MURDER, POLITICS, AND THE END OF THE JAZZ AGE
by Michael Wolraich
Order today at Barnes & Noble / Amazon / Books-A-Million / Bookshop
MURDER, POLITICS, AND THE END OF THE JAZZ AGE by Michael Wolraich Order today at Barnes & Noble / Amazon / Books-A-Million / Bookshop |
We are often advised not to resist armed criminals because our lives are less replaceable than money. Statistically, that is sound advice, but nothing is 100% certain.
Many years ago, I read about a robbery at a fast food joint. Employees, teenagers, were herded into a cooler, and executed. I also saw it dramatized in a documentary show. In a similar case, there's a fellow on death row who killed three people at a Popeye's. A fourth employee was shot four times, but survived and testified. Most criminals just want the cash, but some don't want to leave witnesses, either.
In a much-discussed case, the scenario played out again a few nights ago. 11:15 PM. Armed assailants herding employees towards a back room.
Charlotte Pizza Hut worker hit by bandits: 'I pulled my gun'
A moment later, three men walked in, at least two pointing guns. The first one told the deliveryman: "I mean business."
They told him to open the safe. The deliveryman said he didn't have access.
"Get down!" one ordered. When the deliveryman didn't, he says the man pistol-whipped him. The men then ordered him into a bathroom while they waited for the manager.
One of the robbers waited in the bathroom with the deliveryman. He ordered him to wrap his arms around the toilet, kneeling, and then demanded money.
"Every time I hesitated, he hit me. I have so many bumps," the driver said. He turned over his $42 in tips for the night and a gold chain with a Jesus medallion he's worn for almost 40 years.
The whole time, the driver tried to keep his gun pressed against his body, under his baggy shirt. The driver has a concealed carry permit, and started carrying the gun [a Glock 22 .40 caliber semiautomatic] after being robbed twice in the past two years.
When the manager returned moments later, the suspects grabbed him. One told the deliveryman to crawl to the cooler in the back.
"I said I can't crawl," said the deliveryman, realizing that if he bent over any further his gun would stick out. "As soon as I stood up, he hit me. I took a big step and ended up in the cooler."
Then, the suspect demanded car keys and hit the deliveryman again, opening a nearly 2-inch gash next to his left eye.
When the suspect started to lift the deliveryman's shirt, he realized the robber was about to see his gun.
"I thought, 'He's gonna kill us,'" the deliveryman said. "They're gonna get what they want, and still kill me.
"I pulled my gun. I shot him three times, and he fell."
The second suspect started to rush into the cooler, and the deliveryman shot him too. The third suspect ran away.
I'm not sure how the open carry crowd will view it, but the concealed carry weapon (CCW) crowd hails this as a victory for the concept that a concealed weapon can save your life. It is hard to argue that this particular delivery man, who carried wads of cash, and had been robbed several times before, should not have been carrying a weapon. But in addition to his Glock 22, he had years of experience as a detention officer and sheriff's deputy. Had it been a less experienced shooter, simply having the gun might not have helped at all.
His employer, Pizza Hut, has a policy against employees being armed, so he may well lose his job, but he is still alive.
The problem with CCW is extrapolation. I have read comments advocating both that carrying a gun should be a duty for every adult, and that it should be banned for all but peace officers. Should all of us pack heat in case the worst happens, or take our chances on an orderly society? Or should we leave CCW up to individual choice and even-handed regulation by authorities? Assuming the latter is achievable.
BTW, the title of this article just came to me in a flash - I can't explain it.
Comments
Pure brilliance. The title, I mean.
by Michael Wolraich on Thu, 09/30/2010 - 10:45pm
"I mean business."
by Donal on Fri, 10/01/2010 - 7:57am
I am going to start carrying a shoulder fired rocket launcher everywhere I go.
by tmccarthy0 on Thu, 09/30/2010 - 11:47pm
I have heard this argument before Donal. And you are right that it does make some sense. The argument that sticks with me though is this: What if the robbers only had chains, ropes or even knives? What if the deliveryman's gun was exposed and taken from him? Now the robbers have a gun instead of just knives.
It is the same thing I think of when people have guns in the home for self defense. It can easily be taken from you if you are not experienced and fumbling. The attacker who was minimally armed is now deadly armed. Which is really the lesser threat?
I wonder what the statistics are of licensed gun owners accidental shootings vs ones used in self defense?
by mageduley on Fri, 10/01/2010 - 12:15am
You make two good points. 1 - Introducing firearms makes the situation more deadly. 2 - Simply having a gun doesn't protect you because you have to know how to use it, and be willing to use it.
In response to the first, I would point out that knives, chains and ropes can be awfully deadly, too, if the attacker has time and opportunity to use them.
I have no argument with the second, and in fact, it is my sense that when you own a gun, the gun starts to own you. You have to train with it, maintain good gun discipline when handling it, secure it when not in use, be situationally aware of threats, and constantly think about the prospects of using deadly power.
by Donal on Fri, 10/01/2010 - 8:23am
The NRA won.
The issue is now in the details.
Most states have left the issue up to municipalities.
I don't know what to do. I really don't.
How do you stop gang members?
How do you keep twelve year olds from going into their daddy's gun cabinet?
The problem is that weak people can feel powerful with a piece of metal attached to their belts.
by Richard Day on Fri, 10/01/2010 - 12:59am
To no-one in particular while agreeing with DD. The campaign to restrict private gun ownership, which is seen by many as the first step in banning private gun ownership, is one of the most stupid ever mounted by liberals and taken up by the Democratic Party. [ Typos can be ironically funny. My first draft said "fist" step ]That is because it is a fight which will not be won because it cannot be won in America as we now know it. Under any conceivable authoritarian circumstance where it might be won it would be a fight which then should not be won.
Living among humans with all their various qualities ranging from wonderful through perverse and horrible is the source as well as the fact of the human condition. I maintain that I have the inalienable right to defend and protect myself from others who would unjustly attempt to inflict their will upon me or those, such as my family members, whose safety I take as my responsibility. There are such people. From that position I assert the right to stand on an even footing with what I see as the bad guys whenever possible. There are many bad guys who have guns which no change in the law will take from them.
I am both pro-life and pro-choice. I am not a saint so my life and my choices are more important and more defensible to me than yours are to me but I do grant you your choices in most cases. You who wish to can refuse to own a gun and can continue to try to deny my right to own one and I still will not try to intrude on your life with a gun. If you choose to be defenseless while hoping for the best I will hope it works out well for all of us. Meanwhile, the chances of you being harmed or of harming me by/with a vehicle, for instance, are many times greater than you or me being harmed by a law abiding citizen with a gun. The chances of the side wishing for what will be seen by so many as unreasonable gun restrictions losing an important election and suffering real consequences because they tilt at windmills are very real.
by A Guy Called LULU on Fri, 10/01/2010 - 12:49pm