Pajamas Media

169 Comments

1. RettenTilSelvforsvar:

Sure there are examples of the “good guy” dying even when he was carrying a weapon, but do you think those people would have been any safer if they were unarmed? The hostage you mentioned certainly wasn’t. Statistics show that carrying a gun decreases the risk of being attacked, and raises the chance of surviving if an attack happens anyway.

I clearly understand that pizza delivery guys want to protect themselves since they are in high risk of being robbed, and I don’t see any reason you should be more nervous of getting pizza from a company that allows their delivery guys to wear a gun, since they hopefully check the criminal record when hiring. Furthermore if the pizza guy had bad intentions do you think he would obey the company regulations anyway, by not carrying a gun?

Apr 4, 2008 - 1:54 am 2. Dan L:

What a silly argument. If your buddy had asked that guy to come out side and sing kum-by-ya I think everything would have been just keen. NO, force must be met with force not platitudes. Your buddy laid down his life as part of a job that he choose. Just because you choose to give up in the face of aggression by truly bad people don’t try to make those of us that WILL protect ourselves and our families out to be monsters. One of us might save your skin but don’t count on me if you are doing nothing to try to protect yourself. D

Apr 4, 2008 - 2:27 am 3. Seth:

wow… I cannot believe you are defending Pizza Hut in this case. I used to be a pizza delivery driver for Dominoes in Washington D.C. where it is illegal to even OWN a gun and I brought mine to work every single day. You would too if you had to deliver pizzas till 2 am in the city.

Apr 4, 2008 - 3:59 am 4. Glenn:

I’m with Pizza Hut on this one. They have a right to establish rules for their drivers. Just as I have a right to buy (or not buy) my Pizza wherever I want, Their money pays their employees, my money buys my Pizza.

Apr 4, 2008 - 4:08 am 5. John:

“I’ve got to think there are better public safety options than that.”

Please tell us what they are, Dave. What you don’t realize is that it is already like Russian Roulette: except with six bullets in the gun and not just one. What we want is for the odds to be better than inevitable defeat, as you are essentially proposing that we accept, as if that is the righteous choice. You are imposing ridiculous conditions on the concept of self-defense. You demand that it be a guarantee, a ticket to perfection, but your carefully unstated alternative, walking around helpless, does not have to meet those conditions. Take Biology 101 (again, if necessary.) We live in a world full of predators of all kinds. Pretending that we live in a Disney world of mutual ethics, actually generated primarily by the Christians (which I am not) is not a rational response to the actual needs of our survival. Why you believe that no people can be made competent to defend themselves while holding that they are competent to vote is no doubt beyond even your understanding.

Apr 4, 2008 - 4:23 am 6. drbob:

Dave, Dave , Dave,
It’s always the same story with you people, that is until you or your loved ones are personally affected by this type of situation. Responsible gun ownership and carrying a weapon responsibly, are the best crime deterrents available. Statistics will verify that. Truth be known you probably own a handgun but wouldn’t dare tell your lib friends and co-workers. Ah-h-h the hypocrisy of liberalism, how sweet it is.

Apr 4, 2008 - 5:44 am 7. Curly Smith:

John asks what the “better public safety” options are.

That’s easy John, just take a look at Washington D.C., Philadelphia, Detroit, London, and any other city were it’s illegal to defend yourself against thugs and you’ll see both the policy and the results. But is it a “better public safety” option? It certainly is if you’re a criminal. Violent crime drops dramatically when citizens are allowed to own, and carry, guns for self-defense because criminals would rather prey on defenseless victims.

However, this isn’t a 2nd Amendment issue, it’s a workplace issue and Pizza Hut was well within its rights to terminate Mr. Spiers. Of course doing so as publicly as they did just made targets of their delivery drivers. Talk about a hostile work environment! Criminals now know that Pizza Hut drivers are victims-in-waiting and are ripe for the robbing. I’ll point out the other obvious item — Mr. Musgrove just told potential home-invaders that he’s unarmed and unwilling to defend himself and his family. Not a bright idea in my book but I’m not a wannabe victim either.

Apr 4, 2008 - 5:53 am 8. always right:

In this case, PH just lost a stunningly stupid PR, well within their rights, of course.

For this author to equate a pizza delivery guy out to make a hard and honest living to the “alleged assailant”,
But as a Des Moines resident — who like many people across the country frequently exercises my God-given right to order pizza and have it delivered to my door at any hour by a stranger —this is where I start to get almost as wary of the delivery guy as I am of the alleged assailant.

is another gigantic step in the stupidiness scale.

Apr 4, 2008 - 6:30 am 9. Steamboat Jack:

This is a liability issue for Pizza Hut.

If a thousand employees are murdered delivering pizza, well that’s too bad but they can be replaced.

If one delivery person is carrying as allowed by company policy and kills someone in error, that’s a multi-zillion dollar lawsuit.

The choice is clear. It’s far, far better to have your employees slaughtered than to allow them a means to defend themselves.

Apr 4, 2008 - 6:51 am 10. always right:

In this case, PH just lost a stunningly stupid PR. But the Constitution protects their rights to be as stupid as they can and want to be. Nobody is questioning them their right to the decision. So drop that line as if it is even objected in the first place.

However, for the author to equate a pizza delivery guy out to make a hard and honest living to the “alleged assailant”,

But as a Des Moines resident — who like many people across the country frequently exercises my God-given right to order pizza and have it delivered to my door at any hour by a stranger — this is where I start to get almost as wary of the delivery guy as I am of the alleged assailant.

is just another gigantic step in the stupidiness scale.

For your personal anecdote, re: David Powell, your point is irrelevant to Spiers’ case. A personal decision on self-defense (i.e. in your words, to counter guns with guns), “I’ve got to think there are better public safety options than that.”

It is always the same with you guys. In order for you to FEEL BETTER (“to NOT suspect if the guy is packing heat”), you get to think there are better public safety options than that (countering guns with guns).

You go right ahead to reward a business for their FEEL GOOD policy, next time a PH delivery guy get injured/killed you can FEEL BETTER at knowing the guy followed the company policy.

Apr 4, 2008 - 7:20 am 11. RebeccaH:

Who’s more likely to shoot you with his concealed gun? The pizza delivery guy, or a mugger looking for drug money? Your fear of pizza delivery guys “packing heat” is overblown and foolish.

Apr 4, 2008 - 7:50 am 12. jms:

“If a thousand employees are murdered delivering pizza, well that’s too bad but they can be replaced.”

That’s just as stupid of an arguement- an employee could file a multimillion dollar lawsuit as easily as the customer would.

but that aside, i think he’s right. someone here cited that being armed reduces your chances of being attacked and increase your chances of surviving- i’d like to see that study because it’s completely counter intuitive. there comes a point when, whether you are armed or not, the guy shooting at you doesn’t give a crap. a gun is not a bullet proof vest. it doesn’t protect you in and of itself. you can only *hope* that the other person is more afraid. because when the time comes for you to use it, it *is* russian roulette. who’s going to get their shot off first- you or your attacker? i’d rather neither of us have guns, because then i DEFINTIELY won’t get shot.

Apr 4, 2008 - 7:50 am 13. austin:

Pizza Hut is negligible for creating an environment at work that is dangerous for its drivers by sending them on deliveries where they can be robbed.

If it bans drivers from carrying weapons and bans them from defending themselves, then when the drivers are injured or killed on the job, they are greatly more liable for having removed the means for self-defense as a condition of employment.

I and most of the drivers I knew who delivered pizza carried weapons, many of these weapons were pistols. We as a group refused to submit to creeps and were determined to prevail even if it meant running someone over. My life is not as important as the pizza.

As for Law Officers being experts with weapons – that is a lie. Most officers shoot their weapons only during yearly qualification and that qualification involves shooting paper targets that do not move and do not shoot back. No wonder so many shots are fired by officers that never hit.

Individuals trained in the military and at civilian schools that stress fire and movement have very very high track records with both terrorists and in shootouts.

Tom Givens has one of the largest civilian student bodies and dozens of his students have been involved in shootouts and have prevailed.

The decision to use force of arms to protect oneself cannot only be left to the individual, who out alone faces a terrifying event where no one not even the police can protect them from harm.

Its insulting and demeaning and a gross injustice for someone to suggest remove that right by hiding behind a keyboard in a safe place.

I think Dave should put on a Pizza Hut uniform and walk around the projects and barrios looking lost and see how long he lasts and then feel how it feels to crap in his pants and pee in his pants when some creep sticks a gun in his face and knife in his guts for ten dollars.

Apr 4, 2008 - 7:52 am 14. Heat Packer:

“But wondering whether the pizza delivery guy trotting up my walk is packing heat along with my pepperoni…”

Duh, you should be wondering that anyways, and should be prepared to defend yourself at any time, which is why you need your own gun.

Did Instapundit really link to this drivel?!

Apr 4, 2008 - 7:54 am 15. notalawyer:

Dave, you sound like a gun-phobe, as if the presence of a pistol in your pizza guy’s pocket or holster makes you unsafe. Does standing next to a uniformed police officer make you nervous because you’re inches from a gun? Contrary to a too-common belief, the things don’t go off by themselves.

Apr 4, 2008 - 7:59 am 16. JD:

So you’re saying that if neither David Powell nor any of the other law enforcement officers had been armed, he’d still be alive today?

If I knew my pizza deliveryman was an armed citizen ready to protect the safety of himself and others, I’d tip him extra for helping to make the world a safer place.

Apr 4, 2008 - 8:02 am 17. dsinope:

I am unclear on Dave’s point.

Does he believe that his friend would have survived the encounter with the kidnapper/murderer if he’d been unarmed?

Does he think that the hostage, or the rest of society, would be better off?

Does he know of some number of pizza customers that have been held at gunpoint by pizza delivery men?

And I don’t think that you could replace 1000 murdered pizza delivery people. After the first 50 or 100 were killed, the rest would walk off their jobs.

Apr 4, 2008 - 8:03 am 18. McCarroll:

Guys like the author of this absurdity are just wusses and cowards and will never understand the stupidity of their view. Why bother trying to convince them?

Apr 4, 2008 - 8:04 am 19. James Felix:

More than 90,000 people died last year as the result of preventable medical malpractice, all of it committed by people who have undergone intensive training and education. Seeing a doctor is obviously little different from playing russian roulette, and we should outlaw the practice of medicine immediately.

Oh, wait… that would be awfully foolish wouldn’t it?

Apr 4, 2008 - 8:04 am 20. John:

“I’ve got to think there are better public safety options than that.”

So, ah Dave, what you got in mind? Police officers accompany every delivery person after 6PM or something? Maybe hire nothing but illegal aliens for delivery so they can be easily replaced? Hope that the world gets better and bad people eventually go away or convert to nice people?

Well, Dave, what’s the “better public safety option”? Kum-ba-ya?

