Work Place Security Video & An Employee's Handgun Saves Lives.

Status
Not open for further replies.

BRJR

Forum Pro
Messages
13,641
Reaction score
1
"’The first thing I tried to do was dial 911 but I couldn't get it done," Hoven said. "Within seconds he was over the counter. And I'm looking at the wrong end of a 9-millimeter (gun). He was holding it gangster-style’ - sideways.

The robber had jumped over the counter, leaving the manager in the aisle. The robber came within a few feet of Hoven.

Hoven said the only thing behind the attacker was a cinder block wall. Thus he pulled his gun and fired three or four shots.”

I hope all the people who think you can’t fight back with a gun read this carefully because this occurrence is common when people defend themselves with a gun, and it clearly answered the question of what do you do when the criminal is already pointing a gun at you. The important things to note...the victim tried to dial 911 but there was no time...the criminal had his gun on the victim...the victim still pulled out his gun and fired...criminals flee. This happens all the time.

This is why I say to people who are worried about having their camera’s stolen from them...carry a gun. If someone tries to rob you, shoot. Statistics say it’s the safest thing to do. We should not be afraid to take a picture!

It is unfortunate that Walgreens fired this individual for saving other employees’ lives. I won’t be going to Walgreens anymore. I sent them the following message using their website contact system...

"For firing Jeremy Hoven for protecting the lives of fellow employees, and for maintaining a policy that endangers the lives of your employees, you have lost my business."

.
 
It worked well in this case - but as long as this is a political thread about the virtues of carrying concealed weapons, instead of being about photography - no, a concealed weapon is not always a good idea. Someone qouted "statistics" - but statistics show that guns in homes, for example, injure noncombatants, such as the gun owner's family, far more often than they injure criminals.

As a nation, we've gone completely nuts about the idea that everyone should be able to carry a handgun anywhere, any time. We're the only developed country which permits anything close to this behavior, and we have the highest rate of gun related crime among developed nations. We are also the nation which supplies a large share of the guns to the Mexican drug cartels (the great majority of guns, if you believe the news media), and this is, in part, a direct result of the lack of reasonable controls on the purchase of guns in our country.

Guns are not evil. People who own guns are not evil. But unlimited and uncontrolled gun ownership is a very bad idea.

Bill Hansen
Ithaca New York, USA
 
It worked well in this case - but as long as this is a political thread about the virtues of carrying concealed weapons, instead of being about photography - no, a concealed weapon is not always a good idea. Someone qouted "statistics" - but statistics show that guns in homes, for example, injure noncombatants, such as the gun owner's family, far more often than they injure criminals.
Except that the statistic you mentioned is a myth...it simply doesn't exist. It's a fabrication of the anti-gun camp. The federal government's National Crime Victimization Survey backs up the fact that defending yourself with a gun is the safest things to do when faced with a violent criminal. The "statistic" you mentioned, performed by an anti-gun group, is simply a contrived correlation between crime and estimated gun ownership. By the very same method, one can conclude that NOT owning a gun is even more dangerous. It's simply science fiction.
As a nation, we've gone completely nuts about the idea that everyone should be able to carry a handgun anywhere, any time. We're the only developed country which permits anything close to this behavior, and we have the highest rate of gun related crime among developed nations.
But not the highest rate of violent crime. Some developed counties, such as England, that completely ban guns have higher rates of violence. The bottom line is that the availability of guns doesn't affect violent crime rates.
We are also the nation which supplies a large share of the guns to the Mexican drug cartels (the great majority of guns, if you believe the news media), and this is, in part, a direct result of the lack of reasonable controls on the purchase of guns in our country.
That's another myth that has been proven false by the ATF. You can't buy automatic weapons at a gun store. They've been illegal since the 30's. It now seems like the drug cartels are getting their automatic weapons from military defectors and from counties to the south of Mexico, which are far easier to get arms from.
Guns are not evil. People who own guns are not evil. But unlimited and uncontrolled gun ownership is a very bad idea.
Gun ownership and concealed carry laws have been expanding for over a decade and a half...the same time period where our country has experienced huge drops in violent crime. Even the anti-gun groups concede that there is no evidence linking expanded gun ownership and diminished gun laws to crime (obviously.)

