UnderCover Waitress: Waitresses and Guns

Search This Blog

Loading...

Thursday, December 20, 2012

Waitresses and Guns

Not only as a mother, but as a human being, my heart bleeds for the victims and families in Connecticut after a mad man shot and killed children and adults in their schoolhouse.

While the National Rifle Association (NRA) bides it's time before using it's financial power to ensure that our rights to reasonable safety are trampled in favor of protecting outdated and poorly interpreted wording in the second amendment, please remember that those who spend time in the restaurant industry are not immune to gun violence. For example:

In New Jersey in May, a working waitress called the police as soon as she saw a man waving a gun outside of the restaurant. According to the news blip, the nineteen-year-old perpetrator had just stolen a car, driven it to the restaurant, and I don't want to think about what he was going to do next. Kudos to the waitress for acting quickly.

A stressed-out Florida chef went to work packing. When he threatened the waitress "I swear to G-d I will shoot you in the head" it wasn't an empty threat. Fortunately, the unstable chef did not follow through.

This from South Carolina in March:
The South Carolina House gave its final approval Thursday to a bill that would allow concealed weapon permit holders to carry their guns into bars and restaurants that serve alcohol, as long as they don't drink. 
Of course, since the weapon is concealed, servers don't know not to serve them. Yeah, that one isn't enforcable until AFTER the place gets shot up.

It's not just South Carolina. 

A waitress' ex-boyfriend, feeling sorry for himself, went to her place of work for a beer. He told her to pay for it, and of course, she refused. So he threw flammable liquid on her and shot her with a flare gun. What a catch; I just can't imagine why she was breaking up with him.

If you are on your way to Wal-Mart for semi-automatic pistol, but really hungry, take "Rob P.'s" advice on Yelp and head on over to Crawford's Restaurant Guns & Ammo:
How can you find this place anything other than paradise?  It offers chow, guns, ammo, and hunting licenses!
How could I not find that place paradise? Oh, I could probably find a way...

Stun guns are fun, too. An exotic dancer shot a waitress with a stun gun and drove off back in 2009. Nothing changes.

For another take on how America responds to gun violence, please read Truthout's Op-Ed, "NRA Has More Blood on Its Hands Than al-Qaeda: What Do We Do?" by Thom Hartmann and Sam Sacks. As this conversation continues, I expect it to get heated and even abusive. Unfortunately, it may become violent.

Those of us who wish to live in country that protects our right to safety and peace must not back down to the desires of the ignorant and paranoid who seem to believe that the only way to to remain safe is to run around with a deadly weapon. Until they snap and kill countless victims before doing the world a favor and taking themselves out of it.





*****

10 comments :

  1. I have a carry conceal permit, but I don't go around packing. The reason for getting it was so that I'm legally able to take it with me when traveling alone.

    There should be stricter gun laws and some weapons have no business in the hands of law abiding citizens. However, keep in mind, it's not the weapon we need to be looking at, it's the culture we've developed for our young people.

    Posthumous attention in the media, which sensationalizes gun crazed lunatics, is creating a breeding ground for the next martyr in line. Each time they do this, the next guy will be even braver and commit more devastating acts against our society.

    If I'd had my gun on me and some guy entered and randomly started shooting people, I wouldn't hesitate to empty my 9MM, center mass, of course. But that's just me.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for sharing. I think the reason carnage at the hands of gun crazed lunatics keeps happening is that it is much, much too easy for a person to get a gun in this culture.

      Background checks, fingerprinting, and basic mental health evaluations are necessary precautions and precursors to gun ownership, IMO. I would support mandatory classes on how to keep your gun locked up when not being carried; for example, to prevent somebody like Adam Lanza from getting his hands on it. I also have no problem whatsoever with limiting what guns law-abiding citizens with no indication of psychological impairment may possess.

      This is a very emotional issue for many, and it is paramount that level-headed people are able to discuss and debate until some sort of solution is reached... someday. I'm glad you wrote to express your views!

      Delete
  2. And... this just in. South Philadelphia waitress shot in back on her way home from work:

    http://abclocal.go.com/wpvi/story?section=news/local&id=8926661

    ReplyDelete
  3. Did you know that for someone to legally carry a concealed weapon in Texas, you do have to get fingerprinted, submit to a bg check, and testify that you are mentally sound? And pass a shooting test. Those are people who are LEGALLY carrying weapons. Everyone can own a gun without going through all that (as long as you meet federal requirements of no felonies, but they can't legally take them anywhere but to the range, to their cars, and at home.

    Limiting access to guns just makes it harder for people to legally own them. It doesn't make it harder for people to illegally own them. Why? Anyone who wants to own one illegally can already get one illegally and that's no going to change by making legal guns harder to come by.

    Did you know that homicide rates dropped rapidly after Texas introduced the CHL bill that allows licensed persons to carry a concealed weapon? And did you know that people who have a CHL (concealed handgun license) are MUCH less likely to commit violent crimes? No one wants you to hear those facts, because it doesn't support the idea that guns are bad. In the hands of honest people, they save lives. In the hands of criminals they take lives. Criminals always find a way to get illegal items, so what happens when you make it harder for honest people who want to follow the law? Criminals have the upper hand.

    I think having a gun to carry with me helps even the field for me. I'm a small woman, no match against ANY attacker. With a gun, I'm confident that I can defend myself without firing a shot. But I'm willing to to protect my life.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Good for Texas re: bg checks and fingerprinting.

      One change I would like to see is making it more difficult for people to attain weapons without background checks, etc., which is currently legal in most states if you go to a gun show instead of a gun store. (to the best of my knowledge)

      I also see no reason whatsoever for citizens to run around with guns that shoot more than one, single bullet at a time.

      That is a surprising statistic about homicide rates dropping in Texas after the CHL bill passed. If you have time, I would be grateful if you provided me with a source, and thank you.

      Thanks for writing!

      Delete
  4. I think what most people want to see is the return of the assault rifle ban. Scary to think something with the power to kill so many so quickly is legal.
    The handgun debate is much more tricky. I know ideologically everyone arming themselves to the teeth invites violence in a way, but I understand the need for defence. In a restaurant or shop, in particular-no one wants to feel like an unarmed sitting duck

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm all for the assault rifle ban. With an AR-15, a killer has the potential to take out many. With my 9MM, I only need one shot to take out the mass murderer.

      Delete

  5. What's the logic in banning guns when the death count from either automobiles or alcohol far exceed that of firearms? Is it because cars and booze are everyone's fancy, but guns are seen as only white-trash toys for those overly patriotic clans? Guns are not made sacred in our Constitution for our enjoyment, but for our safety; from both outsiders and in; to enable us to always BE THE PEOPLE of the Constitution, not to be suppressed by those we placed in government, but to keep them honest and give us a last recourse to finalizing their misconduct.

    Just because you might see no need to have that safety net today, are you sure you want to eliminate it for the generations to come? Your children and their children? To say the Founding Fathers knew nothing of today's weaponry is like saying, "The need to be free from tyranny was a thing of the past. We trust everyone we put in power, and thereafter. We are exempt from power-mongruling." But wait, what about those in recent past, like Hitler and Stalin? Oh yea, they weren't AMERICAN! So that must be the ticket... if someone is elected into the US administration, then they must be absolutely trustworthy. And if they are so trustworthy that I should give up my arms, then what about the street criminals? Will they fall in line and start obeying the law, as well? Will they stop their home evasions, car jacking, street violence and massacres? If guns are considered illegal, does that mean all crime stops and I'm safer, as well?

    Well if that's the case, that I can trust the criminals to give up their lifestyle and trust all the politicians from here on out, for all generations to come, then where can I hand over my arms?

    BTW- In Switzerland almost everyone has a weapon by law, and there is very little violence.(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland) I believe the problem in the US is directly due to our society and it's glorification of violence, as well as mental health care.

    Besides, if someone can't get a gun, and they are hellbent on destruction, they will find other means such as bombs, (which you can find info to build online), or some other way to wreak havoc. Human nature can be a very nasty beast.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. To continue the conversation, The New York Times, Andrew Rosenthal put it thus:

      http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/21/the-more-guns-argument/?ref=afternoonupdate&nl=afternoonupdate&emc=edit_au_20121221

      "About the only thing more terrifying than a lone gunman firing into a classroom or a crowded movie theater is a half a dozen more gunmen leaping around firing their pistols at the killer, which is to say really at each other and every bystander. It’s a police officer’s nightmare.

      In the movies, the bad guys can empty 200 rounds at the Green Hornet and miss every time, while the good guys can knock a man off a fire escape from 200 feet with a rusty pistol, but here are a few facts from the real world:

      In 1999, New York police officers who were actually trained to use their weapons when seconds count (i.e., unlike civilians), fired 41 shots at Amadou Diallo and missed 22 times.

      Last August, two New York police officers fired 16 rounds in an altercation with an armed man outside the Empire State Building. Ten people were hit – the gunman and nine bystanders.

      Does anyone think armed civilians without training would do better?"

      Delete
  6. There are a lot of underlying causes to the whole thing, but in the end, it's far too easy in America to get your hands on a gun, particularly an assault weapon. Which isn't useful for hunting, or even for self defence. You only use one of those to actively go kill someone.

    For all the NRA goes on about the second amendment, they conveniently ignore the most crucial aspect of it: "a well regulated militia." That to me implies strict rules.


    ReplyDelete

Please share your thoughts.