Hey, there! Log in / Register
Guy with possible shotgun strikes again?
By adamg on Mon, 06/25/2007 - 8:54am
The Herald reports that the Yankee Candle shop was held up yesterday by a guy carrying what appeared to be a shotgun in a bag (also: when an assistant manager asked a customer to call 911, he instead just ran away, leaving his credit card behind).
On Thursday, a guy carrying what appeared to be a shotgun in a bag held up Bel Tempo in Downtown Crossing.
Topics:
Free tagging:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
But...
Do we know if that customer who ran away called 911 once he was clear of the potentially armed assailant?
Laurel Sweet's characterization of that person as cowardly is pissing me off this morning. Sure, it would be nice if he or she had just brained the guy with a 20-lb. candle or dished out some Van Damme action on his ass, but that's not reality.
Seeing as the criminals will always have the upper hand, whether by physical strength or firepower, who can blame this person for doing what he had to do to remove himself from the situation.
Now, if the Commonwealth would only tilt that playing field back in the favor of the law-abiding citizenry. I guess "leveling the playing field" only counts in MA when it comes time to tax the rich to buy cell phones and plasma TV's for degenerate layabouts.
Laurel Sweet probably didn't write the headline
If you read Laurel Sweet's article by itself, without the headline, she doesn't insult the customer's judgment. Blame the writer of the headline, who almost certainly wasn't the writer of the news story.
One Week of Night Shifts in a Convenience Store
The customer did the right thing - call the cops and let them handle it. Unless you have special training, it is best to not play hero. An off duty police officer or highly trained security person might have a chance to effectively interfere, but calling 911 isn't cowardly - it is smart. Much less likely to die, much more likely to get the authorities enough time to set up for the capture.
Anybody who says otherwise (in headline or story) needs to pull a night shift in an urban convenience store for at least a week. Let's see how brave they are!
Does the Davis Square Store 24 count?
I worked the night shift for a couple months at that store in '88.
To say we saw some unsavory customers would be an understatement.
As to the credence you give to a security guard's ability to handle a firearm better than a civilian, I'd trust any of my gun-owning friends with my life before I did the same with an armed security guard in the Cityt og Boston.
Let me tell you a story.
A couple years ago, I had to go to the BPD pistol range on Long Island to pass my qualification test to receive my license to own a gun in Massachusetts.
The test is not difficult. The requirement, along with the exorbitant fee and other onerous requirements, exists more for the purpose of discouraging members of the peasant class [read: pretty much everyone, in the eyes of the elite power brokers of the Commonwealth] from arming themselves.
You have a total of 30 rounds to shoot with a 4" barrel .38-caliber revolver. 12 rounds at 7 yards, shooting single handed, and 18 rounds at 15 yards, shooting any way you'd like.
The day I was there, there were two other applicants taking their range test, both for the purposes of obtaining a gun permit for security-related work.
The guy to the left was ALL OVER the target. He was not comfortable at all with the firearm in his hands. It was damn near frightening. A score of 210 (70%) is needed to pass.
He scored a 211, by the grace of God. One of his shots was touching the 7-ring by a hair - a very thin hair at that. Shots outside the 7-ring do not score any points.
I have a lot of friends who are gun owners, and I'd wager every one of them could easily out-shoot this guy, who is now carrying a loaded weapon in public. Further, many of the gun owners I know take defensive pistol courses and tactical firearms training on their own time.
Do not dismiss, out of hand, the abilities of armed citizens.
Guns for security & law-enforcement personnel are one thing.
However, imho, guns do not belong in the hands of ordinary citizens/civilians.
The United States has the highest murder rate with handguns per capita in the Western world, and there's some good reasons why that's always been the case. All this being said, it brings up some serious questions:
A) Why is the number of guns that're manufactured here in the United States each year not regulated, like it should be?
B) Why has the NRA and the Gun Lobby rejected even the most simplistic measures such as background checks, a waiting period, and the requirement of gun manufacturers to install safety locks on firearms that would prevent horrible accidents resulting from kids playing with them, or
if the firearm was lost or stolen, prevent unauthorized use of the firearm?
C). Why is there not a more extensive, thorough screening of prospective gun buyers in place, even though it would be more costly?
D) Why are people with mental health issues, substance and alcohol abuse and addiction histories and/or anger-management issues still able to obtain firearms? Why do gun dealers not
deny such people access when their names come up on the dealer(s)' computer screens?
Since the vast majority of murders are crimes of passion, premeditated or not, committed by and against people who know each other, guns in ordinary citizens' hands can be and frequently are quite dangerous to others, and society at large.
Let's see...
First, the NRA supports background checks for firearms purchases.
How much info would you like those background checks to bring up?
Second, as long as the bad guys are able to get their hands on any weapon they want, regardless of how much gun control is on the books (see UK), to disarm the innocent and render them defenseless is a severely warped course of action.
More later. Gotta run.
Really??
First, the NRA supports background checks for firearms purchases.
If that's really the case, why is it that people with the various afore-mentioned issues are able to get access to handguns so easily? There are lots of holes in the NRA's arguments, especially since that organization has, for the past 3-4 decades, bullied legislators and other lawmakers out of passing effective gun-control laws.
Also, the UK and most, if not all of the European countries have a far lower murder rate than the United States does.
Most murders are also crimes of passion, premeditated or not, that're committed by and against people who know each other...not strangers. Also, the presence of firearms, especially handguns, makes murder far more likely. Granted, a person hellbent on murder could beat, stab, strangle or bludgeon his/her victim to death. However, the chances of surviving and/or fully recovering from a stabbing, beating, or even attempted strangulation can be and sometimes are a little better, depending on how deep or intense it is. A life is either abruptly ended or irrevocably and adversely altered by the pull of the trigger and the crack of a pistol, however.
The reason the bad guys are able to get hold of firearms so easily is because our gun laws aren't strong enough, thanks to the NRA. Conversely, any ordinary civilian/citizen can turn into a "bad" guy when there's a gun in his/her hand. The idea that civilians should be armed for self-defense is pure poppycock, imo. How would you like to go out for the evening, knowing that you might well be sitting next to an ordinary citizen armed with a gun?
An angry person with no gun is just angry. An angry person with a gun shoots his/her neighbor.
Background checks generally reveal whether a person has had a criminal record, mental health issues, or substance/alcohol abuse or anger-management issues. That's the kind of info that should be revealed, imo.
Good point
Thanks for the heads-up on that. I should have known.