.
 
If we'd just take cameras out of the hands of the general populace, we wouldn't have this problem with child pornography. If we'd just take kitchen knives out of the hands of the population, we wouldn't have kitchen knife crime. If we take alcohol out of the hands (mouths) of the people, we wouldn't have alcohol problems.

Even the rabid anti-gunners in the US recognize that there are millions of firearms legally and safely owned in the US and that one's likelihood of being accidentally injured or killed outside of a criminal incident is minimal. The National Safety Council statistics show a continuing fall-off in accidental firearms injuries and deaths. (It's likely this is related to the reduced participation in hunting, etc., as the population becomes more urbanized, as well as increased participation in firearms and hunter safety education programs.)

If simple availabilty of firearms or lax (so to speak) firearms laws were relevant to firearms crime, you'd see fairly consistent rates of firearms crime across the US and from city to city. Cities like Chicago, New York and Washington, DC, would be safe for everyone. One might expect to find radically different crime rates across states like California where CCW permits and local regulations are applied with a blatant show of political power and favoritism. Vermont would (apparently?) be a bloody battleground.
 
Nice logical Subject line there. If you think that people in "....Cities like Chicago, New York and Washington, DC,...." obtain all their guns locally, there's no hope for argument. If you think that the fact that fully automatic guns are illegal prevents semis from being modified, there's no hope for argument. If you think that carrying a concealed weapon while walking around in some inner cities at night would make you even a little bit safer -

You apparently believe in an unrestricted right to carry firearms. You apparently don't believe there's a right to disagree with you. You and I are not going to agree - not on those things, anyway.

Bill
 
Nice logical Subject line there. If you think that people in "....Cities like Chicago, New York and Washington, DC,...." obtain all their guns locally, there's no hope for argument.
Mayor Bloomberg touted stats that showed Virginia was the state where most of NYC crime guns originated from...except that he was lying. The state that actually topped the list was New York. It's the same across the country...guns used in crime are sourced locally. It's surprising that it holds true for New York City, as there are so few gun owners (although the percentage was only one point higher than Virgina.)
If you think that the fact that fully automatic guns are illegal prevents semis from being modified, there's no hope for argument.
When was the last time you heard of a crime committed with a full-auto weapon? When was the last time you heard of any deranged individual on a killing spree using a fully automatic weapon?
If you think that carrying a concealed weapon while walking around in some inner cities at night would make you even a little bit safer -
You're right about that...it makes you a lot safer. This has been proven time and time again. Definitely a smart thing for a photographer looking to catch night images of such locations.
You apparently believe in an unrestricted right to carry firearms.
Yes, as it's been in Vermont for over 100 years. Vermont is one of the safest states in the union.
You apparently don't believe there's a right to disagree with you.
Apparently, you believe that simply offering a counter argument is an assault on your right to tell us what we should be thinking.

I wish you'd do just a tiny bit of research, instead of getting all of your information from anti-gun organizations.

.
 
My crystal ball tells me we'll get a load of the pro-gun lobby slugging it out ( increasingly less civil as time goes by ) with the anti-gun lobby, just like all the other times ...

To really create a sense of deja vu someone needs to bring up a topic such as health care or taxes or Fox News.

How is this thread related to photography ?

At least in my rapture thread I was looking for photos of the event for those of us left behind :-)

Nick
 
1. Even so, many here will attempt making this a "political thread" or otherwise trying to hi-jack it; when actually, it's about evil/right and wrong, and how not only the handgun, but also the role of video camera surveillance made the difference in this specific case. It has nothing to do with politics, whatsoever, but that honest, hard working, decent people that went to work that day, could very well have been murdered that day, as happens far too frequently now days.

