8 ms·
Why not just train staff and carry guns?
by shipscode 3y ago
Why not just train staff and carry guns?
- FirmwareBurner 3y agoEven with guns, minimum wage people aren't gonna want to be heroes and risk their lives protecting the money of their boss, when threatened at gunpoint. Even if they're willing to pull the trigger, your average 7-Eleven employee is no Navy Seal and won't react well under gunpoint pressure and might end up shooting some innocent bystander or himself. Just giving guns to everyone is bad idea on so many levels.
- Justsignedup 3y agoI don't think this point gets plastered everywhere in the entirety of the world enough. Most humans don't want to shoot other humans. The few who have murder fantasies do, but other than that nobody wants to take a life. The concept of just arming everyone isn't a positive nor even a remote solution.
- hnlmorg 3y ago> I don't think this point gets plastered everywhere in the entirety of the world enough. That’s because most of the rest of the world doesnt respond to gun crime with arguments that the solution is to issue more guns.
- FirmwareBurner 3y agoSadly, that ship has long sailed for the US. Second amendment and all.
- hnlmorg 3y agoIt’s an amendment. The name says it all: it can be amended. The issue isn’t that the constitution cannot be changed. It’s that people are brainwashed into thinking it shouldn’t change.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- mrguyorama 3y agoIt's obscene how angry "constitutionalists" get about doing something that was so important to the very fabric of the constitution that they did it ten times by the end of the convention, including the literal "Bill of rights" which was considered essential. Almost like they don't actually care about the constitution.
- salamanderss 3y agoIt won't be anytime soon because this desire is more concentrated in a few highly populated states and the less populated rural states can stonewall it. Hence the desire to fight over the meaning of the second rather than amend and clarify it.
- ta1243 3y agoFunny how the list of exceptions for the other 9 amendments in the bill of rights (well ok maybe not #3) is neverending
- FireBeyond 3y ago"The right to an abortion is not explicitly and specifically in the Constitution, therefore it doesn't exist". (I recognize some of the "issues" with Roe v Wade, tangential/orthogonal to that of access to medical services...) "The right to purchase arms is not explicitly and specifically in the Constitution, but must exist despite that, because how else could you bear arms?" Just like how, for Justice(hah) Thomas, same-sex marriage is a state's right/decision, but interracial marriage... isn't. Why do several Supreme Court Justices state that they are originalists, and the Constitution is sacrosanct, when the very people who wrote it said that it wasn't, and was to be "reviewed and updated to the needs of the times as a living document"? "This document is correct and perfect in every way. Except the bit where the authors say it isn't."
- rpmisms 3y agoThey are originalists, and if the origin changes, so does the meaning. Change the origin document if you'd like to change the meaning.
- Clubber 3y ago>Just like how, for Justice(hah) Thomas, same-sex marriage is a state's right/decision, but interracial marriage... isn't. Banning interracial marriage was deemed unconstitutional based on the 14th amendment. The 14th amendment doesn't have any text about same-sex marriage. That's why it's left up to the states. (10th amendment) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/fourteenth_amendment https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/fourteenth_amendmen... https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/tenth_amendment https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/tenth_amendment >Why do several Supreme Court Justices state that they are originalists, and the Constitution is sacrosanct, when the very people who wrote it said that it wasn't, and was to be "reviewed and updated to the needs of the times as a living document"? The constitution has methods to amend it, that's what a living document means, not that some political party gets to decide what it means on a whim.
- wolverine876 3y agoThe Second Amendment is centuries old. The current interpretation of it is only a decade or two old. For centuries before that, other interpretations prevailed - the oddball is the current radical one. If one more person tells me 'the ship has sailed' or some other hopeless cliche of the moment - yes, the smart trend of the moment is despair! - about anything .... The radical gun people sure don't think that way, and their positions are obvious, absurd horsecrap. The only problem is you (and many like you) quitting.