Apr 4, 2008 - 8:04 am 21. Jeff Cole:

Ah, you anti-gun Dems! I sure hope more of you post like this in the months ahead. Cakewalk in November…

Apr 4, 2008 - 8:06 am 22. Dave S.:

I’ve been a Pizza Hut driver for a couple years, though my store is a corporate store rather than a franchise store like this guy’s was. Having said that, the official policy either way is that an employee carrying a weapon while working is instant dismissal, and pretty much all the time, that generally comes to be known when an employee defends himself from robbery or another attack. We’re supposed to cooperate with the robber, although cooperation certainly does not guarantee safety. Not that many years ago at a different company, a manager who cooperated with a robber in opening a safe (this was before timesafes became common) was rewarded for his efforts by being shot in the head as soon as the safe was open. (thankfully, he survived and was able to identify his assailant and the employee who aided him)

Now: firstly, the idea that somehow the pizza delivery guy and the robber are morally equivalent because they were both packing heat is just plain silly. The driver carried a weapon to defend himself from just such people; he wasn’t brandishing it to demand bigger tips, he wasn’t waving it around to be a big man (as far as anyone knows, and if he was we’d probably have heard about that pretty quickly), he was engaged in self-defense against a potentially deadly threat.

Secondly, yes, Pizza Hut has the right to any policy it wants, but this policy is wrong and should change. Where I work at this time is a pretty safe place, but if I was going to move into a more dangerous area to work, to hell with the policy, I’m carrying a weapon.

Apr 4, 2008 - 8:07 am 23. Kestrel:

For you to equate an armed thug, with an armed PH employee is stupid.

But in your world anyone with a gun is bad right? Tell me, do you refrain from calling the police when you need them because they are armed?

K

Apr 4, 2008 - 8:08 am 24. paul a'barge:

“I’ve got to think there are better public safety options than that.”

What are they?

Not to be jumping the gun, but you folks never have any better options.

Do you not think that the fireman running into a burning building and a police officer running into a hostage situation or the concealed-carry permit holder having to shoot the person threatening his life would love “better public safety options”? Do you not think that the large number of these people have thought long and hard to try and come up with “better public safety options”, only to realize that freedom, responsibility, duty and self-defense pretty much comprise the complete list of options, like it or not?

Did you just fall off the turnip truck?

Apr 4, 2008 - 8:08 am 25. Protagonist:

For Pizza Hut, this isn’t a gun rights issue, its a liability issue. The problem here is Pizza Hut has respondeat superior responsibilities under the law for delivery guy handling guns. Imagine a scenario where one of the delivery guys has a gun for protection, but uses it at a completely inappropriate target. Pizza Hut gets sued for the employee’s negligence AND LOSES because he was brandishing (and using) that gun while performing acts in the scope of his employment to his employer.

Pizza Hut’s options under the law are few and tough. They let their employees carry guns and then be responsible for training them, and still be on the hook when they blow someone away at the wrong time, and probably scare some customers away. Or they could order their employees not to carry guns, sending them out defenseless and setting themselves for a lawsuit by the employee if/when he gets assaulted.

This scenario may require some special legislation or judicial review: allowing employers (or at least common carrier or delivery services employers) not to be vicariously liable for actions resulting from their employees legal possession of firearms.

Apr 4, 2008 - 8:09 am 26. D Palmer:

Dave, What’s your point? If your pizza drive carries a gun for self defense the only risk to you is that it might fall out of his pocket or holster and accidentilly discharge.

Or do you think that the driver is likely to draw down on you for not tipping enough?

Your cop story is a complete non sequiter. A cop getting killed confronting an armed assailant has nothing to do with your pizza delivery person carrying a gun.

Apr 4, 2008 - 8:12 am 27. DamnCat:

“wondering whether the pizza delivery guy trotting up my walk is packing heat along with my pepperoni isn’t likely to do my appetite any favors.”

Why in the world would it bother you if the pizza delivery guy is carrying a firearm? Do you think the guy got himself a job at a pizza place in hopes of a chance that you will order one during his shift so that he can come to your house and shoot you? Do you think the gun will suddenly go off of its own free will? Do you think that pizza delivery guys just go crazy and shoot people randomly? What possible RATIONAL objection do you have?

If I am hiring a guy to engage in a potentially dangerous service I am glad that he takes any precautions he thinks necessary to protect himself. I wouldn’t expect an electrician to fix my house wiring without shutting off the power. If my pizza delivery guy thinks carrying a firearm when out at night with cash is prudent then I would be happy that he did so.

Apr 4, 2008 - 8:14 am 28. Unix-Jedi:

After reading: “there comes a point at which countering guns with guns becomes little more than Russian Roulette. I’ve got to think there are better public safety options than that.”

I was totally unsurprised to see:

“Dave Musgrove is a Democratic voter and blogger. ”

Despite all the handwaving that Democrat bloggers (and candidates) keep insisting that the party isn’t anti-gun, it always… ends up… wanting to ban guns.

“They’ve both got guns, and neither is afraid to use them.”

Nice equasion of a armed robber and a victim. One decided to use a weapon to take what wasn’t his by force and violence, the other defended himself.

You’d have not needed to fear Spiers delivering you a pizza – he wasn’t dangerous. Your mental equasion of criminal violence and defensive violence renders your entire mental project devoid of reason.
Predatory violence versus defensive violence.

And if you still want to debate that you’re not biased here – note you named Spiers 7 times.

You didn’t mention the name of his attacker (Kenneth Jimmerson) once.

Apr 4, 2008 - 8:14 am 29. capitano:

Dave Musgrove is a Democratic voter

Imagine my surprise. Dave, get a clue — read up on what concealed carry permit holders have to do to qualify. In my case, 10 hours of classroom taught by a certified instructor on gun safety, use of force legislation, non-violent dispute resolution, plus an FBI background check, fingerprints, and practical proficiency course at the shooting range. Concealed permit holders are certified law-abiding citizens — you should be so lucky to have every stranger you invite to your home have to go through this screening.

Do the research — don’t embarrass yourself like this again.

Apr 4, 2008 - 8:16 am 30. Maurice:

Dave, I want you to think about this statement:

But as a Des Moines resident – who like many people across the country frequently exercises my God-given right to order pizza and have it delivered to my door at any hour by a stranger – this is where I start to get almost as wary of the delivery guy as I am of the alleged assailant.

You are saying that if you open the door and see a pizza delivery guy standing there you feel almost as afraid of him as you would a guy who was there expressedly to rob you. Let’s be clear about your stated belief – you are saying that a man or woman who works at a job making $6/hour plus tips is almost as much of a danger to you and society as someone who’s chief means of support is assault, armed robbery, and car jacking. And the only factor that makes these two disparate individuals even remotely equally dangerous in your mind’s eye is that they both carry guns. This is not a rational thought or belief Dave, it’s a phobic response to the gun.

You’re friend the Sherrif’s deputy carried a gun because it was part of his job and he laid down his life to save and innocent because that too was part of his job, and the lesson you took away from that was not the nobility of a man who sacrifices for the good of others, but that somehow guns are dangerous and wrong. You, my friend, need help overcoming your irrational fear of guns. They’re tools, not demons or ghosts. They can’t hurt you just by being there, it’s not the gun that does the killing, it’s the hand it’s in, it’s the finger pulling the trigger.

There are some very bad people in this world Dave, some of them live right in Des Moines too and guess what? All the gun control laws in the world won’t stop them from preying on weak minded people like yourself. You are a victim. I’m not being flippant, and I’m not trying to be insulting, but that’s exactly what you are. By your own words you describe a mindset that is prepared to be a victim. You are not capable of taking care of your own security or that of those around you, instead you will wait for someone else to ride to the rescue and that sir is what defines a victim. There’s an old polish saying Dave, “Wolves don’t negotiate with sheep, they feast on them.” Ponder that the next time you’re giving the stink-eye to the Domino’s driver who just might be packing more than a pepperoni pizza.

Apr 4, 2008 - 8:17 am 31. mike:

1. I must have missed the rash of customer shootings by pizza delivery guys with legal concealed carry permits. Are you really so afraid of ordering pizza now?

2. Since there are only two states and the district of columbia that do not allow their law abiding citizens to carry concealed firearms, chances are you are frequently around people with concealed firearms without ever knowing it. Ever go to a convenience store? I bet there’s a gun there. As an accountant I frequently see business owners in high crime areas depreciating their weapons.

3. The difference between the pizza delivery man and your friends brother is that a policeman’s job is to go into dangerous situations and in that case, try to save the hostage. A pizza delivery man with a concealed carry permit is only obligated to try to deliver pizza. A concealed carry permit holder is only allowed to use their weapon if they are in fear of imminent death or great bodily harm. Don’t expect a permit holder to draw a gun to try to protect you, that would be illegal – it’s only for self defense. If you want to be protected get your own permit and train to use a firearm safely.

Apr 4, 2008 - 8:17 am 32. Don Meaker:

Let’s remember that on 9/11 it was illegal to contest control of an aircraft with a hijacker.

That little strategy worked out well didn’t it.

A pity the women who was taken hostage (perhaps she was a pizza delivery driver?) didn’t have a gun, so she wouldn’t have been so dependent on the police to come to her rescue.

Apr 4, 2008 - 8:19 am 33. Craig:

Your argument might be more convincing if the delivery guy had accidentally shot a customer. But that is not what happened. And I’ve never heard of that happening. There is an astronomically high difference between the liklihood of you being accidentally shot by your pizza delivery person and a pizza delivery person being intentially shot by a someone trying to rob them.

You cannot make a distinction between a person rightfully defending themselves and a criminal? Good Grief.

Apr 4, 2008 - 8:21 am 34. Faith+1:

You honestly think the solution to your belief that the criminal and the law abiding delivery guy both carrying guns is to disarm the law abiding citizen? Are you truly that naive and stupid? That’s like saying your cop friend would have better off facing his assailant unarmed. It’s a ludicrous argument.

Apr 4, 2008 - 8:25 am 35. exception:

You make a fascinating argument for disarming law enforcement officers.

Apr 4, 2008 - 8:28 am 36. Macon Stoneburner:

I’m laughing at the risible assertion that a police officer is required to be “an expert with firearms of every description.”

The simple fact of the matter is that police officers, by and large, aren’t nearly as adept with their firearms as your average gun enthusiast who practices at the range regularly.

Many cops only ever fire their weapons the bare minimum that it takes to qualify with their issue weapon, much less doing as much shooting as it takes to be “expert” with guns of “every description.” If all police were actually expert-level shootists, we would see far fewer examples of police firing dozens of bullets at a suspect and hitting him once, twice, or not at all.

Apr 4, 2008 - 8:30 am 37. Kevin R.C. O'Brien:

This is the sentiment of many Democrats, although they have been plussing up on Vitamin Clue lately, and getting quiet about it in an election year. The reason is, the pizza man is not their voter but the robber certainly is.

To Pizza Hut, and to Dave, the robber’s freedom of action is important (”we have to try to understand what drives him to this, poor thing” and “he’s depraved on account of he’s deprived,” eh), and the delivery “boy” is expendable.