2. Without the role of the video surveillance and footage, even the employee (pharmacist) with the handgun, would not have know what was going on until too late; and, in addition, police would not have the visual evidence of knowing exactly what happened and the video identification of the would be assassins, that is going to eventually lead to their capture and prosecution. Gun hating Folks, will continue to leave out the importance of security cameras in this completely; even though, such cameras are more and more the fundamental part of even our cheapest, most basic home security systems as offered by security companies in the USA, such as ADT now days. Why heck, even my home security system, when it was up-graded just a few weeks ago, now includes a number of cameras that provide me with camera still photos and video surveillance of outside and indoors areas, 24/7 (and that I can monitor, control and even capture selective video or still photos from, and that I can email to anyone immediately, in addition to what the cameras are already doing 24/7), accessible from anywhere in the world using my iPhone/iPad, an iPod Touch or simply any computer that has access to a broad-band internet connection.

3. Unfortunately, most here, as we are already starting to see, are likely to give the handgun more importance than the video and camera(s) that made even the use of the handgun possible, in this particular case. ;)

--
BRJR ....(LOL, some of us are quite satisfied as Hobbyists ..)


"’The first thing I tried to do was dial 911 but I couldn't get it done," Hoven said. "Within seconds he was over the counter. And I'm looking at the wrong end of a 9-millimeter (gun). He was holding it gangster-style’ - sideways.

The robber had jumped over the counter, leaving the manager in the aisle. The robber came within a few feet of Hoven.

Hoven said the only thing behind the attacker was a cinder block wall. Thus he pulled his gun and fired three or four shots.”

I hope all the people who think you can’t fight back with a gun read this carefully because this occurrence is common when people defend themselves with a gun, and it clearly answered the question of what do you do when the criminal is already pointing a gun at you. The important things to note...the victim tried to dial 911 but there was no time...the criminal had his gun on the victim...the victim still pulled out his gun and fired...criminals flee. This happens all the time.

This is why I say to people who are worried about having their camera’s stolen from them...carry a gun. If someone tries to rob you, shoot. Statistics say it’s the safest thing to do. We should not be afraid to take a picture!

It is unfortunate that Walgreens fired this individual for saving other employees’ lives. I won’t be going to Walgreens anymore. I sent them the following message using their website contact system...

"For firing Jeremy Hoven for protecting the lives of fellow employees, and for maintaining a policy that endangers the lives of your employees, you have lost my business."

.
 
...Some developed counties, such as England, that completely ban guns have higher rates of violence...
I am certain that this is entirely wrong, the only basis likely being a difference in definitions, or a mis-interpretation of statistics.

The simple fact is that the entire UK (not just England) has around 600-700 murders a year, for a population of about 60 million, whereas USA has about 15,000-18,000 for a population of about 300 million.

The figures are not in the same ballpark.

--
2011 : My new year's resolution -
To be positive, not negative.
To help, not to hinder.
To praise, not to criticise.
 
...Some developed counties, such as England, that completely ban guns have higher rates of violence...
I am certain that this is entirely wrong, the only basis likely being a difference in definitions, or a mis-interpretation of statistics.

The simple fact is that the entire UK (not just England) has around 600-700 murders a year, for a population of about 60 million, whereas USA has about 15,000-18,000 for a population of about 300 million.

The figures are not in the same ballpark.
Violent crime comprises more than just murder. ****, assaults, and robberies are also violent crimes. These are the four categories that the FBI uses when reporting on violent crime. Australia and Canada have higher rates of **** than the US. The US, UK, and Canada are running neck and neck with assaults. When it comes to robberies, no one can touch Spain, and the UK has more robberies than the US.

.
 