- salamanderss 3y agoYou could mail order a machine gun until the 1930s and nonviolent felons could buy guns up until the 60s ( violent ones too a few decades before that ). Not much to challenge federally on some of these points until recent history. Also the bill of rights werent fully incorporated upon the states until well past the signing of the Constitution. In this context it's kind of silly to compare backwards vs many regulations that simply didn't exist or had no incorporated protection.
- wolverine876 3y agoIs there somewhere that documents this history? My understanding is that the current interpretation is a new(ish) idea promulgated by the NRA, etc. starting around 1980. The Bill of Rights point seems like a long stretch.
- salamanderss 3y agoThe most significant acts restricting arms federally are the NFA (1934) which was a (at the time onerous) tax because they weren't sure they had constitutional power for many other methods of regulation. The other was the GCA passed in 1968. After the passing of the NFA was the beginning of many modern era challenges such as US v.no legal counsel of dead guy (Miller). Unsurprisingly the undefended dead guy with no counsel lost setting a long precedent and the rest of NFA is history.
- shipscode 3y agoMost humans with a gun pointed at them would take the option. Meeting deadly force with deadly force is far from a murder fantasy, in fact, self defense is an exemption to murder statutes, and for good reason.
- rpmisms 3y agoI don't want to shoot other humans. I've been in a situation where I nearly needed to, and I'll never fail to be equipped to do so. I had to shoot a cat about a year ago, and I'm still a bit fucked up about it. A human would be so much worse, and that's not something I want to experience.
- salamanderss 3y agoThe idea of shooting an innocent cat, even when needed to end its misery, is far more disturbing to many/most vs say shooting a hamas terrorist.
- rpmisms 3y agoI have no guilt, because it needed to be done. It's just emotionally traumatic. With a human, it's far more hurtful to the soul; no matter how much they needed shooting, they are fundamentally the same as you.
- wolverine876 3y agoAlso, people don't want to shoot other people or kill them.
- shipscode 3y agoHaving a gun pointed at you is a threat to your life, not “the money of your boss”. Minimum wage or not, their life has value, and they should be to defend it by meeting deadly force with deadly force.
- taway_6PplYu5 3y agoYour scenario starts with a gun pointed at the person. How much training do you believe is required such that an otherwise ordinary person "win" a gunfight when their gun is holstered and the opponent already has them in their aim?
- salamanderss 3y agoYour theory is starting at a disadvantage you may as well say fuck it and not even the option of firing back?
- shipscode 3y agoLess training than dodging a bullet when an opponent pulls the trigger.
- solarpunk 3y agoBecause the city is withholding business licenses until cops are on payroll... rtfa.
- _moof 3y agoThe article is about the MPD forcing businesses to hire off-duty cops or risk losing their business license, rather than an actual security problem requiring security guards.
- shipscode 3y agoWhy not just change the policy to allow staff to carry guns instead?
- webkike 3y agoDid you read the article? This is about cops setting up a protection racket
- chasd00 3y agoI'm a 2A fan but if i were a worker and asked by my boss to do this i'd say no thanks. Going toe to toe with an armed criminal isn't in the job description, if it were i wouldn't be interested in the position.
- wolverine876 3y agoIf it was in the job description, you'd be a police officer.
- shipscode 3y agoDying at the hands of an armed criminal is a much better requirement in a job description I guess.
- throwanem 3y agoBecause this was a protection racket? That's not how those work.
- oldpersonintx 3y agoare you going to risk ten years in prison to defend your employer's inventory in exchange for minimum wage?
- wolverine876 3y agoYes, and even your own inventory: Are you really going to kill another human being over a TV?
- NoGravitas 3y agoPlenty of Americans lately seem to have been willing to kill another human being on the grounds of being on their driveway or their porch.
- shipscode 3y agoIf someone is pointing a gun at you, they are putting your life at risk. The inventory is tangential at that point.
- Cthulhu_ 3y agoThat exists, mall cops and bouncers. Nobody should carry a gun.