|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
June 4, 2011, 12:47 PM | #51 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,064
|
Yep, I went and looked it up after seeing so many posts that you could sue if you weren't allowed to carry. Stores, schools, etc. - just sue 'em.
Well, the legal lit had quite a few review articles stating what we said and lawyers said they wouldn't take the case on contingency as the financial rewards wouldn't be enough and they would probably lose.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens |
June 4, 2011, 12:58 PM | #52 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 8, 2001
Location: Forestburg, Montague Cnty, TX
Posts: 12,714
|
Quote:
If you look to Tables 72 and 73, however, you will see that such measure were perceived to have helped the situation by the vast majority of the time. Of course, if you think you are going to be killed and anything you do that keeps you from being killed and you survive means you think your situation was likely improved by the act, but still, despite being injured more often than not, people felt there was an improvement. http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/cvus06.pdf Also see other years... http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/cvus07.pdf http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/cvus08.pdf
__________________
"If you look through your scope and see your shoe, aim higher." -- said to me by my 11 year old daughter before going out for hogs 8/13/2011 My Hunting Videos https://www.youtube.com/user/HornHillRange |
|
June 4, 2011, 01:38 PM | #53 | |
Member
Join Date: May 28, 2011
Posts: 47
|
Maybe I'm not reading it right, but I don't see anything in that study that suggests you're more likely to be harmed if you resist with force.
Anyway, Kleck has the following to say about the National Crime Victimization Survey (NVCS) which you reference. Quote:
http://www.guncite.com/gcdgklec.html
__________________
http://www.conlaw-bloganon.blogspot.com |
|
June 4, 2011, 02:55 PM | #54 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 8, 2001
Location: Forestburg, Montague Cnty, TX
Posts: 12,714
|
Okay, do YOU have any data to show how often people get harmed whilst complying?
__________________
"If you look through your scope and see your shoe, aim higher." -- said to me by my 11 year old daughter before going out for hogs 8/13/2011 My Hunting Videos https://www.youtube.com/user/HornHillRange |
June 4, 2011, 04:51 PM | #55 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
|
DNS, your own post showed a 13% rate of people harmed despite complying.
So, the question should be, are there studies that show the rate of harm to those who actively resist? |
June 4, 2011, 05:02 PM | #56 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 12, 2009
Location: Athens, Georgia
Posts: 2,525
|
I didn't read through all of the thread so my apologies if this has already been posted.
It would seem to me that the thing to do would be to write emails or letters to Walgreen's complaining about the firing an the policy. The company is concerned about minimizing its losses and probably cares more about customer complaints than employee grievances. |
June 4, 2011, 05:43 PM | #57 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 12, 2009
Location: Athens, Georgia
Posts: 2,525
|
Quote:
I think Gary Kleck did a study that the National Academies mentioned in their book Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review. See table 15.2 From that it seems like if you fight back with a gun, you are less likely to be injured than in any other scenario including compliance. Edit to add from the National Academies: While the literature on self-defense has been preoccupied with the basic measurement questions, a handful of studies assess the efficacy of defensive gun use.10 Using data from the NCVS, Kleck (2001b) compares the probability of injury and crime by different defensive actions. The results, summarized in Table 5-2, suggest that respondents who use firearms are less likely to be injured and lose property than those using other modes of protection. For example, while the overall rate of injury in robbery is 30.2, only 12.8 percent of those using a firearm for self-protection were injured. Ziegenhagen and Brosnan (1985) draw similar conclusions about the efficacy of armed (although not firearm) resistance when summarizing 13 city victim surveys. Using a multivariate regression analysis, Kleck and DeLone (1993) confirm these basic cross-tabular findings.11 Defense with a firearm is associated with fewer completed robberies and less injury. Two forms of self-defense, namely using force without a weapon and trying to get help or attract attention, are associated with higher injury rates than taking no self-protective action. Last edited by 2damnold4this; June 4, 2011 at 05:51 PM. |
|
June 4, 2011, 10:50 PM | #58 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 8, 2001
Location: Forestburg, Montague Cnty, TX
Posts: 12,714
|
Quote:
__________________
"If you look through your scope and see your shoe, aim higher." -- said to me by my 11 year old daughter before going out for hogs 8/13/2011 My Hunting Videos https://www.youtube.com/user/HornHillRange |
|
June 4, 2011, 11:07 PM | #59 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
|
DNS, so you did. Mea culpa.
|
June 5, 2011, 04:46 PM | #60 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 7, 1999
Posts: 3,847
|
For those here who take or have access to Gun Week, the 15 June issue, Weekly Bullet Col. carries this story, or part thereof headlined "Wallgreens fires heroic worker". I suspect a law suit will follow.
|
June 5, 2011, 09:51 PM | #61 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 12, 2009
Location: Athens, Georgia
Posts: 2,525
|
Quote:
Am I reading it wrong? |
|
June 5, 2011, 09:59 PM | #62 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 8, 2001
Location: Forestburg, Montague Cnty, TX
Posts: 12,714
|
Nope, but not reading enough. Look through the succeeding tables.
