poor dude

[Cbrown]

This story illustrates what I've said for years. Gun control laws nowadays only make it harder for law abiding righteous citizens to protect ourselves and others by carrying firearms.

It's like the Catholic church saying that only women over 18 can carry pepper spray near the priests. We all know who need it, and it ain't the nuns.

Since the thugs will break the law and carry no matter what that law is, how about letting us folks carry without signing away our first born?

Just sayin'....

[Irving]

None of this has anything to do with gun laws.

[Cbrown]

Agreed. Regardless of the law, any private business can have any policy it wants. I get that, but I also argue that if the current gun laws weren't so restrictive, the stigma of gun ownership/carrying wouldn't lead to such restrictive policies by the private sector.

I guess what I'm trying to get across is if, as a nation, we were to recognize that bearing arms is a right as opposed to a privilege, it would be universally accepted that a citizen can/should exercise that right and the private sector would be more open to allow it or at least implement a "don't ask, don't tell" policy.

[Irving]

Streaming music is legal, but can still get you fired.

That's funny coming from me, being the only guy on here I know of who has been fired over gun stuff. I'm trying to stop being bitter.

[Cbrown]

I hope I've made it clear that I agree with you. This story has absolutely nothing to do with gun laws. As a business owner, I am glad to have the right to make my own rules for employees (lately an especially big deal is the legal MMJ. A guy can "legally" smoke weed but I sure as hell don't need to let him drive a forklift in my warehouse). All that being said, I still argue that society has made it seem like only nutjobs feel the need to carry guns and the private sector has followed suit by simply banning weapons because they are scared of their own shadows when it comes to liability. If the law of the land favored eligible citizens carrying for protection, the "rules" of the private sector would likely mirror that sentiment. Perhaps I'm rambling....

[Irving]

You did you did. Here is a smile to prove it.

[DeusExMachina]

I laughed at "but his gun failed on him". $5 says it was a Hi-Point.

Sucks to be that guy though. I'd rather have my life than my job.

[Lex_Luthor]

I'd rather have my life than my job.

[gnihcraes]

I sent a quick "That's wrong." message to Walgreens. Below is their response.




Thank you for contacting Walgreens regarding this matter. Our policies in this area are designed to maintain the maximum safety of our customers and employees.Store employees receive comprehensive training on our company’s robbery procedures and how to react and respond to a potential robbery situation. In past incidents, employees have told us they’ve found this training effective.These policies and training programs are endorsed by law enforcement, which strongly advises against confrontation of crime suspects.Compliance is safer than confrontation. Through this practice, we have been able to maintain an exemplary record of safety.We’ve made significant investments in security technology in recent years, including increasing the number of digital surveillance cameras at our stores.With upgrades to security technology, we are able to provide police with high-resolution photographs and video of crime suspects.We continue to invest in state-of-the-art security measures and high-definition surveillance equipment and hope that the apprehension of robbery suspects in the Benton Harbor area will prevent future crimes. Thank you for contacting Walgreens to share your comments.
Sincerely,


Benny H
Consumer Response Representative

[DeusExMachina]

Typical "our policy is valid in 90% of situations" corporate bullshit.

They would rather their employees "be a good witness" and that 1 time out of 10 that the robber kills someone is an expense they can write off.

It really goes back to our litigious society, because a robber stealing a couple hundred bucks at most and then providing surveillance is much much cheaper than settling with the robber (or their family) who was shot by an employee.