The comments on another blog where I posted that story was that we didn't have Starbucks 'running with blood'. I don't know that to be true; apparently we DO have Starbucks coffee shops running with blood. And I don't see where having al those armed people provided the protection that the gun carry crowd insist results from their carrying.
The other position which doesn't appear to be reasonable or realistic is that we should not prohibit people from being armed on a proactive basis, but only on a reactive one where we hold them accountable for bad conduct, but don't do anything to prevent that conduct from occurring in the first place.
I don't see here how the man responsible for shooting the victim and himself can possibly be effectively 'held accountable' in any way. He's dead. It's too little, too late. There is nothing left to do but dispose of his remains in whatever way he or his family chooses. We have murder suicides occurring several times a week in this country. In every case, more than one person is shot, and usually killed; in some cases a lot of people are shot and killed in these murder suicides.
These instances occur as often at public places, beauty parlors and spas, or coffee shops, or fast food restaurants, or shopping malls, and business offices. The phrase 'going postal' came into being because of a spate of postal employees who engaged in workplace violence.
Our public spaces ARE bloody, bloody and dangerous in ways that do not occur with the same frequency, or the same kind or number of fatalities, when and where there are fewer guns, and stricter, not more permissive, gun policies. This is true for violence from both legally owned and illegally owned firearms.
Here is today's story from MSNBC and the News Services, followed by instances of the Starbuck's controversy in the media.
From the Christian Science Monitor two years ago, and this past Valentine's Day, there was this coverage, from MSNBC.com: Starbucks pulled into gun debateDA: Mass. cop shoots police officer, returns to scene and kills self
BEVERLY, Mass. -- An off-duty police sergeant shot a police officer from a nearby town in Northeastern Massachusetts Friday night, then returned to the scene and killed himself as authorities closed in, the local district attorney said.
Authorities responded to a Starbucks in Beverly after a 911 call at about 5:45 p.m. ET Friday and found Beverly police Officer Jason Lantych shot multiple times, Essex District Attorney Jonathan Blodgett said. Lantych is in serious condition and undergoing surgery, he said.
Off-duty Hamilton police Sgt. Ken Nagy shot Lantych and fled, the district attorney's office said. A warrant was issued for Nagy's arrest on a charge of assault with intent to murder, and authorities said he was believed to be armed and dangerous.
The 43-year-old Nagy returned to the Starbucks at about 10:30 p.m. ET, and police there began to cordon off the scene. Nagy fatally shot himself in his car as officers approached him, Blodgett said.
"He has taken his life," Blodgett told Boston.com. "It is a tragic day."
Nagy and Lantych knew each other but the motive for the shooting is unclear, the district attorney's office said. Beverly and Hamilton are towns about 5 miles apart in northeastern Massachusetts.
Boston.com reported that the investigation was ongoing and that dozens of police officers and emergency medical personnel were gathered at the roped-off Starbucks parking lot Saturday morning.
Nagy was promoted to sergeant last summer after 19 years of service, according to a July 3 story from the Hamilton-Wenham Chronicle. His wife, Katie, smiled as she pinned a badge on Nagy's uniform, and their two young sons clapped, the newspaper reported.
When asked his feelings about the promotion, Nagy told the newspaper, "It feels great. I worked hard over the 19 years to get here."
So, it looks like those protesters, the ones who don't feel safe in Starbucks, they DO have a problem with blood running on the floor, at least in one Starbucks. While the lax carry laws wouldn't have stopped police officers from having weapons in this specific case, it is clear that having armed caffeine consumers doesn't make anyone safer. No one carrying a firearm, either concealed or open carry whipped out their weapon to stop this shooting, there was no defensive return of fire. The assertion people carry to protect themselves and innocent others is nothing more than an heroic fantasy that gun carriers have about themselves. It is not the reality.The company says business is normal Tuesday even as groups promise action over its gun policies.
By Kim Peterson Feb 14, 2012 4:22PMStarbucks (SBUX -0.33%) has become the unlikely center of a Valentine's Day debate over U.S. gun laws.
A group that aims to reduce gun violence says it is boycotting the coffee giant Tuesday because Starbucks has not stopped customers from bringing guns into stores when the law allows it. Starbucks has the legal right to ban guns, the National Gun Victim's Action Council says. The group has sent an open letter to Starbucks with its complaints.
That boycott didn't sit well with some gun owners, and some said they would visit Starbucks Tuesday to show their support. The gun owners have even created their own "I love guns and coffee" shirts, with an image of a gun-totin' Starbucks mermaid mascot to boot.
Starbucks seems to be trying to stay out of the issue. The company, which complies with local gun-control laws, said that all of its U.S. stores are open Tuesday and business is normal.
"Our long-standing approach to this issue remains unchanged and we abide by the laws that permit open carry in 43 U.S. states," the company said in a statement. "Where these laws don't exist, openly carrying weapons in our stores is prohibited."
Investors were unfazed by the gun debate. Starbucks shares were essentially flat Tuesday, closing at $49.12.
We're lucky this attempted murder / suicide didn't kill MORE people, as so many of them do.
I'm actually grateful there wasn't more shooting, but it does underline that we have a larger problem with the issue of how our gun culture affects conflict resolution, and we have clear evidence that more people carrying firearms is simply a greater risk for gun problems. More guns result in more gun use; more guns results in more gun accidents. More guns do NOT result in more safety.
We need fewer guns, fewer deliberate shootings of all kinds, and fewer gun accidents. What we don't need is looser gun laws, looser background checks, and loopholes that make guns available too easily. The only people served by the NRA lobby and their lock on conservative politics is the gun manufacturers who put profit over lives and safety.
The state of Massachusetts already significantly restricts the carrying of firearms by civilians. The reported shooting was committed by a police officer, thus unless you advocate prohibiting possession of firearms by police officers, the reported incident cannot validate your advocacy of unreasonable restrictions upon civilian firearm ownership. Additionally, the reported incident occurred outside of a Starbucks establishment, thus the policies of Starbucks regarding the carrying of firearms inside of their establishments are irrelevant to the incident.
ReplyDeleteDismensio, welcome to Pengima and thank you for commenting.
DeleteI have written elsewhere, and plan to write more here, on some of the problems with off-duty police officers and firearms. My usual objection to them having their service firearms on their persons or in their homes when off duty has been the problem with 40% of the families and romantic partners of law enforcement officers being subjected to domestic abuse, including a very significant number where the threat of being shot was a key component in the abuse. Unfortunately for the victims, unlike the average citizen, they haven't been receiving the same treatment and protection by law enforcement. To their credit, domestic violence response by law enforcement has significantly improved for the general public. But when it comes to LEOs, they tend to protect their own, not file reports, not fairly and properly investigate or assist prosecution. In many jurisdictions it is because such a domestic abuse crime would affect their right to be armed on the job.
ONE of these cops was out of his jurisdiction, and off duty, when he shot an on-duty cop who was in his proper jurisdiction. What I advocate for is off-duty cops NOT having their service weapon at home or otherwise with them when not on the job - or training, and being treated the same as any other civilian outside their jurisdiction. While I have yet to see a formal statement, this appears to be a case of domestic jealousy over one of the officers having a romantic affair.
Police are not immune to the same crimes of passion that result from other people acting on impulses with firearms. In some countries far fewer law enforcement officers actually NEED guns to do their jobs safely, and fewer LEOs are killed by gun violence (or other violence - there was exactly 1 LEO death by violence in all of 2011 in the UK, and no other attempts to kill LEOs).
That would be the ultimate desideratum - fewer guns, fewer episodes of gun violence, including domestic violence and romantic triangle murder suicides.