4 shot at Ohio highschool

[wordsmythe]

Originally Posted by lurker

He's skit'z-O?

This from a guy who can't separate himself from a dog persona on a message board?

How many personalites/sockpuppets DO you have?

[K C Muffin]

Originally Posted by Army_of_One

RIGHT BUT, not only will they get canned but say the criminal brings a lawsuit against them...can the company hold the person behind the counter liable because they were not following policy?

The store can sue the employee for having the forbidden fire arm, but the employer is still liable for it being on the premises, no matter how it got there. The usual right of action against an employee is to dismiss them - filing a suit really gains nothing and costs a whole lot. If a criminal thought there was an outside chance there was a gun in the store, don't you think they'd think twice before trying to rob it again? I call it insurance, just to keep 'em thinkin'.

[Flying Dutchman]

If a criminal thought there was an outside chance there was a gun in the store, don't you think they'd think twice before trying to rob it again?

This is called logical thinking. Unfortunately, logical thinking is not what criminals do. While I agree with you KC, the problem is laws, rules, policies and procedures are all based on logical thinking. You could make DUI's a capital offense, and you would still have large numbers of people who violate it. You could put a sign on the front door of a store stating the clerks are armed and you would still have people robbing it. Criminals act according to whim and desire, not logic. Risk is immaterial, as are consequences, to someone who is willing to commit a crime.

[Highwayman]

I have to go with KC on this one.

From the Wright-Rossi survey;

The Wright-Rossi survey shows clearly that gun laws affect only the law-abiding, and that criminals know it. Eighty-two percent of the sample agreed that "Gun laws only affect lawabiding citizens; criminals will always be able to get guns," and 88% agreed that "A criminal who wants a handgun is going to get one, no matter how much it costs." To this Wright adds, "The more deeply we delve into our analyses of the illicit firearms market, the more confident we become that these opinions are essentially correct ones."

In states with widespread gun ownership and tough punishment for gun misuse, criminals surveyed were often unarmed: 54% in Oklahoma, 62% in Georgia, 40% in Maryland, 43% in Missouri, and 35% in Florida. In Massachusetts, however, only 29% of the felon-respondents were unarmed. In that state, it is difficult lawfully to acquire a firearm, and the illegal carrying of a firearm, rather than the criminal misuse of a gun, is subject to the mandatory penalty. The survey data indicate that the criminals' fear of an armed victim relates directly to the severity of the gun laws in the state surveyed. Where gun laws are less restrictive, such as Georgia and Maryland, criminals think twice before running the risk of facing an armed victim; they are much less concerned in Massachusetts.

Fifty-six percent of the felons surveyed agreed that "A criminal is not going to mess around with a victim he knows is armed with a gun;" 74% agreed that "One reason burglars avoid houses when people are at home is that they fear being shot."

A 57% majority agreed that "Most criminals are more worried about meeting an armed victim than they are about running into the police." In asking felons what they personally thought about while committing crimes, 34% indicated that they thought about getting "shot at by police" or "shot by victim."

The data suggest that criminals may be a little more concerned about being caught by police and imprisoned than about being shot, but meeting the armed citizen clearly elicited fears of being shot. That deterrent effect of citizen gun ownership appeared in their responses to questions about actual encounters. Although 37% of those surveyed admitted that they personally had "run into a victim who was armed with a gun," that figure surpassed the 50% mark for armed criminals, an experience shared by 57% of the active gun predators. And 34% of the sample admitted to having been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim."

Significantly, almost 40% said there was at least one time when the criminal "decided not to do a crime because [he] knew or believed that the victim was carrying a gun." Clearly, armed citizens represent a real threat to criminals, a threat with which large numbers are personally familiar, or familiar with through the shared experiences of their fellow outlaws.

NRA-ILA :: Articles

[Flying Dutchman]

I wont argue that criminals are not concerned about being shot........ but notice who was surveyed.

In asking felons what they personally thought about while committing crimes, 34% indicated that they thought about getting "shot at by police" or "shot by victim."

Notice they were thinking this WHILE committing crimes. It obviously did not stop them from committing them, they just thought about it.
They were more worried about getting shot, but did that stop them? It may stop a few, no, it will stop a few, but having worked with criminals, I am sorry to say it will not stop that many.

[Highwayman]

Originally Posted by Flying Dutchman

..They were more worried about getting shot, but did that stop them? It may stop a few, no, it will stop a few, but having worked with criminals, I am sorry to say it will not stop that many.

I don’t think that any one thing is going to stop all criminals but I believe that we need to do everything that we can to discourage them. Note KC’s comment;

Originally Posted by K C Muffin

...If a criminal thought there was an outside chance there was a gun in the store, don't you think they'd think twice before trying to rob it again? I call it insurance, just to keep 'em thinkin'.

Survey says;

Fifty-six percent of the felons surveyed agreed that "A criminal is not going to mess around with a victim he knows is armed with a gun;" 74% agreed that "One reason burglars avoid houses when people are at home is that they fear being shot."

If criminals avoid private homes if they have a fear of being shot I would think that would apply to a business as well. Why would anyone make public policy that employees are unarmed?

[Detector]

Well one sign I think WOULD make criminals think twice would be one that read.

CAUTION: Our employees may be armed!

[K C Muffin]

Yeah...but you'd wanna remove that little sign before the insurance inspector came around......we don't cotton to those kinda things very well.....

Two reasons: If you feel like you need a gun for protection, you're in an area where we really don't want to insure you for theft. The other is if a gun is on the premises, there stands a good chance that the criminal will encounter someone completely untrained who will either hurt themselves (workers compensation) or another customer (general liability). Insureds are always pretty proud of their decision to own/carry a gun on their premises. I've not read any reports where a gun was there that the insured didn't offer that information up freely before being asked. Just kinda odd. Sign of the times. Sometimes I wish I didn't know.....

[Highwayman]

Originally Posted by K C Muffin

Yeah...but you'd wanna remove that little sign before the insurance inspector came around......we don't cotton to those kinda things very well.....

My take is that insurers are always looking for ways to cut liabilities or raise rates. The short view is an OMG reaction and the long view that if overall crime is suppressed that ultimately all claims would decline. Too many businesses only look at the short term results and aren’t willing to risk the long term.

[K C Muffin]

Oh, God! What just happened to my retort that was so well thought-out? I think I'm losing what little was left of my mind.....

Insurers are really all about helping insurance consumers protect themselves from loss and to pay those losses when they're covered. 'Course, some of them need help to understand the loss was covered.....

It's one of those "Don't hate me because I'm beautiful" things. "We" don't do things like raise rates just because we need new shoes or a new Jag.....we have to submit rates to the states (whichever we write in) to have them approved before we can use them. Then they're often outdated before we even get the chance to use them. It could be worse. Ya'all are still in what's considered to be a sleepy little burg. But nobody wants to write crime on a convenience store. Nobody. And you won't find anybody willing to write anything else, either, if a gun is found under the counter by an inspector.

Because too many consumers don't educate themselves about insurance, too many insurers take advantage. That's giving all of us a black eye. Some of us are honest injuns!!!!