The hilarious unintended consequence of this, though, is that Dave, in all his quivering timidity, is joining us in the Pizza Hut boycott. Hey, I bought the pizza oven (Presto 0340 at Amazon) that Glen Reynolds recommended last year, and I’ll be doing up a Freschetta at home. (Try it, Dave… you can add your own spices to taste… you’ll like it). Meanwhile, Pizza Hut will see their sales fall. I won’t be back there, unless they not only rehire the victim of this crime, fire the PR bimbo that insulted him, so I reckon I’m done with Pizza Hut for good. No loss to me, plenty of places that sell pizza that don’t put the criminal first.

Apr 4, 2008 - 8:31 am 38. submandave:

Many others have hit on this matter of false equivalence. Being concerned that a pizza delivery man may have a weapon somewhere about their person obviously reveals much more about the author than either guns or their legal carry. I wonder if the author would be just as worried about if the driver were HIV positive or not (that can kill you, too, you know, but is of marginal value when it comes to self protection).

What so many anti-carry advocates fail to consider is that there are basically four groups of people:

1. bad guys who are going to illegally carry and are likely to use their weapon as a tool of force
2. non-bad guys who are going to illegally carry but only use their weapon as a tool of defense
3. law abiding citizens who are not going to carry because they cannot legally do so
4. law abiding citizens who have to optin to carry because they have been trained, vetted and authorized by competent authority and who will only use their weapon as a tool of defense under prescribed circumstances meeting the law’s standard for application of deadly force

Now, which of those groups are the only ones affected by no-carry rules or laws and which of them would you prefer to be armed (”none” is not an acceptable answer since groups 1 and 2 should, by default, be assumed to be armed)?

Apr 4, 2008 - 8:32 am 39. thomas:

Well, really

What is the argument that you are making. It seems that you are saying that the deputy would have been better off if unarmed. I am sure that would have kept him from being shot. So the next time that your life may be in danger, call a murderous, armed, thieving thug. Thugs, cops, and pizza delivery guys all seem the same to you. It seems that you are sorry that the pizza guy fought back rather than politely submitting to murder. And if we get into another war, I suggest that our troops be unarmed. This stupidity follows from your essay.

It’s hard to make this up folks. And Democrats wonder why no one trusts them on lawful gun ownership and national defense.

Apr 4, 2008 - 8:34 am 40. John:

This is just another example of fuzzy illogic and BS from a liberal anti-gun blogger.

An armed citizenry means less violent crime. If you’d bother studying the statistics you’d realize this.

Why I even bothered writing a response to this nonsensical blog has me shaking my head.

Apr 4, 2008 - 8:34 am 41. Kirk Parker:

Dave,

Given that the pizza driver in this case had a valid concealed weapons permit, and that permit-holders are charged with crimes at a rate far lower than the general population: your closing “fear” is just another unwarranted slur against the law-abiding.

jms,

Interesting that, faced with an actual example where being armed helped, you retreat to your “intuition” to prove that it can’t.

Apr 4, 2008 - 8:36 am 42. Bob Owens:

I’m sorry Dave, but as someone who has written about concealed carry–here at Pajamas Media, as a mater of fact–you have made inferences in this article that are simply not based in fact.

People who are licensed to carry a concealed firearm are extremely concerned about their use, as in most states with “shall issue” permits, candidates are required to take hours of classroom instruction before they can even apply for a permit. By the end of the class, they will know more about the specific laws than most police officers. As a result, they know that every bullet fired has a lawyer attached. That is a far cry from the concerns of a thug, who has no similar restrictions.

It is a statistical fact that an increase in the licensed carrying of concealed firearms has led to a drop in violent crime, a fact you would obscure by making the absurd argument that because a felon used a gun against police, that restricting law abiding citizens is the answer. The same “logic” would dictate that if your house burned down because of an arsonist, that you should ban the sale of lighters for everyone else. Your argument is illogical, and based on fear and ignorance.

And while I hate to correct your memory of Deputy Powell, he was not, by any stretch of the imagination, “required to be an expert with firearms of every description.”

If he is a typical officer, he was responsible for becoming proficient with his own duty weapon and perhaps one or two other department-issued firearms, and proficiency is a far cry from becoming anything like an expert. I suspect that you are a proficient driver of automobiles, but you aren’t ready to step behind the wheel of a race car. Likewise, police are required to meet minimum standards, and the overwhelming majority are not anything like an expert. Many civilians who carry concealed weapons are far more proficient.

Pizza Hut is within it’s legal rights to require their employees be unarmed, a fact now widely know. Continue to order from them, knowing that they cannot defend themselves.

Hopefully, those thugs who target these drivers who work for minimum wage and tips won’t bother to assault them on your manicured lawn.

Apr 4, 2008 - 8:37 am 43. Pete:

“I’ve got to think there are better public safety options than that.”

Keep dreaming. Until such options materialize, I prefer to level the playing field. True, doing so does not guarantee that I will prevail in a bad situation. It simply increases my odds from something near zero to something better. There is no utopia: sometimes life boils down to making a bad choice versus making a worse choice.

Apr 4, 2008 - 8:37 am 44. Shannon Love:

Dave Musgrove,

But wondering whether the pizza delivery guy trotting up my walk is packing heat along with my pepperoni isn’t likely to do my appetite any favors.

That’s because down in your heart, you’re a nasty elitist who assumes that the guy delivering the pizza cannot be trusted to make good decisions about the use of a firearm.

However, if you had a more egalitarian viewpoint and thought of the vast majority of your fellow citizens as responsible and trustworthy individuals, then the idea that the pizza delivery person worked armed would give you a sense of security.

Apr 4, 2008 - 8:40 am 45. h. see:

It doesn’t seem to me that there should be a liability issue if an employer merely refrains from having a policy against its employees carrying a weapon legally. Now, if an employer was arming employees (or encouraging them to carry), that’d be a different matter.

Of course, that doesn’t mean there would not be lawsuits anyway, with their associated dollar and PR costs. Not to mention that it’s (sadly) dangerous to assume the courts will always rule properly in cases like these.

Apr 4, 2008 - 8:41 am 46. tweell:

Here’s a handy page with links to many different studies.
http://www.gunowners.org/sourcetb.htm

Feelings are no substitute for facts.

A firearm is a tool, and like all tools it can be used for good or evil. It cannot make you good or evil.
A law outlawing firearms will disarm law-abiding people. The criminal breaks laws, and so will not be disarmed.

Apr 4, 2008 - 8:44 am 47. bkw:

And when was the last time a gun toting pizza delivery person pulled a gun on someone they were delivering to?

That’d be quite the news story, wouldn’t it? You’d expect to hear about it.

Maybe it happens as frequently as pizza delivery people actually getting robbed, which happens so often that you don’t hear about /that/ either.

But somehow I doubt it.

Apr 4, 2008 - 8:45 am 48. ion Ravin:

Uh, Glenn:
Your employer cannot make it a condition of employment that you give up a Constitutional right (2nd Amendment/self defense). Any more than they can require you to vote Republican or Democrat. If your gun is legal (and you have the proper permit) they can’t do that, I don’t believe. If that is not so, we have NO rights at all.

Apr 4, 2008 - 8:49 am 49. Mike G:

Dave, do you *really* think that if a pizza delivery guy wants to rob you or assault you, he’s going to be deterred because Pizza Hut policy forbids him to carry a gun? Look, if he’s willing to break the law to assault you, I betcha he’d also be willing to violate company policy. With your attitude, you should *already* be cowering in fear every time a pizza delivery guy knocks on your door — he could be armed!t

Apr 4, 2008 - 8:50 am 50. Mark Edwards:

How are those two incidents even remotely the same?

In one case you have a law-abiding citizen defending themselves from robbery and assault and in the other you have a criminal shooting a policeman.

Apart from the fact that both involve guns, there is no connection.

The fact, every day you’re probably around people who are licensed and carrying guns. Have you ever felt threatened before? Has a concealed permit holder ever waved a gun in your face?

This sounds like typical Midwestern gun phobia to me. And I say that as a former Iowa boy myself. Both of my parents (who still live on the North side of Des Moines) are terrified of guns.

Apr 4, 2008 - 8:50 am 51. Peg C.:

This blog post is borderline deranged. I’m boycotting Pizza Hut and letting them know it.

Apr 4, 2008 - 8:51 am 52. Khornet:

Mr. Musgrove and jms might want to look up John Lott and David Kopel. They can provide you with all the studies you want. There is good data showing that more armed citizens leads to less crime, and that your chances of surviving an attack are greatly increased by having a gun and knowing how to use it.

And you both might consider the interests of the criminal’s next victims. When you oh-so-nobly refuse to sully yourself with the use of force, you are ensuring that the criminal remains free to put his gun to other heads. We don’t just have a duty to ourselves; when we act in self-defense we are saving our families from widowhood and orphanhood, and we are saving other citizens from attack.

Funny thing about liberals. They tie the hands of the police, then tell the citizens they can’t defend themselves. The only way I can explain that is that they hate freedom. Freedom means people will make choices liberals don’t like. We’re supposed to shut up and get back in line and leave the running of the world to our betters. And if a few of us little people get raped and murdered, well, that’s just the cost of building the great society. Ted Kennedy and Rosie don’t have to worry–they have armed guards. They obviously disagree with Mr. Musgrove about whether guns keep you safe.

Call 911. Call for a pizza. See which arrives first.

Apr 4, 2008 - 8:51 am 53. jms:

so all of you are saying basically that, since criminals can’t be trusted to follow a gun control law anyway, that there’s no point in having any laws about guns at all?

Apr 4, 2008 - 8:52 am 54. jms:

actually ion, it can. it’s called “at will employment”

Apr 4, 2008 - 8:52 am 55. timmiejoebob:

The presence of a firearm, or any other weapon, and the intent to kill are two very different things. A weapon in the absence of intent to kill is merely an object. A human with intent to do harm needs only the nearest object that gives an advantage over the target. For some humans that advantage is simply their own strength. I know a young man who is now a deadly weapon in the eyes of the law. He needs no object but his wits. Sitting at my desk I have several objects within reach that could be turned into a deadly weapon. I’m a big man. I could strangle, stab or bludgeon any unarmed assailant. Against you these ready objects are good enough because I know you are not armed. I know you are soft. Luckily, I have no intent to kill so they remain a letter opener, a paper weight, a thermos bottle and electrical cords.

The irony is that you think you are safer by denying your delivery guy a means of self defense. In fact you are less safe because you seek to deny not just the man at your door, but all drivers everywhere. I’m guessing you wouldn’t stop with pizza deliverers either. It is proven that the ubiquity of firearms in the hands of law abiding citizens makes the society safer by both acting as a deterrent to criminals and occassionally by being used against a would-be assailant.

For every anecdote you provide of a firearm in the hands of the good guys causing harm there are many more examples where they caused good. The example you provided is proof of this. The policeman was killed by a criminal’s bullet. The criminal was killed by the police before he could harm again. How you could turn that into an argument against an armed populace is beyond me.

