This story I found through Hot Air angered me unlike any in a while. A pizza delivery man defended himself from armed robbery with a gun, and Pizza Hut has suspended their employee for this act of defense (not fired — yet — but they have fired people for this before). Now this is almost standard stupidity you kinda just get used to, but then there was this quote in the article:
Vonnie Walbert, vice president of human resources at Pizza Hut’s corporate offices in Dallas, said last week that employees are not allowed to carry guns “because we believe that that is the safest for everybody.”
Now, this got me imagining what was the actual discussion of this issue at Pizza Hut corporate offices. Since pizza delivery men are often sent into bad neighborhoods with big signs basically saying they have money on them, they are frequent targets for robbery. I wish I had some statistics (I’m sure Pizza Hut does), but I know I’ve seen plenty of stories through the years of pizza delivery men being killed. Anyway, the “safest for everybody” claim is obvious BS and I don’t think Pizza Hut believes it (I’ve certainly seen no statement from them on what magical process they think their employees can be kept safe in these situations). To me, the only way they could come to the “no defense” conclusion for their employees is that they weighed possible bad publicity from their delivery men being killed versus possible bad publicity from incidents like this. They concluded no one is going to care about dead pizza delivery men, but some people, out of irrational fear, might not order a pizza if they hear that the delivery men could be armed.
So, I realized there are actually people at Pizza Hut who believe dead employees are better than possible bad publicity, and I was pissed off.
Really, in America, should anyone be able to hold that position and not be shamed from polite society? Self-defense is a right — just like speech — where anytime you give an inch, there are big consequences. Luckily, recent years show we can push things back up the slippery slope as more and more states have recognized the right to carry. The next step is businesses, because the backwards thinking that defenseless people are better has to go. As for the completely ghoulish thinking that recognizes that unarmed employees are at risk but any alternative could hurt business, that has no place in a civilized country.
UPDATE:
Please don’t go in the comments and argue that if the pizza delivery men had guns, that would cause an escalation of violence. If people carrying guns caused more shootouts, you’d have numerous examples of that happening in the thirty-nine states that allows right to carry. It’s a settled issue, and believing that law-abiding carrying guns causes more violence is as tenable a stance in the face of the facts as believing the earth is flat. When its known a group is armed, people tend not to rob them; that should be pretty simple to understand.
Ed Morrisey has more on the deaths Pizza Hut finds to be an acceptable part of its business.
UPDATE 2:
Pizza Hut could try and turn this into a neat ad. List all the people killed and injured delivering their pizza followed by, “Is any pizza worth the risk of human life? It is, if it’s OUR NEW STUFF CRUST PIZZA!”
This is why my family has not and will not patronize Pizza Hut. I am thinking that it is time to expand the ban to the parent company PepsiCo. which also owns Pepsi (including Mt.Dew among others), FritoLey, SoBe, Quaker Oats and Gatoraide.
The one and only way to get the attention of the corporate crocs is to cut into the bottom line. There is nothing in the list above I can’t find in another brand or switch for something else.
As with the Amnesty Bill we can make a difference. Boycott PepsiCo. but especially Pizza Hut. Let’s help them understand how it feels to have a gun pointed at one’s head.
Excellent post, Frank.
Common sense no longer has any place in any decision ever made by anybody, ever. Kind of a blanket statement there, but I stand by it.
I delivered pizza for this company a couple of times, and they were adamant about the no guns thing. But they said nothing about baseball bats or hunting knives. Not nearly as good as a handgun, but any weapon helped give me a small sense of security.
I think we have just found a use for all those MRAP’s that will be coming back from Iraq.
Hmmm. I wonder if they have a security desk in the lobby with guards? They should probably get rid of it if they do…because that would make it safest for everybody.
Keep in mind that the right to have pizza delivered to your crackhouse outweighs the shop’s right to not have their delivery system used as an on-call carjack victim service and the deliverer’s right to be alive at the end of shift.
http://www.mises.org/freemarket_detail.aspx?control=162
I personally hate their pizza but I think a boycott is order along with communications to their corporate offices and their parent company by all concerned! When political correctness and publicity becomes more important than the life of some poor schlub that they are paying minimum wage to deliver their crappy product to crime infested neighborhoods is not acceptable! These pricks making these decisions are probably part of the crown fainting at Obama rallies!
I’d join with the boycott of Pizza da Hutt, but it wouldn’t make much difference. I’m probably the only human in existence who doesn’t like pizza, so it’d be hard for them to miss a customer they never had. But I’m with ya in spirit.