__________________
"If you look through your scope and see your shoe, aim higher." -- said to me by my 11 year old daughter before going out for hogs 8/13/2011 My Hunting Videos https://www.youtube.com/user/HornHillRange |
June 5, 2011, 10:22 PM | #63 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 12, 2009
Location: Athens, Georgia
Posts: 2,525
|
I'm still not seeing it. Is there a specific table that gives us the results of the protective measures? Table 70 seems to say that using a weapon resulted in fewer injuries than some of the other methods. For example, looking at table 70 for robberies with injuries and without injuries, it seems to folks that attack or threaten with a weapon are far better off than those that persuade/appease or try to fight without a weapon but I could be reading the table wrong.
|
June 6, 2011, 06:05 AM | #64 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 8, 2001
Location: Forestburg, Montague Cnty, TX
Posts: 12,714
|
Weapons are good, but that wasn't the claim made about Kleck's statement.
__________________
"If you look through your scope and see your shoe, aim higher." -- said to me by my 11 year old daughter before going out for hogs 8/13/2011 My Hunting Videos https://www.youtube.com/user/HornHillRange |
June 6, 2011, 06:07 AM | #65 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 1, 2011
Location: West Central Florida
Posts: 463
|
Ah-ha...The proverbial folicular dissection....
|
June 7, 2011, 09:21 AM | #66 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 31, 2005
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,775
|
Quote:
__________________
"God and the Soldier we adore, in time of trouble but not before. When the danger's past and the wrong been righted, God is forgotten and the Soldier slighted." Anonymous Soldier. |
|
June 7, 2011, 11:31 AM | #67 |
Junior Member
Join Date: June 6, 2007
Posts: 7
|
Sort of like a soldier following/not following orders he knows to be illegal?
__________________
Pithy sayings will materialize when I feel inspired |
June 7, 2011, 12:12 PM | #68 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
|
On the one hand, if I were the pharmacist, I'd have probably opted for carrying, as well.
On the other hand, the pharmacist signed an employment contract, knowing the rule was in place. He's probably out of luck with Walgreen's, and may have a hard time finding employment anywhere else as a pharmacist, unless he opens his own business. It doesn't seem like lawsuits going after employers who post such rules, yet fail to provide security, have had much success. Maybe this should be another project for SAF. |
June 7, 2011, 12:32 PM | #69 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,057
|
Quote:
Private property, and the control of it, is one of the cornerstones of liberty. We may think we're well-intentioned by requiring property owners to allow firearms, but think through the implications. If a law passes requiring me to allow people to carry in my store, you can bet there will be a law that requires me to allow people to demonstrate their political views on the premises. I will have to take anybody's check, written on any bank. There will be a law that I can't dictate what people wear or don't wear. There will be another in which I can be sued because my fluorescent lighting causes depression. Well-intentioned as it may be, it's a dangerous and slippery slope. Furthermore, I can't see that it would ever fly in the courts. Michigan is an "at will" state, so Walgreen's can fire the guy for any reason, short of discrimination. It stinks, but he knew the rules when he started.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe |
|
June 7, 2011, 01:11 PM | #70 |
Staff
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,817
|
Not to stoke a fire that appears to have gone out, but it does appear that even CNN thinks that pharmacies are being targeted: http://www.cnn.com/2011/HEALTH/06/03...html?hpt=ju_t3
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some. |
June 7, 2011, 06:01 PM | #71 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 31, 2005
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,775
|
Quote:
__________________
"God and the Soldier we adore, in time of trouble but not before. When the danger's past and the wrong been righted, God is forgotten and the Soldier slighted." Anonymous Soldier. |
|
June 7, 2011, 07:57 PM | #72 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 7, 1999
Posts: 3,847
|
Slamfire:
In my view, which likely doesn't, in the "big picture", count for much, your exposition on corporate mentality was absolutely marvelous, somethig that people should consider and think about. Mind, there is nothing inherently wrong about making a legitimate profit from business operations, though in my mind, the question of what price glory looms large. |
June 7, 2011, 08:12 PM | #73 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 1, 2011
Location: West Central Florida
Posts: 463
|
Quote:
I wonder if there is a flip side to this tactic, that could benefit one in this gentleman's position? |
|
June 8, 2011, 08:49 PM | #74 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 19, 2007
Location: Montmorency Co, MI
Posts: 1,551
|
Had a doctor friend fired cause he carried at the hospital. Someone must have seen it and squaked.
|
June 8, 2011, 10:10 PM | #75 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 8, 2001
Location: Forestburg, Montague Cnty, TX
Posts: 12,714
|
Quote:
If they are so darned ethical, then they should not accept a job in which they can't abibe by the rules.
__________________
"If you look through your scope and see your shoe, aim higher." -- said to me by my 11 year old daughter before going out for hogs 8/13/2011 My Hunting Videos https://www.youtube.com/user/HornHillRange |
|
Tags |
2nd amendment , assault , laws , robbery , self defense |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|