It is also ironic that the same people who argue against law abiding citizens carrying possessing weapons also advocate for the rights of criminals I think you should devote your energies to figuring out how to disarm, neutralize, deter and punish criminals.

Apr 4, 2008 - 8:55 am 56. RAH:

Dave,

“There must be better public safety options.” If you have any please state your solutions. There have been robbers and murderers since Abel and Cain. Since mankind existed there has been crime. There has not been any solutions that exist other than self defense. It is not a guarantee, but if gives a better chance of survival.

If you do not feel comfortable with having a piza delivered to your door by a delivery person that is possibly armed, then do not order pizza to be delivered.

Personally, I think you are very selfish in order for you to feel comfortable that the poor delivery person is supposed to allow himself to be killed. The delivery person already loses his job since most pizza companies have that as reason for termination.

Delivery people go to poor areas that are high in crime for low wages and now you want them to die also, rather than defend themselves. You must be thankfull that you do not need to take such risks in order to provide a living.

Apr 4, 2008 - 8:56 am 57. Jamie:

Protagonist:

Is it an option for Pizza Hut simply to remain silent on the issue of what its drivers carry (or don’t carry)? I do see their dilemma, but the job has hazards.

Jamie

Apr 4, 2008 - 8:59 am 58. jms:

if you have a particular study in mind, show me.

funny thing about republicans. they love labels.

Apr 4, 2008 - 8:59 am 59. JT:

Dave, please refer to the following:

http://jewishworldreview.com/julia/gorin030802.asp

Don’t feel bad. There are lots of people out there with your same problems. Don’t be afraid. Be assured I would protect your cowardly ass anyway.

Apr 4, 2008 - 9:01 am 60. indga:

Every man has the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happyness. The pizza delivery man was defending his right to life. Pizza Hut essentially says to him you can’t do that; it’s better that you be shot than that you defend your right to life.

As for your cop story, it’s a non sequitur. You argue against the pizza delivery man defending himself and follow that up by asserting the cop has no right to defend the defenseless. By your own words, American citizens are to be left at the mercy of thugs and gangsters and terrorists. Were we to follow your reasoning, those of us who were not deprived of life would soon find ourselves without liberty and unable to pursue happyness.

Apr 4, 2008 - 9:01 am 61. Squid:

jms wrote: i’d rather neither of us have guns, because then i DEFINTIELY won’t get shot.

jms, the fact of the matter is that the bad guys don’t care what you’d rather have. They have weapons, and they use their weapons, so your preference doesn’t really enter into it.

Now, since your ideal world where nobody has a firearm is never going to exist, perhaps you should spend some time reflecting on your alternatives in the real world: he has a weapon and you don’t, or he has a weapon and you do.

I understand that firearms make a lot of people very uncomfortable, because they are dangerous. If people don’t want to carry arms in order to protect themselves and their neighbors, that’s fine with me. I just don’t want their discomfort used to force the rest of the world to be as defenseless as they choose to be.

Apr 4, 2008 - 9:02 am 62. Bob:

Dave… A previous poster was correct when he stated you need help overcoming your irrational fear of guns. I’m not going to say anything else here, because it has already been said.

Apr 4, 2008 - 9:08 am 63. Mrs Butterworth:

“I’ve got to think there are better public safety options than that.”

Please list five practical alternative methods.

Apr 4, 2008 - 9:10 am 64. buzz:

Interesting. The real question would be why are you planning on putting a gun up against your pizza delivery drivers head? Since that is the reason he was so “willing” to use his gun, I can only assume your fear of the driver is based on your plan to threaten his life. Why would you do that? When someone puts a gun up against YOUR head, it is now YOUR decision what to do. Why are you willing to sacrifice the delivery drivers life so you can feel better knowing the driver has no way to defend himself?

Apr 4, 2008 - 9:11 am 65. GS:

“I’ve got to think there are better public safety options than that.”

If you could tell us what these are you might have a point. Otherwise this post is nothing more than “guns are scary”.

Apr 4, 2008 - 9:13 am 66. Dougger:

“To those who would respond that the best solution to the problems posed by the prevalence of guns is to increase the prevalence of guns….”

Only anti self defense people believe that there are problems posed by the prevalence of guns.

The real problems are posed by criminals willing and ready to use violence against honest citizens.

Criminal Control is the answer, not gun control.

I have absolutely nothing to fear from an honest man or woman with a gun.
I say arm all good people.

Apr 4, 2008 - 9:15 am 67. Robert:

Dave, are you getting it? I know it’s tough.

Try this: Did the delivery guy being armed and shooting someone who tried to assault him make the NEXT Pizza delivery guy MORE safe or LESS safe? Do you think this incident made bad folks MORE likely to set up delivery Pizza ambushes or LESS?

Unarmed victims encourage criminals and hurt people. Be a hard target.

And Dave…..time to GET IT.

Apr 4, 2008 - 9:15 am 68. joel:

Dave;

Perhaps you should only order vegan delivery in the future – pizza is man food.
Your police officer friend, if we could ask him now, would probably be proud of Mr. Spiers.

Apr 4, 2008 - 9:15 am 69. jacksecret:

“To those who would respond that the best solution to the problems posed by the prevalence of guns is to increase the prevalence of guns”
…but it’s not “the prevalence of guns” that’s the problem. You sir have constructed a circular argument.
Glenn: “I’m with Pizza Hut on this one. They have a right to establish rules for their drivers. Just as I have a right to buy (or not buy) my Pizza wherever I want, Their money pays their employees, my money buys my Pizza.”
…oh sure, I am with them too as far as their RIGHT to do whatever silly thing they want to, but I am not really with them in that they are making a stupid decision and ought to correct it, just not be forced to.

Apr 4, 2008 - 9:16 am 70. AGMycroft:

I’m part of the Instalanche, btw.

It’s certainly within Pizza Hut’s rights to set such an employment policy — provided they accept the responsibilities and potential liability that comes along with it (as well as enjoy the liability protection that other posters have noted.) I don’t blame Pizza Hut for having this policy at all, especially as it’s clear that they don’t actually enforce it very rigorously until after an incident occurs.

Pizza Hut had better hope there are a LOT of law-abiding citizens who make their decisions about where to order pizza from based on the firm’s firearm-carry policies (and who are afraid of pepperoni-and-heat-packing delivery personnel.) If there were enough people who cared enough to change their pizza-buying preferences because of their support for Pizza Hut’s firearms policy, Pizza Hut could charge higher prices, buy comprehensive insurance for its employees, and then potential employees could make their own choices about whether they wanted to work for Pizza Hut. Sadly, I predict that you, the pizza buyer, wouldn’t get what you’re paying for — the logical conclusion is that the ‘Za Hut drivers would accept the insurance but still want the option of protecting themselves, even if they knew they would be dismissed if they had an incident. Getting fired by Pizza Hut is hardly the end of a person’s career.

I bet that if you went back in time and explained to Mr. Spier that he would be held up at gunpoint in 2008 and that his choice was to (a) carry a gun and get fired in 2008 or (b) NOT carry a gun, get held up, and keep his job, he would unflinchingly choose (a).

Apr 4, 2008 - 9:17 am 71. xxxray:

That is a completely useless analogy. A police office gets killed by a criminal’s gun in a hostage situation means pizza delivery persons should not have guns to protect themselves from criminals? The opposite is the case.

Your fear of guns drives you toward taking away the rights of others. The police are under no obligation to protect the pizza delivery person or you. It is up to yourself. You can trust the criminal to not kill you, or trust using the handgun strapped to your person to kill the criminal first.

Apr 4, 2008 - 9:25 am 72. Dale Amon:

I certainly hope your Pizza delivery man is armed. He’s the one playing the real game of roulette… how many strange houses in how many not so nice ‘hoods does he have to go to? How many pizza’s do you order in a year? Which of you has the higher probability, even if householders and delierymen are equally likely to be killers, of running into trouble?

If I knew someone doing a job like that unarmed, I would think they were insane.

Apr 4, 2008 - 9:25 am 73. shimrod:

I assume the pizza delivery person is armed. When I open the door to take delivery, I know I’m armed. Remarkably enough, I’ve taken delivery of hundreds of pizzas over the years without either party to the transaction coming to harm. Think about it, there’s been at least one gun on the scene at every single delivery! And when you consider UPS, Fed-ex, and everyone else who’s knocked on my door, it’s simply amazing there hasn’t been an serious incident. The fact that something scares you doesn’t mean it’s dangerous. And when the other facts (like not one incident of a pizza delivery person shooting a customer unprovoked)prove that concealed carry is safe, you need to consider how screwed up YOU are.

Apr 4, 2008 - 9:25 am 74. Trent Meetkat:

I’m for boycotting Pizza Hut… but I’m also for Pizza Hut’s establishing their own rules.

However, the author’s anti-gun stance is misplaced. It’s not about countering guns with guns; it’s about countering criminal behavior with lawful behavior. Defending oneself against a criminal is lawful. Case closed.

The real issue is reducing crime. Rudy Guiliani reduced crime by putting criminals in jail – and not just the high-profile Wall Street types, he put petty thieves in jail.

I think the answer is a combination of building more jails, jailing more and more criminals, repeat. It also must be combined, my opinion, with zero tolerance of police brutality or other transgressions of their duties – lest the perps have a way out… And of course there will have to be some reasonable resolution to the war on drugs such that the criminal element associated with illegal drugs is sufficiently reduced – though that’s another story…

In the mean time, lawful citizens defending themselves – and hopefully killing the criminals in the process – is a good thing.

Apr 4, 2008 - 9:26 am 75. formerdriver:

You’re probably one of those people who gave a weak smile to the delivery driver before tipping him seventy-five cents “keep the change” for driving through rain and lightning to bring you a hot pie. Why? Good chance that you don’t see that pizza guy as truly human, after all, he’s lower class. And you’re afraid of him because you know, in justice, you’ve wounded him by making him prey to thugs, and by not properly compensating him, and so you know, you deserve to receive punishment.

Maybe I misjudge you, but how in the name of kindness can you accept sending some poor fellow out into bad neighborhoods where the locals long to rob without protection? What about him, the poor fellow driving? Do you care about him at all?

I think it is true that Pizza Hut is worried about liability. They also know they have relatively little to fear from their drivers suing them as the drivers have few economic resources to sustain such a battle. And most of them are the self-reliant, suing is stupid sort of person.

While ‘at will’ employment is no doubt legally valid for this, I do not think we, as Americans, should accept it. It should be illegal for PH to infringe on my gun-carrying rights. Maybe once PH acknowledges that its drivers are citizens by its actions, rather than drones, it might also treat them better.

And yes, I used to drive. Many decent people, a few good people, and more scary situations than I like to recall. So, I carried, and mostly shrugged off corporate policy because if the suits didn’t care about me, why should I care about them?

Its been a long time, but you dredge up bad memories of black, wet streets, and dimly lit houses.

