up like that. If you break the window to take anything, to go further, you have to break through a wood/steel wall (I have no idea what it is, and I'm not asking).

Combine that with burglar bars over the door / non display windows, and they haven't been robbed in 10+ years (and they used to get robbed infrequently)

[Glocksman]

. . .I take it you didn't actually read the article. They stole guitars worth a good chunk of change, and they were robbing the store at night already.

Oh, I read it. What it shows is that the store is in a high-crime area and is thus (and by inevitable implication its staff and customers) is at risk. The fact they had three robberies in quick succession means the store is targeted. What the staff carrying guns leans is that any further robberies will take place at night - which is better than in daytime. A nightime robbery means no cash therefore the thieves have to fence the goods - and fences are usually police informers. So, that gives an extra chance at catching them.

The idea of the guns isn't to stop the night-time crimes, its to stop the local perps from trying something worse.

Actually the store is right on one of the main thoroughfares leading into the city's premier shopping mall.
IOW, it's not a high crime area as far as robberies and other daytime violent crimes go.

While the mall area itself is patrolled by private security, the street the store is on is not.

IMHO, the risk of a daytime 'kill them all' robbery is infinitesimal compared to the nighttime 'smash and grab' burglaries the store has already suffered from.

Personally if I owned the store, I would have bought burglary bars, lexan windows from SABIC (we have a local plant nearby), and bought video surveillance equipment before I started buying guns.

Now if it had been holdups instead of burglaries, I would have invested in an armed guard while my employees who were willing to be trained to use deadly force were taught to do so.