And, they are playing a more important role in matters such as the incident referenced; it really doesn't matter so much whether the weapon used in defending self/others/property, is a handgun, throwing knives, bow & arrows, spears or whatever. In this incident without seeing what the would be assassins, were doing as the security camera(s) permitted this, would have resulted in far worst out come, and we would be reading about funerals for those killed, instead of just an employee being fired, and last I checked security cameras are even allowed in England and most other countries: ;)

http://www.ehow.com/print/about_5403209_importance-security-cameras.html

--
BRJR ....(LOL, some of us are quite satisfied as Hobbyists ..)


...Some developed counties, such as England, that completely ban guns have higher rates of violence...
I am certain that this is entirely wrong, the only basis likely being a difference in definitions, or a mis-interpretation of statistics.

The simple fact is that the entire UK (not just England) has around 600-700 murders a year, for a population of about 60 million, whereas USA has about 15,000-18,000 for a population of about 300 million.

The figures are not in the same ballpark.

--
2011 : My new year's resolution -
To be positive, not negative.
To help, not to hinder.
To praise, not to criticise.
 
I'd like to help, but I haven't the foggiest idea of your meaning!

--
2011 : My new year's resolution -
To be positive, not negative.
To help, not to hinder.
To praise, not to criticise.
 
You mention 'violent crime', yet overlook the different definitions from one country to another. Many of the crimes thus described here would be little more than misdemeanours elsewhere.

Also, without knowing the rate of reporting of crimes, the figures do not accurately show the true picture. I strongly suspect the rate of reporting is much higher in the UK.

However, it is likely that all murders find their way into the statistics and so more realistically reflects levels of violence to be found.

It may be merely anecdotal, but I can't think of an area in the UK where a tourist should not go for fear of losing their life and have never heard of it happening (certainly tourists have been attacked and murdered, but randomly rather than by putting themselves in danger). The same cannot be said of the US and there was another case recently of two young British men shot dead for going to the wrong area.

I repeat, your assertion that England is more violent than America is demonstrably innaccurate.

--
2011 : My new year's resolution -
To be positive, not negative.
To help, not to hinder.
To praise, not to criticise.
 
This is why I say to people who are worried about having their camera’s stolen from them...carry a gun. If someone tries to rob you, shoot. Statistics say it’s the safest thing to do. We should not be afraid to take a picture!
Wrong!
You had best educate yourself on the legal use of deadly force
I'm know all about the legal use of deadly force in the United States. I'm right.

.
 
As, in the USA, this varies depending on circumstances and where you are. In California, for example, one is generally prohibited from using "deadly force" to protect/ recover personal property of self or others (an attorney, in a law class I took there, actually told me folks in that State feel this is what insurance is for); however, in other States, including Texas, force, up to and including the use of deadly force as needed, is permitted. Of course, I live in a State, where we have both the right to legally conceal-carry, as did the pharmacist in Michigan, and of course I am usually always armed, even as hundreds of thousands of other persons (including, professional photographers, hobbyists, amatuers and others) in my State and surrounding States; and, yes, we have the right to protect ourselves, including our cameras / and, any other property we have with us, or those, and those with us have, with use of force up to and including "deadly force", as need be.
--
BRJR ....(LOL, some of us are quite satisfied as Hobbyists ..)


This is why I say to people who are worried about having their camera’s stolen from them...carry a gun. If someone tries to rob you, shoot. Statistics say it’s the safest thing to do. We should not be afraid to take a picture!
Wrong!
You had best educate yourself on the legal use of deadly force
I'm know all about the legal use of deadly force in the United States. I'm right.
 
"but statistics show that guns in homes, for example, injure noncombatants, such as the gun owner's family, far more often than they injure criminals."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Figures don't lie but liars figure!
This claim is false!
--
tsiya [Bob]
http://www.pbase.com/tsiya/
 
you know all about nothing
This is why I say to people who are worried about having their camera’s stolen from them...carry a gun. If someone tries to rob you, shoot. Statistics say it’s the safest thing to do. We should not be afraid to take a picture!
Wrong!
You had best educate yourself on the legal use of deadly force
I'm know all about the legal use of deadly force in the United States. I'm right.

.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Keyboard shortcuts

Back
Top