Apr 4, 2008 - 9:31 am 76. Charles Eaton:

The reason for Pizza Hut’s and many other businesses to ban self-defense by employees is simply a cold-blooded economic calculation.
Disreputable lawyers are often willing to take a case when there is a deep pocket like a major corporation they can hope to sue.
A person who is so poor as to need a pizza delivery job on the other hand is will not have the economic resources to file suit.
Basically the delivery person is an acceptably cheap corpse.

Apr 4, 2008 - 9:34 am 77. Michael:

After reading the comments for Mr. Musgrove’s essay, I have three thoughts:

1. The author displays classic signs of hoplophobia.

From Col. Jeff Cooper

hoplophobia – n. – an irrational and morbid fear of guns, a term coined by Jeff Cooper, from Greek “hoplites,” weapon.

The cure for this condition is to find a friend who is a knowledgeable shooter and spend an afternoon at the gun range learning from this friend.

2. Realize that politicians that will not trust you with firearms, will not trust you with your money, your property and your freedom. The cure for this is to stop voting Democrat. (I wish I could say “vote Republican” but this isn’t !00% true.)

3. The author should probably take a time out from blogging. I would hope the comments for this essay would prompt a re-thinking of some fundamental positions.

Apr 4, 2008 - 9:35 am 78. Richard:

I’d considerer a boycott of Pizza Hut but I’ve not ordered there since getting a bad pizza more than 15 years ago.

Apr 4, 2008 - 9:36 am 79. peterde:

The really bad thing about Pizza Hut’s policy is that now it’s open season on all Pizza hut delivery personnel. Everyone knows they aren’t armed. Pizza Hut are entitled to their policy but I would never work for them. If they think that their employees are more safe not carrying weapons they are entitled to think it but I too am entitled to think differently and I think not working for them is my safest policy.

Apr 4, 2008 - 9:36 am 80. comatus:

“There must be better public safety options.”
Yep, I’ve got it. There is no “God-given right” to pizza. Pizza is bad for you. Deep down, we all know this, and a good activist Democratic government will, sooner or later, send it the way of cigarettes, since we all belong to one another and cannot afford the health costs associated with pizza addiction. So you see, the gun part is a non-issue.

Happy to clear this up for you. Help’s coming soon, Dave. Change is good.

Apr 4, 2008 - 9:37 am 81. Elmer:

What I want to know is, what has the twin brother John got to do with this?

Apr 4, 2008 - 9:42 am 82. Kirk Parker:

jms,

“so all of you are saying basically that, since criminals can’t be trusted to follow a gun control law anyway, that there’s no point in having any laws about guns at all?”

Nope. Speaking just for myself (but suspecting most here would agree) what we are particularly against are gun laws that disarm or unduly hassle the law-abiding. I am completely in favor of laws that prohibit violent felons and the mentally ill from carrying firearms, and that require minors to use firearms only under parental (or equivalent) supervision.

Apr 4, 2008 - 9:44 am 83. Mike:

This post should be linked to as a perfect example of liberal foolishness and “logic.” Res ipsa loquitur.

Apr 4, 2008 - 9:46 am 84. icantelluride:

You could just get up off your lazy fat ass and go get the damn pizza yourself, you lazy slob. Instead you force people like this poor pizza delivery schmuck to put themselves in harms way just to satify your gluttony and then give them a bad time when they try to protect themselves.

Typical democrat-liberal-hypocrite.

Apr 4, 2008 - 9:55 am 85. bour3:

I having difficulty believing what I just read. That does it. No more Pizza Hut for me. Period. They can take their endless stream of coupons and their [whatever business policy they choose] and shove ‘em. I’m not even going to engage you idiots on this issue, because engaging a resolute idiot leaves neither one of us changed. Good bye Pizza Hut, it’s been sort of OK knowing ya.

Apr 4, 2008 - 9:56 am 86. penny:

Does your fear of “armed” service workers like the pizza guy, who was driving his own car as Pizza Hut doesn’t generally provide a company car by the way, extend to armed pilots? Got a statistic on how many pizza customers were shot dead at the door by the delivery person? Get real.

What a low opinion you have of other humans. I suggest you never leave your house.

Apr 4, 2008 - 9:57 am 87. Matt Knowles:

hrm… 84 comments… can anyone say “bait?”

This is an obvious attempt to take a controversial stance that a lot of people will disagree with to drive up traffic. I simply can’t believe that the author is being intellectually serious when he argues that because a good guy he knows was shot and killed by some crazy, that another man who resisted a similar crazy with his own, legally carried gun causes the author stress.

Whatever…

Apr 4, 2008 - 10:04 am 88. jms:

“I have absolutely nothing to fear from an honest man or woman with a gun.”

dumbest thing i’ve ever heard. there are plenty of accidents every year that happen because honest people had guns. there are also plenty of people who are shot every year because honest people were carried away by emotion.

Apr 4, 2008 - 10:05 am 89. Chuck Pelto:

TO: All
RE: The Appropriate Response….

…to Pizza Hut is…

I ain’t gonna buy your stinking, grease-soaked, biscuit dough pizzas until you (1) rehire Spiers and (2) change your corporate policy to allow drivers to protect themselves PERIOD!

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Amongst the evils of being unarmed, it causes you to be despised. -- Machiavelli, The Prince]

Apr 4, 2008 - 10:05 am 90. jms:

Kirk Parker-

i’m absolutely with you on that front. i don’t want to disarm a populationi, but i will maintain that there is a difference between a ban and control.

i will also maintain that a company has the right to set a code of conduct for it’s employees- and it’s not a very unusual one either. i wouldn’t be allowed to bring a gun on my job, and neither would most people.

Apr 4, 2008 - 10:09 am 91. tom swift:

What the hell has happened to pajamasmedia lately? This is the second clueless post I’ve read here in two days. It wasn’t anywhere near this bad a few months ago.

As for Pizza Hut, my boycott won’t do any good – I’m already boycotting PH because of the previous time this same policy was in the news.

Apr 4, 2008 - 10:12 am 92. pst314:

“Delivery people go to poor areas that are high in crime for low wages and now you want them to die also”

That reminds me: Pizza restaurants have been charged with “human rights” violations for refusing to deliver to high-crime areas. Damned if you do, damned if you don’t.

Apr 4, 2008 - 10:13 am 93. pst314:

Dave, do you also fear shop owners who keep a weapon under the counter? Perhaps you should stop going out altogether and make all your purchases over the internet, delivered to a post office box.

Apr 4, 2008 - 10:15 am 94. JohnMc:

Mr. Musgrove,

Your uneasiness and belief that someone else should now be permitted to carry a gun is in error. The State permits him to carry a gun. Only Pizza Hut thinks otherwise. That is their right.

But here is the kicker. I would hold YOU responsible for any Pizza Hut delivery person who is killed while in the act of delivering your pizza. You would be a co-conspirator, for had you not ordered the pizza the person would not be at risk. Think about that next time you order your sanctimonious $5-5 special from PH.

Oh and while your swilling that all down consider this. In the scenario you offered, your friend did not have to respond at all. It is settled law that police departments do not have to respond to any call from a citizen. So while you are holding on the phone with 911 your attacker is preparing to reload.

Personally my first line of defense is me. The cops can mop up after the fact. But I want the pizza hut guy to have as equal a chance as I do in any altercation.

Apr 4, 2008 - 10:15 am 95. MikeMangum:

As Bugs Bunny would say:

What a maroon!

Apr 4, 2008 - 10:18 am 96. JohnMc:

jms,

Bringing a firearm on site vs doing so in the public square are two different issues. If you are on an employers property you are subject to his rights as the land owner to dictate the terms between you and him as to what he will permit you on the property. But once out on the public square he has no hold on me.

Second, many pizza delivery people are contractors not employees. Under those terms the employer has no hold on the contractor.

Me? I would love to see a local pizza parlor give signs to their drivers that said — ‘XXXX Pizza! We shoot to deliver yours hot. Drivers are armed.”

But I would advise this to both the author and commenter’s of a no guns bent to not go visit countries in South America. You would go apoplexyic. When I was down there on a job, there were 13&14yo kids walking around with SKS autos with banana clips.

Apr 4, 2008 - 10:24 am 97. Spade:

“But wondering whether the pizza delivery guy trotting up my walk is packing heat along with my pepperoni isn’t likely to do my appetite any favors.”

God, you’re a wuss. Man up.

Apr 4, 2008 - 10:27 am 98. Kevin:

Pizza Hut? Is that the best Des Moines can do? Gads, one would think there would be something better than Pizza Hut pizza out there.

Apr 4, 2008 - 10:33 am 99. Hakim:

There is one part in the story I fail to understand: The pizza man grabs the gun from his assailant. And, after that, pulls his own gun, to shoot through the mugger.

He would have been faster if he had used the crook’s gun, he was having it in his hands already.

As for the shop owners with a weapon under the counter, I would feel a little timid to insist on my money, if I am short changed. But, I do not carry a gun.

Apr 4, 2008 - 10:35 am 100. RW:

In the case of the police officer, you indicate the hostage taker was killed, and the hostage unharmed.

A)Isn’t the whole point of policemen (or citizens for that matter) having guns, so that potential victims might have a good chance of NOT being hurt (you know…”protect and serve” and the bad guys stopped? Looks like the concept worked here.

B)As tragic as any death is, David Powell knew the risks going in on doing the protecting and serving he was hired to do.

Apr 4, 2008 - 10:35 am 101. mwl:

This article is yet another example of classic liberal idiocy.

Why should you be worried if the guy delivering your pizza is armed? Do you seriously think he’d draw and shoot you if you were to stiff him on the tip? Or for any other reason? Have you no self control, and do you assume the same for anyone you meet?

I’m sorry you lost your friend, but I hope he’d be the first to slap you upside the head for your cynical use of the story of his unfortunate yet heroic death to promote your anti-gun ideas.

There are criminals in this world. Many of them are armed. When faced with an armed criminal, your life is at risk regardless of whether you have the means to defend yourself or not. No amount of wishful thinking for “better public safety options” will ever change that.

I suspect Pizza Hut will lose far more customers who are disgusted by their anti-gun policy than they would if it were to become known that some of their delivery guys were (legally) armed.

Apr 4, 2008 - 10:41 am 102. Stephen:

Is this the first incident of armed robbery and pizza delivery people?

Why was this pizza guy seen as an easy mark by the armed perp?

If a perp body count entered street consciousness through all pizza guys and gals being armed and trained, would pizza folk continue to be seen as marks?

Which is a hallmark of a civilized society: 1) increasing victims or, 2) decreasing perps.

Exercise: write 1000 words each supporting your answers.

Apr 4, 2008 - 10:41 am 103. Gerald:

If every Pizza-delivery boy carries a gun, the next assailant will not just hold a gun against his head, but also shoot at his first movement.

Apr 4, 2008 - 10:51 am 104. kevino:

RE: “There comes a point at which countering guns with guns becomes little more than Russian Roulette.”

Which is, of course, an individual decision made by ordinary people in those situation. Thank God those decisions are not made by the author of this piece.