Maybe they can start a new ad campaign: “Free defenseless victim with every order, or your next one is free!”
IEEEE!!! What is wrong with you people! Guns only bring more violence. Like Police only bring more crime, and the military only stops the freedom that can come from an communist regime!
Instead of trying to MURDER the poor, mentally disabled person who is trying to kill and rape your family, why don’t try talking to him and using some conflict resolution. BUT NO!!!
For some reason you Neanderthal neo-cons think it’s perfectly justified to blow someone’s brains out just because they just happen to be hovering over your wife… with an ax… in your bedroom, at 3:00 in the morning. (if your wife doesn’t shoot them first)
I hope when the global warming comes you all get flooded first!!!!LOL,OMG,CIA,Down with OPP
I miss the peace gallery. In my business, we encourage all employees to carry a weapon at all times. I feel a great deal fo pity for anybody who comes to my offices looking for trouble ’cause he’s gonna find lots and lots.
I’ve never understood the “bad publicity” thing. I would gladly pay big money for the kind of positive exposure Pizza Hut could get if they supported this guy. We let our employees know that if they are attacked, we will help with their legal defense. We also let them know that if they go postal and start shooting the rest of us, they will be so full of holes they will whistle when they walk. It’s pretty safe for everybody, much more so than Pizza Hut, evidently.
Um… I’m sure they also have a policy which says, if robbed, just give them the money. Just like convenience store clerks. It’s a lot riskier for the corporation to say “fight back when you get stuck up”, as that would probably result in people trying to be ‘heroes’ and getting themselves killed.
Pizza Hut as an organization cannot be held liable for what their delivery men do with guns, and so they won’t allow them to do so. Otherwise, they are opening a can of worms.
I love your point, but how do we know for sure that having guns will save the lives of the pizza men? It seems to me that if the burgle-ee also has the gun that could be the difference between an armed robbery or an armed robbery with murder. Also, aren’t most pizza delivery guys too young to legally carry a firearm?
[No. That’s part of the same fallacious argument made against states with concealed carry, that we’d somehow get super criminals who just shoot first out of fear the person they’re robbing might have a gun. In reality, when it’s known that there is more risk of death from robbery, people don’t rob. -Ed.]
@Paleomedic: I bet company policy doesn’t say anything about wearing a katana on your back when you do your delivery run. It makes a statement, though.
You seem to be making a very bad assumption that an assailant would want to harm the pizza guy, as opposed to say, just taking the pizza. Pizza Hut is undoubtedly concerned with the safety of their employee as well as the safety of the public. Carrying a gun will make it much more likely that a situation will escalate into violence. Losing a pizza is no big deal. If the employees wallet is taken, Pizza Hut would probably help replace the contents. Having any situation escalate into violence is a very big deal and Pizza Hut is right to try to avoid it.
Let me put it to you this way. Say a bank robber subdued the guards and waved a gun in the face of a bank employee to open the cash register. For the sake of argument, let’s say the bank employee was allowed to carry a personal weapon and chose to do so. Now they’re faced with a choice of getting into a gun battle or giving up the bank’s money. Guess what? Giving up the bank’s money is always the right choice. They’ll get the bastard in the end w/o risking the lives of employees, customers, and yes, w/o even killing the robber himself.
Of course it has to do with reputation and how it will affect sales, but that doesn’t mean it’s a heartless calculation. Pizza Hut believes that not confronting an assailant is the best way to keep employee and non-employee safe. Stolen property can be replaced, and the police can nail the bastard.
OTOH, if pizza guy was truly in danger of his life, then Pizza Hut policy should be to not send him in the first place.
[Your argument is complete and utter crap. We have near forty states with conceal carry and the escalation doesn’t happen. You are arguing the earth is flat despite the facts. -Ed.]
Riddle me this, why in areas where there is concealed carry do the incidence of violent crimes go down?
Is it because the bad guys, who prey upon the weak and unarmed, and who are basically cowards (other wise they’d have jobs and lives) are AFRAID to commit crimes? After all the victims are supposed to be afraid not the scum sucking, yellowed bellied, bulling, blivets who prey upon them.
How DARE people be allowed to protect themselves. What’s next, religious folks allowed to pray in public? We are doomed.
#11 & 12
Good analysis but our outrage is the reaction of Piss Hut. Law abiding Americans have a right to protect themselves, which includes the carrying of firearms if they so choose. They are punishing this guy for evoking his god given right to defend himself from an attacker. Piss Hut could take the easy way out by saying they don’t encourage the caring of firearms and leave it at that, as not to encourage the practice. Just let the guy keep his job so he can provide for himself.
In my opinion as a dirty capitalist pig, Piss Hut has the right not to keep this guy as an employee because they don’t like his ideas of “Personal Liberty”. But I have a right to not get their crappy pizza. (Little Caesars is soo much better anyway!)
As someone living in a country where the right to self-defense has been all but fully abolished: it’s the opposite of what a lot of people believe.
It’s a system where going to jail for a criminal is nearly impossible, where gun ownership is prohibited and where using a gun for self defense means instant indictment for murder that creates these “super criminals”, who invade homes, rape/torture, kill and THEN ask where the safe is and rob.
Hold on to that second amendment. Hold on to it with all your life.
[We need to defend this right as loudly as possible, so maybe other countries will finally learn some sense on it. -Ed.]
#14 Posted By ????????????????
Your arguement only makes sense in the land of unicorns and butterflies where the armed robbers point a gun, get the money, say have a nice day and leave. I’ve seen too much footage of places getting robbed, the scum gets the money and shoots the person anyways. The way I see it if someone comes up to me with a gun, they have one thought, to make me dead. I can either die or make them dead, If you liberals choose to not protect yourself and wind up dead, to me, thats just thinning of the herd! But don’t ever try and take away my right to protect myself because you choose not to protect yourself.
Pizza Hut “allowing” a person to exercise their Constitutional rights does not make them liable for that person’s actions; they are simply setting the policy they think will present the best image for their brand. An organizational rule that vacates a person’s rights is open to question. A better policy would be no policy.
Under most circumstances it is definitely best to let a criminal have the pizza, the cash bag and the Ford Fiesta without resistance. But this philosophy is not widely taught to meth-heads. An armed person can choose to let a two-bit shithead walk away with $22.95 but a person who has been disarmed by the VP of public relations is forced to hope the thief is not also a murderer.
Ken Hammond stopped a mass murder in Utah (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,315563,00.html) BECAUSE he ignored the tacked up sign prohibiting his sidearm. An employee faced with a choice between losing a low-paying job and his life has a clear choice indeed.
OTOH, if pizza guy was truly in danger of his life, then Pizza Hut policy should be to not send him in the first place
#14 – Pizza Hut would never do that for fear of being called racist when some of the no delivery zones turn out to be black or hispanic neighborhoods.
The pizza guy wearing a sign would be good:
“I’m armed. Don’t mess with me unless you want bullets in your deep-tush pizza.”
“You want bullets with that?”
OK, nobody’s laughing.
Say a bank robber subdued the guards and waved a gun in the face of a bank employee to open the cash register. For the sake of argument, let’s say the bank employee was allowed to carry a personal weapon and chose to do so. Now they’re faced with a choice of getting into a gun battle or giving up the bank’s money.– Anonymous
Hmm… now imagine if a would-be robber knew that the bank tellers just might be armed. If it were me about to commit the crime, I would think twice before I decide to assault anyone in the bank. Your assertion that Frank or the rest of us “seem to be making a very bad assumption that an assailant would want to harm the pizza guy” is yet another way of trying to minimize the initial crime while demonizing the guy who might not want to put his future in the hands of a criminal; the very act or robbing the poor fellow is harming him in some way to begin with
If I point a gun- loaded or not- at someone else, that is a crime against their well being & sense of security. In fact, my gun would not need to even be a real gun; all it has to be is a realistic threat & the rest is psychological warfare against the victim, who is now at my mercy…maybe for the rest of his life, as far as he is concerned.
However, if I knew that said individual is also armed, I could:
* Think twice before I attempt to hurt this guy, or
* Go ahead & act the fool, where I would richly deserve a couple of lead pills
Conversely, if I were the guy getting robbed, I’m not going to assume that the perp doesn’t really want to “harm me”; I’m going to instantly realize that if this idiot is going to put both of our futures at risk (my life and his freedom…if he were actually caught & could be identified, provided I was not killed in the act of being robbed) just for a few dollars, then he is capable of anything.
Screw Pizza Hut. Personal security is more important that “bad publicity”.
I’ve delivered for PH and Dominoes. Both had policies of no guns and both said that you should give your money if you were robbed. Also, both said that if you got robbed and had more than $20 taken from you you would get fired. They follow the convenience store logic of limiting the take. You were never supposed to leave the store with more than $20 for change, but quite often you would leave the store with more than one order and have to go to two or three different locations. There was no way I would have less than $20 on me at the second stop.
On many occasions I would empty my pockets of the cash I carried and put it into my socks before a delivery and only keep enough cash in my pocket to make change for a $20 bill. That way when I made change for a customer I wouldn’t have to show more than a couple of dollars cash. I especially did this when I delivered around the homeless shelters.
All this was in Utah, where there aren’t any really bad areas. I hate to think what a delivery job in a big city would be like.
I didn’t pack, but I was VERY careful, never delivered to a house with the lights off, etc.
11, 12, and 14
Do you people even listen to yourselves?
Of course it has to do with reputation and how it will affect sales, but that doesn’t mean it’s a heartless calculation. Pizza Hut believes that not confronting an assailant is the best way to keep employee and non-employee safe. Stolen property can be replaced, and the police can nail the bastard.
By your argument, a teacher who is gang raped by a classroom full of students should not fight back because it’s the best way to keep everyone safe. Of course, you will say that her chastity and honor is different than a pizza and I agree.
Where do you draw the line? At what point does violence or threat of violence against me or another innocent person justify my use of potentially lethal force?
Your assertion that we don’t know if the gun saved the deliverer’s life almost mkaes me want to shoot somebody in anger. You can’t prove a negative as you liberals are so fond of yelling at Christians. We only know that the deliverer is still alive today and that other deliverers have died in the exact circumstance he found himself in. Ergo – he probably saved his own life by saving his own life – no thanks to his bosses.
We are angry because he will now probably lose his job because he chose an act of self-preservation. He chose to exercise his 2nd amendment rights. Pizza Hut will now exercise their right to fire him and I will exercise my right to avoid Pizza Hut until they change their policy.
I see somebody beat me to the Katana issue. That was one of my favorite parts of “Snowcrash”.
I don’t think Pepsico is the parent of Pizza Hut. I believe they are one of the YUM! Brands. the Yum brands company consists of KFC, Pizza Hut, Taco Bell, Long John Silvers, and A&W, according to my research.
Hmm. I don’t know where I would be on this issue I have lived and worked in bad neighborhoods and see both sides of the arguement. At the very least the policy of not reimbursing over $20 is wrong because you have to have more than that unless pizza hut had a policy of it only took checks. That leads to the dumb arguement of the poor don’t have checks so that’s discrimination. I would be interested to know how one would whip out his gun when a robber already has one out, or do you advocate giving the robber the money and then shoot him in the back? I think I know Frank’s answer but that is a dilemma.
WOW! We have certifiable Dill-Weeds reading IMAO today! So you might get robbed and because you might get robbed you shouldn’t carry a gun because if you carry a gun things might “escalate”! That’s the stupidest thing I’ve heard…well…since Hillary or Obama opened their traps!
If someone walks up to me with the intent of robbing me…he has already begun the “escalation” process! I will simply control where that goes rather than becoming a cowering victim! And I don’t give a rat’s ass about what the state or federal government tells me. The constitution tells me all I need to know! By the time the cops manage to show up, my life may be over which is a bit too late for me, thank you!
As for you with more of a “Trusting/Let’s Understand Their Pain” types…good luck! We’ll read about you hiding behind some garbage can in a shopping mall before some prick blew your brains out!
Either way, we need to boycott Pepsi for that foul chemical after taste. Gatorade needs to be boycotted because of their unethical practices for keeping rival Florida State’s superior athletic drink, “Seminole Fluid” off the market. Frito Lay is okay since they are from Texas, and nothing bad ever came from Texas… Except the Dixie Chicks… And Lyndon Johnson, and Ross Perot, and Andrea Yates… But that’s it! Oh and Carrot top.
Well hey, Vonnie, if really believe in doing to do what is safest for everybody then maybe Pizza Hut shouldn’t deliver pizzas at all. You are just sending your employees into a dangerous situation where they might provoke a confrontation by walking around with money and/or pizzas. What would really be safest is if you had all of your shops set up like branch banks where employees are behind bullet-proof glass and slide the pizza out through a little door. Or maybe you could have your pizzas delivered by armored car.
I realize this may hurt sales, Vonnie, and would likely drive up your prices to levels that would be uncompetitive – but hey, going out of business is a small price to pay for your beliefs isn’t it? I mean, you are already asking you delivery guys to risk their lives for your beliefs – don’t you think you should put up a little something for your beliefs Vonnie?
I think we’re missing the point here, Pizza Hut Pizzas cause violence. It’s in the sauce. Researchers hve been investigating Pizza Hut sauce for over a decade and are nearly ready to publish their findings. Early leaks indicate that there is incontrovertible proof that Pizza Hut has been doping their sauce with powerful mind altering drugs that cause violence, and the mere presence of a pizza is enough to cause some people to go into a frenzy of robbing and killing. It’s got to be true, I read it on the internet!
If someone points a gun at you, your life is in danger. Even if the scumbag does not intend to shoot you (and that’s a big “if” — you can’t know what’s in the s.o.b.s mind), he could still pull the trigger for many reasons.
-he is surprised by some noise
-he twitches (as meth-heads are apt to do)
-he closes the free hand on your money, and the gunhand has a sympathetic reaction, etc. etc.
Bottom line: if some loser has a gun pointed at you, your life is in danger, and you should act accordingly
#21 Jimmy – I laughed and I read it to the fam and they laughed, we just had to get back from school to read it.
#27 I looked up Pizza Hut and it said the parent company was PepsiCo. which also owns Quaker Oats, So Be, FritoLey and something else but I forget. If that’s wrong mea culpa but I don’t think it is.
#27 Mea Culpa , Pepsico did own Pizza Hut until 1997 when it was spun off ?, whatever that means. They are now, as you rightly pointed out, with Yum!Brands along with Long John Silver, KFC, Taco Bell, A&W with corporate offices in Louisville KY, Irvine CA and Dallas TX as well as offices in Shanghi China.
My face is red and that’s not with pizza sauce, with or without additives.
mmmmmmm. A&W rooooooot beeeeer.
here in Amarillo Texas a Pizza Hut employee was killed and her head stuffed in a pizza oven. during the commission of a robbery. i bet she was thinking it might have been safer to have a gun at the time her head was cut off. and i bet she would have told PizzaCorporate to go to hell if she had it to do over again. but she doesn’t.
It’s more likely to be a liability than a publicity issue. If Pizza Hut allows its delivery personnel to carry guns on the job, Pizza Hut becomes liable for anybody who is harmed by accident or by mistake by a deliveryperson’s gun–even such things as ricochets or a bad guy returning fire. Note that it would be much harder for a deliveryperson or their family to sue on the grounds that a deliveryperson was hurt or killed because they did not have a gun. In the former case, the plaintiff’s lawyer only needs to establish that the victim would not have been injured by the gun if the gun wasn’t there. In the latter case, the lawyer would have to establish that a gun would have saved the day, which is considerably more difficult. So the likely costs of allowing guns vastly exceed the likely costs of prohibiting them. Frankly, from a liability standpoint, Pizza Hut management would be nuts to allow it, even if they privately believe that their delivery guys would be safer with guns and are privately cheering the delivery guy for fighting back.
Needless to say, nobody has any kind of right to carry a gun on the job. If your employer want you to wear a funny hat on the job, they are entitled to make it a condition of employment. If you don’t like it, or are worried about the risk of being attacked by people who don’t like funny hats, you have the “right” to look elsewhere for a job.
[So… you’re saying dead pizza deliverymen is less trouble than the alternative… what I just wrote… -Ed.]
trrll, you’re way beyond your time! You should have lived in Germany in the first half of the 20th century.
Now about my jump. How high? How far down? Ok, bye bye.
Perhaps a class action suit by the families of those pizza delivery people who have died in the line of corporate stupidity may get the attention of the corporation. The only defense I could see Pizza Hut offering is that anyone who can afford a firearm is probably not delivering pizza – suspended hero notwithstanding.
Maybe Pizza Hut should go back to not delivering pizza and install metal detectors at the door, along with metal detection wands, gloves for more invasive “Are you really sure you want those bread sticks? If so, where?” procedures.
Of course, Ginos East pizza here by Chicago feels like a body cavity search the next day, so I guess there’s precedent.
Mr. Cat in #31, you’re not so far off about the bulletproof counters. In Flint, MI, at least one chain (Little Ceasars) has bullet proof glass at all their counters, with a spinning box of the same material to pass the pizzas to the customers.
You mean Pizza Hut delivers? Really?
The last time I ate Pizza Hut, the nuclear grease on their cellulose-based pepperoni combined with their nauseatingly mad-cow bovine cheese along with that sad excuse they call ‘sauce’ conspired to give me reflux acidosis for a week. The only worse experience I’ve had was projectile vomiting McDonald chesseburgers and Kentucky Fried Rat directly into flip-top garbage cans in Columbus, Ohio in 1988.
To the list of businesses that no longer get my money because they endanger their employees through “common sense” business security (better known by its acronym, BS), I add Pizza Hut.
Remember, if we outlaw calzones, then only outlaws will have calzones…
Is that relevant to the topic?
Sorta, but no, it isn’t. However, if we tell deliverymen of any sort that they cannot take the necessary measures to defend themselves while trading their personal assets for a means to live while representing their employers, then if you want a calzone, pizza, or fried chicken…
cook it your own damn self from now on.
If you’re disturbed by crime committed against delivery people- go get your own food.
I know that this means that the evil term “do it yourself” suddenly applies, but why any conscientious person would find it repulsive is a mystery…
unless they’re so lazy that they’d sell out their own jobs for some idea of social security…
When Pizza Hut says that unarmed delivery men is the “safest for everybody,” what they mean is that it is the safest for everybody at the corporate office. They figure that if a delivery man used a gun to defend himself it would open Pizza Hut up to a lawsuit. They would rather risk some poor delivery slob who is expendable than risk their money in a lawsuit.
It is not the safety of lives that concerns Pizza Hut, but rather the safety of their money. A robbery takes a few dollars, but if one in a thousand delivery drivers accidently harms someone, deep-pockets Pizza Hut can be sued for millions. No doubt, their liability insurer requires them to ban self-defense.
The only solution is for Pizza Hut to keep the rule, and for drivers to violate it. Perhaps Pizza Hut could get away with a lesser punishment, e.g. a two-weeks suspension without pay, and we could provide donations to cover the two weeks. Alternately, what is needed is some sort of job-loss insurance for people whose employers are required to impose these rules. Or some sort of tacit agreement between employers that when one employee loses a job after defending his life, another employer will higher him.
My boyfriend used to work for Enterprise Rent a Car, where they are not allowed to carry guns either. However, if a car is kept for longer than the amounted time – ie. stolen – the employees have to go out and basically repossess the car. You can imagine the kind of people that would steal a rental and what kind of neighborhoods they live in. Not to mention, you actually have to GET THE KEY from them to take the car. My boyfriend was threatened multiple times, including with weapons. Needless to say, he no longer works there.
Now he’s a cop, and he carries a gun whenever and wherever he freakin’ feels like it.
The only thing heartless is rewarding robbers and thieves with the money and free pizzas made by law-abiding citizens and employers. Only by taking the scumbags out of the gene pool entirely will the rest of us be truly safe.
Where’s a good superhero when ya need one? That’s a good mission for them.
1) Pizza Hut has a policy of no firearms.
2) Pizza Hut has the right, within the laws of the US, to decide on any conditions of employment and how to run their business.
3) You can choose not to work for them or work for them and carry and suffer the results of your action. Such as being fired to violating company rules by being armed. The employee made a choice to violate the rules, so now he must suffer the consequences of that action and take responsibility for his choice.
4) Again, it is their (Pizza Hut) company and they can run it how they please. The business is their property and they can set what rules they desire adn deem appropriate.
[No one was arguing against any of this, retard. -Ed.]
This is a pretty sound policy, no matter the amount of hot air you want to spew about it. Telling employees it’s ok to defend themselves, rather than passively giving up money, just screams “liability!”
It’s all about the bottom line. I figured you’d be behind that.
Flawed Logic.
This is not a statement for or against guns or our guns laws. It is just a case of simple logic. In Frank J’s post he says the following:
“If people carrying guns caused more shootouts, you’d have numerous examples of that happening in the thirty-nine states that allows right to carry.”
This is a very flawed statement. It assumes that in these states everyone or most people carry a gun. I live in Florida which I believe allows the right to carry and I do not know anyone who carries a gun. We can only speculate what would happen if all Pizza Hut delivery persons carried a gun or if every citizen carried a gun. One thing we don’t need to speculate on is the fact that the gun manufacturers who control the NRA would be very pleased if everyone carried a gun.
For the record I oppose the Pizza Hut policy that does not allow their drivers to legally defend themselves. In my neighborhood the pizza hut drivers provide their own vehicles and they have no control over where they deliver so who is Pizza Hut to make such a restriction. With that little magnetic sign on their car they are moving targets that advertise the fact they are carrying cash and/or food. I think they should be able to carry a gun.
By the way, check out the following link. This has happened before back in 2004 in Indiana.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38726
You know, most of the people who you’re calling “retarded” are just trying to explain the thinking that prompted Pizza Hut’s corporate “no weapons” policy, not to mention the realities of corporate employment. How about responding to their points rationally and in a civilized manner?
I for one would like to see your deliver a point-by-point analysis of the issue that cites good statistics and doesn’t include childish insults.
The vast majority, over 85%, of gun related deaths in the US are classified as domestic violence.
So I absolutely support an individual’s right to carry a gun. In fact, I think that if you want every member of your family to carry a gun at all times, then you should go for it. You should each have one at the dinner table, next to your fork and knife.
Soon all of you gun fanatics will be dead. And I’ll be eating pizza in peace. Darwin wins again.
[Is everyone against guns mentally retarded? I guess it’s a good people that stupid don’t want to own guns. -Ed.]
Those who refuse to learn from history are doomed to repeat it. An unarmed populace are simply slaves in training, eventually the criminals (the ones with guns) will take control.
I have yet to understand why if people want to practice their pacifistic yearnings they don’t go to places that feel the same way. Norway, Sweden, Denmark and the like are all of the same mind. Maybe that’d be a better fit.
I have been delivering pizzas for a few years. My company does have that silly be-a-victum policy, but that doesn’t stop me from concealing my handgun. I know that there may come a day when I have to choose between my job and my gun, but I will never have to choose being raped, robbed and murdered. My life and the life of my co-workers out weighs my love for this replaceable job.
[That’s the nice thing about conceal carry; people will only find out about the gun if you need to use it… and the consequences aren’t going to be any worse that being raped or murdered as would happen from not having the gun. I’ve never carried where businesses or law don’t allow it, but I would be stupid not to in riskier jobs. -Ed.]
[No one was arguing against any of this, retard. -Ed.]
Well, that was a well reasoned and rational response. I have been coming to this site since its inception, and even had a reader profile posted, and never expected to be insulted by the publishers of this site for simple statement of fact. I also provided information on job leads with the eingineering firm I work for. Perhaps I was in error offering to be reference.
Pizza Hut made a business decision, based on cost. Thats what they do. Perhaps you have mistaken them for a church or other institution that breathes sweetness and light. Every business makes these kinds of decisions. One of the parts of my job is to figure out how many people are potentially going to be killed or maimed on each particular project and how to build the potential cost into our bid price. Pizza Hut, yes, potentially has figured out that dead drivers are cheaper then lawsuits resulting from drivers shooting people or the resutling bad press. So what? Its called risk management. Its called a business decision. And yeah, it has a place in civilized society. I hate to binrg this up, but things like the Right to Free Speech are only applicable to the US government as they relate to the populace, not between private contracting parties.
You claim no one is arguing that Pizza Hut has no right to run its business the way they want. Maybe I misread “Luckily, recent years show we can push things back up the slippery slope as more and more states have recognized the right to carry. The next step is businesses, because the backwards thinking that defenseless people are better has to go.”
Forcing employers to allow employees carry firearms while at a private business property or while on said business will unconstitutionally extended the federal government’s commerce power to private citizens and restrict the rights of employers. You cannot legislate morality, and that is what exactly I read your statement to be. Any social utility you see by forcing a business, against its own decision, to allow its employees to arm themselves can never trump the property rights of the business owner to do so as he wishes with his property. I should be able to run my business as I see fit, you should be free to lead a boycott or publicity campaign against businesses with whose policies you disagree with. But pushing things back up “the slippery slope” via legislation is wrong.
[Sorry, I’m a little touchy on this issue because of all the stupidity that’s collected over the years and your comment did not sound like something a regular reader would say… but where did I mention legislation? Why is everyone always arguing something I’m not even talking about? Writing these posts aren’t easy; please read them and respond to what’s actually written in them. -Ed.]
#56:
“Any social utility you see by forcing a business, against its own decision, to allow its employees to arm themselves can never trump the property rights of the business owner to do so as he wishes with his property.”
Your argument is fallacious. The employee operating in the public domain is not the “property” of the business. It is its ‘agent.’ As such, your use of the word “trump” is clearly misdirected since the agent must abide by all local, state and federal laws to act as an agent. Why does a corporation “trump” such laws? Is it above them?
You’re implying that we have ‘law’ – including constitutional ‘rights’ – that are subservient to corporate entities that are themselves prescribed by law.
Corporate rights, eh? As otherwise independent of the law? A pretty stupid argument – morally, logically and legally.
The business is the property, the employee, is that, an employee, not an agent. An agent is one authorized to act in the name of and on behalf of a coporation. An employee is simply that, an employee, he is not responsible for the actions of the company, the company is responsible for his. Agent and employee are two different concepts. The property of the business is not the employee, but the business he is carrying out as a employee, as are good will, potential profit, future business and contracts. A business may operate however it sees fit, within the bounds of the law.
And a coporation does not trump the law, property rights should trump the law. Whether they be an individual on his own parcel of land or a business owner. The law can never scorn a mans right to be free, for it does not profit a man to be born free if he suffer the loss of liberty. And it is that liberty, dispose of your property, to run your business as you see fit, that, that property right should stand above overreaching federal, state and local laws, and those laws should be struck down on that basis. Any law with “commnerce clause” attached to it should be repealed. The right to own property and conduct your business as you see fit, that, that is the bedrock of any free society. The government has no rights but only those duties, those powers, those obligations with which it has been lawfully entrusted under the citizens’ rights.
Passing laws telling a corporation that it must allow armed employees is a violation of those basic property rights and liberty, the ability to conduct business as it sees fit. You claim my arguement is morally stupid. Well, I think forcing your morality, armed employees, by laws on a corporation is morally bankrupt and a violation of the Consitution.
As for my arguement being stupid, well, the Goldwater Institute doesn’t think so. Ask Kim DuToit is he is in favor of passing a law to accomplish this. Ask McQ or Henke if they are in favor of this as well, forcing corporations to comply under the color of law with your morality, forcing them to allow armed employees. If you get a coporation to agree with you by a boycott thats one thing, issuing laws to force compliance is another.
[Business have rights to pass whatever rules they want and it doesn’t help to violate one right for another.
Same as a business who wouldn’t cater to blacks, it should be the job of Americans to shame out of business anyone who denies rights and doesn’t respect their fellow man. -Ed.]
but where did I mention legislation?
You wrote:
Luckily, recent years show we can push things back up the slippery slope as more and more states have recognized the right to carry.
That was accomplished by passing laws for “shall issue” (in most cases) carry permits. Not by a boycott or such methods. So when you follow that sentence with:
The next step is businesses, because the backwards thinking that defenseless people are better has to go.
That reads to me following the same stratergery. Legislation.
[Fair enough. I meant the culture had changed to where concealed carry laws could be passed (you can’t boycott the government) and similarly we can change the culture to where business stop mindlessly banning guns. -Ed.]
@Guy in a Suit, who said: Also, aren’t most pizza delivery guys too young to legally carry a firearm?
Nope, not even close. This is one of those stereotypes that has been a pet peeve of mine for years, and it’s a stereotype that won’t seem to go away. It’s illegal to hire anyone under 18 as a driver because it is considered a hazardous occupation. And most stores I’ve ever seen don’t want ’em younger than mid-20s.
I’ve been a driver for over 10 years now, and I’m 41. The youngest driver we have at our store is about 28. Some of the competitors in our town have drivers that are clearly older than I am.
Pizza delivery is not a game for children, despite what the media-fed story templates say. It is the eighth most deadly occupation per capita in the US, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics; and it used to be the fifth deadliest until we got combined with OTR truckers who used to be tenth. Our occupation is the only one in the top ten wherein crime is a factor in the deaths (approximately 25% of all OTJ deaths are crime-related, the other 75% being traffic fatalities). Interestingly, law enforcement officers don’t even make the top ten despite the obvious hazards, presumably because they carry firearms and are trained to do so.
people, this is a common corporate stance on resistance to armed robbery. Many retail chains have a policy that resisting a robbery is a fireable offense. they don’t want 1. an employee being killed by trying to play chuck norris or 2. their insurance rates to go through the roof or to be canceled altogether because of #1. Have none of you ever worked in retail or for a corporation?
You can’t legislate morality? Since when? That’s what law making IS. No matter how many pages of legalese gobble-dee-gook a law contains, it all boils down to one group, law makers, telling another group, citizens, Thou Shall or Thou Shall Not fill-in-the-blank. Either the law makers make the laws they do because they believe the laws are good for the people they affect (a moral judgement) or they pass them to enrich themselves and increase their power at the expense of the people they affect. (That could never happen, could it?) Which kind of decision making process would you prefer in your legislators?