RE: “I’ve got to think there are better public safety options than that.”

Like what? You solution appears to be to disarm honest citizens because you trust violent offenders more than people who deliver pizza.

I encourage everyone to read Jeffrey Snyder’s essay “A Nation of Cowards”:

It is by no means obvious why it is “civilized” to permit oneself to fall easy prey to criminal violence, and to permit criminals to continue unobstructed in their evil ways. While it may be that a society in which crime is so rare that no one ever needs to carry a weapon is “civilized,” a society that stigmatizes the carrying of weapons by the law-abiding — because it distrusts its citizens more than it fears rapists, robbers, and murderers — certainly cannot claim this distinction. Perhaps the notion that defending oneself with lethal force is not “civilized” arises from the view that violence is always wrong, or the view that each human being is of such intrinsic worth that it is wrong to kill anyone under any circumstances. The necessary implication of these propositions, however, is that life is not worth defending. Far from being “civilized,” the beliefs that counterviolence and killing are always wrong are an invitation to the spread of barbarism. Such beliefs announce loudly and clearly that those who do not respect the lives and property of others will rule over those who do.

. . .

In truth, a state that deprives its law-abiding citizens of the means to effectively defend themselves is not civilized but barbarous, becoming an accomplice of murderers, rapists, and thugs and revealing its totalitarian nature by its tacit admission that the disorganized, random havoc created by criminals is far less a threat than are men and women who believe themselves free and independent, and act accordingly.

Apr 4, 2008 - 10:58 am 105. Mark:

Re: Kevin Apr 4, 2008 – 10:33 am

I’ve been to Des Moines, and yes, PH is one of the better options

I work, live, and attend church with people that I know are carrying; never bothered me. Actually, it’s kinda nice to know that they are there…and on MY side. And Dave, if you truly fear that the pizza delivery guy is looking for a chance to cap you in the a$$, I suggest you try chinese take-out. Yeah, I know that the definitions of paranoia and phobia often use the term “irrational fear”, but dude, you’re pushing it to a new level.

Apr 4, 2008 - 10:59 am 106. MS:

Why mention that David has a twin brother? Has no relevance to your story whatsoever.

Apr 4, 2008 - 10:59 am 107. JohnMc:

Hakim,

Its not a matter of speed but familiarity. Any gun safety course will recommend that the shootist be accustomed to the weapon they use. For the PH driver that perps gun was uncommon to him. Heck it could have even had the safety on! Better to reach for his weapon even if it eats seconds.

Apr 4, 2008 - 11:02 am 108. Bugs:

I’m pretty strong on the 2nd Amendment, but I also respect the contract between employer and employee. If the guy doesn’t think it’s safe to deliver pizzas without a gun, then he should find a less hazardous job.

As for the question of whether the pizza company is wrong to require its employees to a hazardous job without the ability to protect themselves: That’s complicated. If you shoot someone while performing company duties, the company is liable to be sued. If they allow you to carry a gun, they are responsible for training and licensing you to use it or ensuring you have the proper training and license. Their staffing and training costs would skyrocket, they’d need more expensive liability ensurance, probably special licensing from the state and/or municipality, etc., etc. Their hiring would probably have to focus on ex-military or ex-police. In effect, they’d be hiring and training security guards, not pizza drivers. Pizza delivery would soon become very, very unprofitable.

I’m not surprised this guys not getting job offers. Would you hire someone who a) takes a potentially dangerous job on the condition that he not be able to defend himself and b) flagrantly violates company policy? I may feel sorry for him, but I wouldn’t want him working for me.

Apr 4, 2008 - 11:04 am 109. Steve:

So, by your logic if David Powell had kicked in the door without HIS gun, he would have not been shot.

May I, as a former pizza delivery driver and police officer, say “You’re a moron!”.

Apr 4, 2008 - 11:04 am 110. JohnMc:

Gerald:

If every Pizza-delivery boy carries a gun, the next assailant will not just hold a gun against his head, but also shoot at his first movement.
——————————–

Gerald, if word on the street was that pizza delivery people were armed and police trained to do so, most perps would stand well clear of any pizza delivery vehicle. Perps prefer easy marks not armed prepared citizens.

Apr 4, 2008 - 11:11 am 111. Richard of Oregon:

You are uncomfortible with both assailant and victim being armed. You seem less stressed that if at least one of them is not armed, even if it is the victim. I don’t understand how public safety is enhanced by disarming the victim. Why not disarm the agressor? I’ll leave the disarming to you. Am curious as to how you would go about doing that, since you would be disarmed.

Apr 4, 2008 - 11:17 am 112. Lummox JR:

I get where Dave’s apprehension is coming from, but it’s misguided. He’s thinking, “Gee, I don’t really want an armed man showing up at my house, even if I did invite him to deliver pizza.” While it’s possible some grief could come of that, it’s far less likely than pizza guys getting mugged, and they deserve the right to defend themselves. (Pizza Hut can also set any policy it wants of course, but the policy is pretty stupid on this point and needs to change.) For the pizza guy, what possible other option is there? Telling drivers to let themselves get robbed is stupid policy because the robber may, as one other poster mentioned, still kill them.

Why bring the cop/assailant shootout into this, though? It’s apples and oranges. A policeman using his weapon in the line of duty doesn’t change any equations here, and an armed thug isn’t really any less likely to be armed even if well-meaning laws are passed to try to prevent it. But that’s not even the issue here either, since this case isn’t about gun control but the ethics of Pizza Hut’s policy. If he’s saying the cop being armed didn’t keep him from getting killed, well there’s something to that I guess, but it didn’t hurt either.

To respond to a poster above, the reason a gun makes you likelier to survive a violent confrontation is not because it can magically deflect bullets, nor necessarily because it can scare off an attacker. It’s because if your attacker misses, is slower than you, or doesn’t kill you on the first shot, you can put the attack to an end. Having a means of defense can be the difference between one non-fatal gunshot wound and three wounds. It can be the difference between getting shot and not getting shot at all. If some crazy is determined to shoot you, then yes, he’ll try–and he’ll keep trying till you’re dead. Being able to shoot back makes a big difference.

Apr 4, 2008 - 11:26 am 113. Dark Helmet:

If only pizza guys have guns, then eventually only guns will get you a pizza.

Why isn’t anyone saying hu-freaking-rray, an a**hole robber got shot one less idiot in the gene pool?

Better to be looking in the want ads for a new job than listed in the obituary as a pizza delivery guy anyway.

Apr 4, 2008 - 11:32 am 114. Grant:

I imagine most every company providing the type of service that PH does has a similar policy. However their fear, unlike Musgrove’s, is rational. It’s the understandable aversion to multi-million dollar lawsuits.

Apr 4, 2008 - 11:38 am 115. MaE:

i don’t know why you even spent the time to write such a mindless, incoherent ‘piece’.

the ‘what ifs’ are all you liberals are scared of, and not the ‘actuallys’. WHAT IF the man i order a pizza from has a gun? him having a gun doesn’t matter as long as he doesn’t pull it on you. ACTUALLY there’s a better chance of the pizza delivery guy being set up *cough* Lionel Tate *cough* to be robbed than one WORKING on a job to rob YOU.

you liberals just don’t live in reality – those of us who pay bills can’t afford to live in that fiefdom of endless philosophical lunacy…like that byline had to tell us you were a democratic voter. duh.

Apr 4, 2008 - 11:38 am 116. Ralph:

Ahh, I understand the author’s point. An armed thug and an armed Pizza Hut delivery guy are equivalent!! The reason, both are carrying a GUN. The gun itself (In the author’s mind) is INHERENTLY EVIL. Thus, both the thug and delivery guy are potentially the SAME evil. In this case an inanimate object DEFINES both individuals regardless of their free will. Both are now BAD GUYS.

Of course, to see the total absurdity of this argument is not too hard. However, that requires the use of logic and reason. Traits that are sadly lacking on the anti ANY gun for ANY reason side (Notice the disjointed anecdote of the author’s friend killed by a firearm).

Hmmm…Audi Murphy = Lee Harvey Oswald? I DO NOT THINK SO!!!!!!!!!!

Apr 4, 2008 - 11:38 am 117. Gerald:

JohnMc:

Criminals adapt. And not by retiring.

Apr 4, 2008 - 11:48 am 118. Tom:

Dave, You stated there are better ‘public safety options’ than that. I noticed you didn’t list anything. Hooray for the pizza delivery guy. He may have saved someones life because this guy would have eventually pulled a gun on someone else… maybe even you. Ever think of that?

Apr 4, 2008 - 11:55 am 119. Fûz:

“More likely, the next time I think about ordering pizza, part of me will be reminded that the delivery guy may be armed, and I’ll hear a whisper of Dirty Harry’s own voice asking, ‘Do I feel lucky?’”

It’s kinda sick for you to draw no moral distinction between the pizza delivery guy and the mugger. You have every reason to expect a pizza delivery guy to have no intent other than to deliver the pizza, and every reason to expect him to employ a firearm he’s carrying exclusively for self-defense. It’s the guy knocking on your door unexpected that you should be worrying about.

If you live in—and he delivers pizza in—a jurisdiction that allows concealed carry, you should probably consider every adult who rings your doorbell to be armed. None of them have shot you.

The pizza delivery guy is probably running similar math in his head, regarding the risks he’s taking on each delivery. He has to, he’s at far greater risk than you are, because he’s 1) alone, 2) carrying cash, 3) moving about in all hours and all weather, 4) constantly getting into and out of a vehicle.

If you live in a jurisdiction that does not allow such carry, then you should definitely consider every law-abiding adult who rings your doorbell to NOT be armed, and every law-NON-abiding adult, and a percentage of all teenagers, ARMED.

Which way is less troublesome to your sensitive appetite? Which way would the law-NON-abiding rather have it?

Why should public law and policy reflect what makes you uncomfortable, versus what makes law-breakers uncomfortable?

Apr 4, 2008 - 12:15 pm 120. Khornet:

jms, why don’t you go read the sources I pointed out to you before you sound off? You wanted data, I showed you where it is. Please take a little time to research, then come back and we’ll talk. These sources claim that when citizens are free to carry guns for self-defense, crime goes down and there is no spate of crime-of-passion shooting. Read them, and if you can refute them, I’ll acknowledge that I’m wrong. Don’t do so, and you have lost the argument. We’re done.

Apr 4, 2008 - 12:44 pm 121. Earnest Iconoclast:

Which would you rather have?

A pizza delivery driver carrying an illegal gun against company policy, possibly with little or no training?

A pizza delivery driver carrying a legal gun after having acquired the local concealed carry license that requires some training and instruction in the law?

You have nothing to fear from a lawfully armed pizza delivery driver who is carrying a gun in accordance with releavant concealed carry licensing. That is what Pizza Hut should allow. Given the danger, I’ll bet some of your drivers are already carrying guns… but you don’t know it, Pizza Hut doesn’t know it, and they are probably doing so illegally.

Apr 4, 2008 - 1:10 pm 122. Chuckles the Clown:

just deserts for the robber!

Apr 4, 2008 - 1:13 pm 123. david still:

of course the company has every right to set its rules. You don’t like them, work elsewhere…called free enterprise system where you own the place you set the workrules.

Apr 4, 2008 - 1:18 pm 124. Belasarius:

Here’s how you handle your fear of the armed pizza delivery guy.

“Have a Plan to Kill Everyone You Meet.”

From: A sign on the door leading out of India Company’s Combat Operations Center

Michael J. Totten

Apr 4, 2008 - 1:33 pm 125. Fiddleman:

Wow! This guy is THE VOICE OF IGNORANCE! Like almost all leftists who want to violate your God-given rights (as enumerated in the Constitution), he is a sad combination of ignorance, arrogance and sniveling cowardice. I’ll be boycotting Pizza Hut from here on out. As George Washington said, guns are good!

Apr 4, 2008 - 1:36 pm 126. Yu-Ain Gonnano:

They’ve both got guns, and neither is afraid to use them.

God forbid my house ever get’s broken into. I won’t be able to trust the cops. After all, they have guns and aren’t afraid to use them, just like the robbers. Heck, the robbers are probably safer, they might not even have a gun.

Apr 4, 2008 - 1:54 pm 127. Russ from Winterset:

Just wanted to clear up a couple of misconceptions in this posting. You state that Mr. Spiers disarmed the robber, and then shot him. From what I’ve heard, that’s not what happened. In fact, if it DID happen that way, Mr. Spiers would be facing charges, since he’d have just shot a disarmed man. According to what I’ve heard, the scumbag robbed Mr. Spiers and then came back at him later as Mr. Spiers was leaving the scene, brandishing his weapon and threatening to “blow his (Mr. Spiers’) head off”. At that time, Mr. Spiers drew his own gun and put a couple of bullets into the scumbag’s ten ring. Mr. Spiers refrained from pulling his gun when it was a simple robbery, but he pulled it out when the robbery escalated to threats of homicide. This apparently makes him too mature to deliver pizzas to your door, because you require your delivery serfs to be unarmed and vulnerable.

How long have you lived in Des Moines, Dave? I was living near 31st and Ashworth back in the early 90’s when the Drake Diner robbery occurred. Are you familiar with that situation? The robber entered the Diner, announced his intent to rob the place, and then killed the cashier and a waiter after he got the money from the register. If you attend Des Moines Menace soccer games, you might realize that the Menace’s soccer arena is named after the girl who was working the register that night. The robber didn’t have to kill them, because they were already cooperating with the robbery, but he killed them anyway. Why? It probably has something to do with him being a criminal scumbag, I would think.

I mention that old crime because those two victims are just your type of service industry employees. They were unarmed, and now they’re dead. But hey, at least you would have felt comfortable having them bring a burger to your table, right?

Apr 4, 2008 - 3:55 pm 128. JB:

“I’ve got to think there are better public safety options than that.”

Isn’t that the general crux of every liberal-statist argument? “This is not good, there has got to be a better way than this.” What that way is is never elaborated; it’s the old “questioning” without the effort at an answer. An argument from utopian dissatisfaction informed by ignorance.

Apr 4, 2008 - 4:49 pm 129. Mark:

Best not even go out on the street since concealed carry is apparently allowed in Iowa.

Or is your irrational fear just related to pizza?

/sarcasm

Apr 4, 2008 - 5:49 pm 130. Maureen:

The pizza deliveryman drives a car.

That’s a much bigger assault weapon than a measly little gun, yet you probably don’t worry about the car driving through your window and running you down. You assume that the vast majority of drivers are people of good will, not people out to kill you.

A gun is a tool. As long as the vast majority of its carriers are people of good will and not thugs, you’re good.

Apr 4, 2008 - 5:52 pm 131. Dan_P from AZ:

Sheeple.
You want everyone including PH boys to be a sheeple.
But, you apparently don’t believe wolves would hurt you.
Or delivery folks. Or other sheeple prey.

But, you can’t logically believe that if you read a newspaper,
or watch a TV newscast. When “it bleeds it leads” is NOT
a result of sheeple attacks on other sheeple.

Prepare for your friends to eulogize.
“He was such a kind, gentle man, and he trusted everyone”.
Maybe your stone could be engraved “A GREAT sheeple”.

Sheepdogs. The only thing between you sheeple and the wolves.
The problem is the 911 Sheepdogs won’t arrive on time.

I suspect more than a few delivery folks of “all types”
are poorly trained sheepdogs. Better than being a sheeple.

I prefer “CCW” trained citizen sheepdogs scattered amongst the sheeple flock.

And, I’m very sorry you lost your sheepdog friend. Life is not fair.
I thank him and his family for “his choice” to try and protect the innocent.

Apr 4, 2008 - 6:18 pm 132. Hal:

Not sure if this point has been driven home, but if more burglars believed that their potential victims were armed, there would be a lot less burglarizing. The right to self-protection should be a given, because the police won’t always be there for you, exactly when you need them.

Apr 4, 2008 - 7:13 pm 133. Natalie:

Another take on this issue: If Pizza Hut, before they sent drivers to your home, actually required those drivers to go through the same level of background checks that a CHL permit holder has gone through they would be advertising that fact as a huge plus!

The link: http://www.jessicaswell.com/mt/archives/2008/04/pizza-hut-delivery-man-de.php

Apr 4, 2008 - 7:26 pm 134. Eric:

I think Pizza Hut is probably doing what it needs to do given the state of liability laws in this country. Apparently it’s easier to sue them if an employee goes postal than it is for a disarmed and murdered employees family.

I doubt they really care if you carry or not, as long as they have a policy to point to if someone sues.

Look, this is a throwaway job. It’s not like you make a career out of delivering for Pizza Hut. If I was driving for them I’d ignore their rule. If I then had to defend myself and was terminated, I’d go work for Dominos. And I sue them for wrongful termination just for fun

Apr 4, 2008 - 8:57 pm 135. Nathan:

Dumbest argument ever. If you’re concerned that your pizza delivery guy is “packing heat”, don’t pull a gun on him and demand his money.

Apr 4, 2008 - 10:02 pm 136. Peter:

After reading this drivel, I doubt you’re intelligent enough to dial the proper seven numbers in the proper sequence to even order pizza.

Apr 4, 2008 - 11:36 pm 137. gus3:

“A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

Full stop, without qualification. “Shall not be infringed,” by Congress, by any State, or by Pizza Hut.

The First Amendment proscribes only the United States Congress (”Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press…”), but allows other entities to restrict matters of religion, speech, press, and protest. The Second Amendment was worded to carry a much stronger barrier against infringement.

But don’t expect the dolts in Washington, DC or most state legislatures to grasp that concept.

Apr 5, 2008 - 12:48 am 138. andy:

I remember reading a case a few years ago(i forget where this happened) about a pizza delivery guy who went missing while delivering a pizza,when the police tracked him down by tracing his mobile phone they found the remains of his cooked and half eaten body in a disused warehouse,seems to me that pizza guys are in a high risk job,summoned to God knows where at all hours of the day,carrying a gun makes damn good sense.

Apr 5, 2008 - 1:27 am 139. Broadsword:

Two paragraphs in and this typical nonsense…”problems posed by the prevalence of guns”. You just said crime is caused by the density of a particular tool. It is a fool who blames his tools. You’ll note the story doesn’t say the Pizza deliverer stuck his pistol in the face of the pizza orderer. Why didn’t the particular firearms density cause this? You are presuming a causality where none exists. How convenient. And then there’s this bilge: “My point is that despite whatever an individual’s depth of experience and proficiency with firearms, there comes a point at which countering guns with guns becomes little more than Russian Roulette. I’ve got to think there are better public safety options than that.” I’d be willing to bet a hundred bucks and a vintage M-1 Garand that you do not own a firearm. But by God, you’re agin’ ‘em, and know that there are better “public safety options” which you do not, and cannot name. Better safety options for whom? I’ll keep my safety option on my hip, thank you very much, and you can keep your disarming the law abiding notions off my body.

Apr 5, 2008 - 4:06 am 140. Broadsword:

One other thought…if you would ‘feel’ safer were the deliveryman unarmed, what about his feelings? Why should your ‘feelings’ trump his?

Apr 5, 2008 - 5:54 am 141. jeff_nh:

Pizza Hut certainly is within their rights to have such a policy. No one is forced to work for Pizza Hut. If you don’t like the policy, don’t work there.

I don’t like it (the policy or for that matter their Pizza very much) so I won’t be eating/ordering from Pizza Hut.

Apr 5, 2008 - 6:36 am 142. Andrew:

“I’ve got to think there are better public safety options than that.”

There is a better public safety option.
1. Drastically increase penalties.
ie. Other countries with less crime cut the hand of a robber off. Public lashings for graffiti. Public executions. You get my point.
2. Make the punishment fit the crime.
Ie. If a person steels $100.00 he repays it or gets to break rocks at $10.00 an hour until he pays it off.
3. Make the punishment immediate and public. When a trial is done the punishment is executed.
4. Expedite capital punishment.

The punishment has to be BOTH cruel and unusual to be unconstitutional. As long as it is only cruel or unusual it is constitutional.

I own and carry a gun and have two different CCW permits from two states. I am well trained to use that weapon but would give it up if you could get all the guns from the bad guys. Other counteries accomplish that by being much more strict to abusers. Unfortunatly I would be willing to bet you would not support those “better public safety options” either. There is no winning with you. What are your ideas?

Apr 5, 2008 - 7:24 am 143. CHS:

What a fatuous argument–equating gun use by a man legally defending himself with gun use by a criminal threatening a life in order to steal.

Apr 5, 2008 - 10:05 am 144. drborgata:

this author is confusing legal law abiding gun owners with criminals and is basing his personal opinion on a completely unrelated personal event. He never once questioned his law officer buddy for carrying a firearm throughout the neighborhood for his entire career – - why is he questioning the pizza guys morals, relating them to that of a criminal over that of an officer?

because he is a moron who thinks with his emotions rather than his brain.

Apr 5, 2008 - 12:40 pm 145. Amanda Reckonwith:

I got a little lost–Was the moral to the story that we can’t rely on the police to rescue us all the time and need to take more personal responsibility? Off to the gun shop!

Apr 5, 2008 - 3:26 pm 146. CCWHolder:

The arguement that a CCW permit holder is more apt to shoot than a crimminal is silly, childish, and plain wrong.
A permit holder is not a felon, is not a lawbreaker, is not “packing heat” to hurt YOU, unless YOU mean HIM harm. Anti-gun zealots are spinning anything they can to further reduce the Constitution.
Pass all the laws you want, enforce them all you can. Bottom line is, the only person that does not care, is the crimminal.
I suggest that before another anti starts spewing crap about how the Pizza Hut man is gonna be the next bad guy, they do some research and find out what it takes to get a permit. When you do that, Ill be happy to feed you the crow you will have to eat.

Apr 5, 2008 - 6:59 pm 147. Rich:

I can understand where Pizza Hut is coming from even though I disagree with it.

The better answer is to pass legislation to indemnify companies for their employees self defense actions.

When I go out boating, I wear a life jacket.
I hope that I never need it.

I have a fire extinguisher in my house.
I hope that I never need it.

When I get into my car, I put on my seat belt.
I hope that I never need it.

I carry a handgun.
I hope that I never need it.

Guns are just another piece of safety equipment.

Apr 5, 2008 - 8:41 pm 148. Laika's Last Woof:

“Now: firstly, the idea that somehow the pizza delivery guy and the robber are morally equivalent because they were both packing heat is just plain silly.”

Not to Dave Musgrove, Democratic voter and blogger. Since Democrats see criminals as victims, when a crime victim resists it victimizes the criminal-victim. Whether or not that twisted logic makes sense to you really depends on whether or not you’re a Democrat.

To those of us who aren’t Democrats the real issue is whom to trust, an existential internal dialogue compressed into a few milliseconds’ time for a critical binary decision: obey or resist?
If you obey your life depends on an implicit bargain with the criminal: allow him to hurt you a little and maybe he won’t hurt you a lot.
If you resist your life depends on your situational awareness, training, tactics, and initiative relative to your opponent’s. Maybe he’ll see you coming and kill you before you fire a shot or maybe he’ll die before his brain even processes the visual dissonance produced by the sudden perception of a blue steel tube where a tan leather rectangle was expected. It all comes down to reflexes.
That brings us back to the question of trust: “Do I trust my reflexes more than I trust the implicit promise of a criminal?”
There are a number of people for whom “yes” was the correct answer. I count myself among that number.
I’ve found that in life, whether spanning years of effort or seconds of terrifying armed conflict, trust in oneself is rarely misplaced.

Apr 6, 2008 - 4:42 am 149. Bad Form:

I’ve been doing a bit of searching for info on this case, and this is my first experience with your blog.

Such a sour attitude, and a worse taste in my mouth because of it.
I’ll not be bothering with the rest of your site, if this is your attitude.

Apr 6, 2008 - 7:56 am 150. Kay:

Jurisdiction.

According to Wikepedia:

“Jurisdiction is the authority given to a legal body, or to a political leader (Prime Minister, President, etc.) to deal with legal matters, and to pronounce or enforce legal matters.”

Funny, I don’t see anything about “corporation” in there.

Corporations simply lack the legal jurisdiction to dictate policy which contradicts civil or criminal laws.

Discriminatory racial, gender, religious, sexual preference, age, etc. “policies” corporations used to excercise were found to be in violation of the Constitution (pesky document, eh?) and were outlawed.

They do have the right to establish policy regarding their property, i.e., store locations, company vehicles.

They also have the responsibility to disclose the fact of these policies to potential employees.

The right to carry “weapons”, be they sharp pencils, pizza cutters, or firearms, is afforded by the Bill of Rights. In other words, Pizza Hut cannot “give” permission or “remove” permission to possess firearms or any other waepon simply because it is out of their “jurisdiction” to do so.

James Spiers lawfully used his firearm, had legal authority to carry it, and notified Law Enforcement properly, subsequent to the incident.

George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, et al, constructed the Constitution to protect us from Government. They never imagined that an American Corporation could or would arrogantly exercise “authority” contradicting the freedoms most of us hold dear.

Slavery was abolished? This amounts to “financial slavery”.

“You want to keep your job? Give up your American citizenship for that of the XYZ Corporation, in exchange for the privilege of the small wages we pay you. Also, your life may be in peril during the course of your employment, but you won’t be allowed to defend yourself. If you choose to violate this policy, we will be forced to fire you. We won’t protect you from harm in exchange. If you don’t like this “policy”, don’t work here because you need us more than we need you.”

Many Corporations (Home Depot, Wal-Mart, etc) have similar policies.

Only by “due process” are rights taken away. Meaning, when accused of breaking the law, you are entitled to a trial and if convicted, your rights may be taken away.

Your employer doesn’t have this right.

Perhaps we should discuss whether or not we wish to be human property subject to the whims of our employers. Since most of us don’t grow our own food, looks like we have to put up with it, because we need to eat.

Perhaps the goverment entities who issue Corporate Charters, should also ensure these entities aren’t violating our Bill of Rights.

Perhaps the Congress should look into these types of issues and let corporations who do business in the U.S. be aware that they do not supercede or regulate the Bill of Rights.

And enforce it.

Apr 6, 2008 - 8:59 am 151. Rick:

You are the stupidest person I’ve ever heard of. You state that David Powell died in the line of duty and somehow that supports your anti gun beliefs. You want to make guns illegal to carry. Do you think that dirtbag that was trying to rob James Spiers would not have pulled a gun on him if your anti gun beliefs came true? Criminals, by their very nature don’t comply with laws. Everywhere that guns have been made legal to carry the crime rate goes down. Thats a fact that you anti gun airheads refuse to acknowledge. I hope the laws are changed in Washington D.C. Right now, every dirtbag is carring a weapon (illegally) and all the honest citizens have to hope it will be someone else who will be robbed. My only regret in the Spiers situation is that he did not kill that walking garbage. You can bet that when he gets out of jail, he will go right back to what he does best. Of course if he gets a jury of bleeding heart liberals like you, he won’t get convicted. What a jerk. I’d be suprised if you knew how to tie your shoes.

Apr 6, 2008 - 10:52 am 152. mike:

I’d be very interested in hearing Dave Musgrove’s response to all these comments. Perhaps he could write another editorial?

I’m sure he’s at least learned why even Democratic politicians shy away from the issue of gun control.

Apr 6, 2008 - 10:56 am 153. Laika's Last Woof:

“I’ve been doing a bit of searching for info on this case, and this is my first experience with your blog.”
Not every contributor to Pajamas is a far-left moonbat. In fact more probably lean right than left.

Apr 6, 2008 - 2:38 pm 154. BenJCarter:

“this is where I start to get almost as wary of the delivery guy as I am of the alleged assailant. They’ve both got guns, and neither is afraid to use them.”

Well, one guy is willing to use his right to bear arms to bring you Pizza. The other is willing to use his right to rob said excellent Pizza delivery guy.

Which one is using his right in a good way?
Which should the system support?

Equivicating them both based on willingness to deploy deadly force without considering motive is remedial at best.

Thank you for your opinion.

Apr 6, 2008 - 11:50 pm 155. Bugs:

Do all liberals enjoy being timid? They seem to take inordinate pride in criticizing the government and conservatives – “speaking out” they call it – even though the government and conservatives pose no danger to them at all. At the same time, they seem to take get off on confessing all the things they’re “uncomfortable” with – armed people, for example. Is this a holdover from the 60s/70s “sensitive guy” craze? Afraid of sounding too macho or something? Being brave makes you a knuckle-dragger? Being meek and sensitive makes you smarter? Defying distant and largely imaginary government criminals while cringing before real, immediately dangerous ones makes you a good citizen? Taking precautions to defend yourself is cowardly but facing danger armed only with your high principles is brave? I don’t know – seems like something’s missing.

Apr 7, 2008 - 10:18 am 156. Visitor:

I think I’ll ask the next delivery person if they’re carrying. If he/she is, I’ll give them a bigger tip.

Apr 7, 2008 - 5:33 pm 157. Just Me (and my gun):

DAVE Do you have enough nerve to go get a job delevering for P.H. for a MONTH in a rotten part of town (at nite) to see what the P.H. drivers have to go through???? You sit behind your computer safe and sound and tell us what we should do BUT I will bet you don’t ever go any place that could the bad part of town—Try taking your family some night and have them walk with you in the worst part of town and tell me you were safe because you would do what a robber asked and that would make you safe!!

Apr 7, 2008 - 6:28 pm 158. Laika's Last Woof:

“… seems like something’s missing.”
It’s called “reason”.

A person who can’t distinguish between “predator” and “prey” has a reasoning ability somewhere below that of a cockroach.

Moving down the animal tree — way down — we find at last that your typical sponge doesn’t know the difference between predator and prey, but most of the rest of us in Kingdom Animalia have evolved beyond that misconception.

Apr 8, 2008 - 3:52 pm 159. Pizza Hut:

This is just like them. Check out what Pizza Hut does to get their junk mail into your inbox.

Annoying…

Apr 14, 2008 - 11:48 am 160. Purple:

The pizza guy might be armed to protect himself against YOU!

May 1, 2008 - 6:11 am 161. Chan:

All of you are falling for Dave’s contrived and purposefully provocative article. No one is as stupid as Dave makes himself out to be.
He wrote this just to get you to write comments, and get traffic on his blog.

Aug 9, 2008 - 11:05 am 162. GunPundit » Blog Archive » ‘Russian Roulette’:

[...] Musgrove at Pajamas Media writes about Gun Control at Pizza Hut says he might be “almost as wary of the delivery guy as I am of the alleged assailant” [...]

Oct 24, 2008 - 9:29 am 163. Ritchie:

I am happy James Spiers did what he did. And as you all can see from the above that PH guys carry guns CAUSE THEY DAMN WELL HAVE TO! Irespect their right to do that and I’m not scared of them because I will never give them disrepect let alone try rob one of them. But I also respect PH’s right to have a policy to cover their ass. And they can have that policy all they want because if a delivery dude wants a firearm, he can disobey the policy, blow anyones brains out who pull a gun, and ask questions later. An imperfect situation, but damn its reality in the jungle.

Jan 12, 2009 - 11:50 pm 164. jarolinda:

if the people that order pizza turn thier front porch lights on well that explains it.no lights no delivery! no anwser phone no delivery.thats how it should be. we cant expect the pizza man to trust everyone. the pizza man goes through alot, people stiff him with no tips, hes just trying to make a living too. he only makes minimum wage peeps. he aint got no money. he aint got change in his pockets. peeps.and if we all look out for one another as neibors, block watch that can help.he works low hours peeps. he washes 10000000000sds of dishes, sweeps, mops, has to repair his car when broken, cmon peeps, this gets expensive. poor dude. let him at least protect him self in self defence.peeps its the worlds 3rd most dangerous job.

Feb 21, 2009 - 4:28 am 165. jarolinda:

the delivery driver is equiped with a weapon nobody thinks about they might use!

Feb 21, 2009 - 4:54 am 166. jarolinda:

the delivery driver carries something they may use as a weapon to hurt some one that may save thier life and hurt the bad guy,

Feb 21, 2009 - 4:58 am 167. jarolinda:

that ph furnahes them with. nobody would think they could use to save thier life.

Feb 21, 2009 - 5:00 am 168. jarolinda:

A BIG PIZZA HUT SMILE PEEPS. THANK YOU FOR CHOOSING PIZZA HUT HAVE A GREAT DAY!

Feb 21, 2009 - 5:05 am 169. Jeff:

One less scumbag to deal with. GOOD SHOT PIZZA MAN!

Mar 10, 2009 - 1:34 pm

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed)
Comments: