Tuesday, May 14, 2013

Starbucks Shooting in Florida

One person is recovering after being accidentally shot Saturday at the Starbucks coffee shop inside Tyrone Mall, police say.
Local news reports

One person is recovering after being accidentally shot Saturday at the Starbucks coffee shop inside Tyrone Mall, police say.

The incident happened around 5 p.m., and the female victim, who was not identified, suffered non-life-threatening injuries.

Police gave no details about how or why the firearm discharged or who was carrying it. Tyrone Mall is located at the interesection of Tyrone Boulevard and 66th Street in St. Petersburg.
The store closed for the remainder of the night.

Starbucks management issued a statement:

"At Tyrone Square Mall, our primary concern is always for the safety of our customers and store employees, and we are thankful that the injuries sustained are reported to be non-life threatening. Our thoughts are with the victim’s family, and we wish her a speedy recovery."

Now that's just not true.  If their primary concern was really for the safety of the customers they wouldn't allow guns on the premises.

What's your opinion?  Please leave a comment.

20 comments:

  1. "Beck told police that her father had given her the .25 caliber semi-automatic a while back and she had forgotten that she put the pistol -- which was in a small gun bag -- inside one of her spare purses. She switched purses before her shopping trip with Peterson and forgot the gun was inside the bottom of that purse."
    http://www.wtsp.com/rss/article/316244/8/Shooting-at-Starbucks-inside-Tyrone-Square-Mall-

    Sounds like the same excuse that was used by the Chicago politician to explain how he got arrested trying to board a plane with a gun.

    "Scaduto said that Trotter explained to officers he uses the .25-caliber Beretta handgun for his job with a security company. She said he told them that he'd worked until midnight the night before and that he'd forgotten the gun and ammunition in his garment bag when he packed at 4:30 a.m. on Wednesday."
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/06/donne-trotter-arrested-on_n_2249663.html

    Now Ex-Senator Trotter was able to avoid conviction of a felony by a plea bargain. He pled guilty to a misdemeanor which will likely not affect his ability to possess a firearm. If we let a person avoid responsibility for messing up with a firearm, there is no motivation for them to take the responsibility of owning and carrying a firearm seriously. The same goes for people making straw purchases, and those that steal firearms.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Are you saying you agree with my "one strike you're out" response?

      Delete
    2. I don't know exactly what your response entails. I'm one of those people that has a hard time having confidence with the efficacy of passing new laws when the ones we have aren't being enforced. For example, I find it difficult being surprised that felons want guns in part because the federal government has such a piss poor record of prosecuting them, even after their caught.

      Delete
    3. How does that work with the fact that the US has record rates of incarceration among all the modern countries? What kind of piss poor record of prosecution is that?

      Delete
    4. That's because we throw way too many people in prison for victimless crimes. And you want to add to that.

      Delete
    5. 2010: 72,659 denials
      34,459 felony convictions/indictments
      13,862 fugitives
      44 prosecutions (0.06 percent of denials)

      http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/ted-cruzs-claim-on-gun-background-check-prosecutions/2013/04/11/e4c4fa6e-a2ed-11e2-82bc-511538ae90a4_blog.html

      As the article will show, this problem with prosecution of current laws extends through more than one administration. I do however think it qualifies as piss poor.

      Delete
    6. Mikeb, the bulk of those are for drug offenses. Legalize drugs, and the courts will have the time to deal with serious crimes.

      Delete
    7. ss, first of all I do not want people incarcerated for non-violent offenses. I never have and even under the strictest gun control regimen I still wouldn't. Suspended sentences and probation along with the loss of gun rights would be more then sufficient for the most serious infractions.

      Secondly, the non-prosecution of people who failed the background checks is not a big deal. These would be non-violent paper crimes for which people should receive no more than a slap on the wrist in any case. The real point about them is they were STOPPED from buying a gun legally, proving the system works.

      Delete
    8. Possession of a firearm or ammunition by a prohibited person is punnishable by up to ten years in prison. So for example, conspiracy to possess by a felon is a non-violent paper crime? Especially since the form states, in bold lettering at the bottom that lying on the form is punishable as a felony. However, if the government doesnt enforce this warning, what good is it? Especially when we're talking about a felon.

      Delete
    9. Glad to see you don't want imprisonment for non-violent crimes. So we were right to oppose Manchin-Toomey, and you stand with us? And those state level AWBs that throw people in jail over the grip, you stand with us? Carrying in a gun free zone? Etc...

      Delete
  2. Starbucks follows the law and doesn't restrict the rights of its customers. That means we get to take care of our own safety, instead of handing it over to a business that isn't responsible for it.

    ReplyDelete
  3. "If their primary concern was really for the safety of the customers they wouldn't allow guns on the premises."

    If their primary concern was the safety of their customers, they would not serve 2000 calorie coffee drinks which cause obesity and the premature death of their customers.

    But please tells us Mike how the patron who has a stalker is going to be safer in Starbucks when that patron leaves their handgun at home? Please tell us how the patron who is there without their handgun will be safer when armed criminals rob the store? And please tells us how we will be safer when criminals steal the patron's handgun out of their car in the parking lot -- where they left their handgun because they could not bring it into Starbucks.

    Do you really want to end almost all inappropriate use of firearms? Stop attacking our right to keep and bear arms. Instead, pour all of your energy into teaching people best practices. And our side would be able to do the same. Imagine how much safer everyone would be if your side and our side poured our combined billions of dollars into educating the public on safe practices and best practices?!?!?!?

    - TruthBeTold

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Guns do more harm than good. I'm not talking about your imaginary scenarios about stalkers and bad guys lurking around the corner. I'm talking about gun misuse compared to legitimate defensive gun use. Keep in mind if you want to count all the brandishing kinds of DGUs you also have to count all their counterparts on the mis-use side. We start counting with a half-a-million violent crimes committed with guns and build from there.

      Therefore, since guns do more harm than good, Starbucks and every other place is better off without them.

      Delete
    2. So where do you count defenseless victims of violence on that equation?

      Delete
    3. Imaginary scenarios? Years before I met her, my wife was stomped almost to death, spent weeks in a coma and had to undergo spinal surgery as a result of an imaginary stalker. She wasn't allowed access to a firearm in the place she was attacked. Her attacker left her there because he was convinced she would shortly die. How dare you minimize the very real risk of such things to real people in real places? You may be willing to disarm yourself. So be it. You may be willing to live in a place among other disarmed law abiding people. Fine. Don't dare to presume you know what is best for those who choose to take responsibility for their own safety and the safety of those who look to them.

      Delete
    4. You keep repeating that as though it's true, but you have no evidence to support your statement. But simple logic refutes you. With 300,000,000+ guns in this country in the hands of some 100,000,000 owners, if guns did more harm than good, millions of people would be harmed each year.

      Delete
    5. You're not thinking it through, Greg. There are a half-a-million violent gun crimes reported each year. That alone is far more than all but the wildest estimates of DGUs. If you want to count the defensive brandishing type, then you have to count the similar gun crimes which go unreported. It's not even close. Guns do far more harm than good.

      Delete
    6. RM, what happened to your wife years ago was not imaginary. But your idea that a gun would have prevented it, is. Also your mind is filled with other imaginary situations in which you think and hope your gun will save you from. The fact is you're mistaken about that. Except for very particulay situations, gun ownership is a stupid idea for the simple reason that guns do more harm than good.

      Now, having said that, I do not preach total civilian disarmament. I believe you should have a gun if you want one, just like you should have a car if you want one. But, for gun ownership you need to be qualified and responsible, otherwise you get disarmed, or at least that's the way it should be.

      Delete
    7. This is why I'm careful with the battle of the studies and estimates. There are lots of both on each side. But come back to numbers that, as far as I can tell, we both agree on--total number of guns and gun owners in this country.

      If guns are more harm than good, why isn't the death rate from guns in the millions per annum? Either the harm is much less than you believe, or your statement is wrong.

      Delete
  4. Guns just don't go off. More than likely, this little .25 auto pistol was of a single action type. The firearm was probably not in a holster within the purse. A holster has two jobs, first to protect the trigger from becoming snagged on clothing or items in a purse for exable and second, to secure the firearm to keep it from bouncing out of your waist band or in this case to you can find it when you need it when in a purse or bag. One of a million things inside the purse probably got wedged in the trigger gaurd firing the pistol when the purse hit the ground. The female who belongs to the firearm, did not have a concealed carry permit, therefore probably did not recieve any sort of formal training in the operation of and the proper way to carry a firearm responsibly. As a firearms instructor, my students are all taught how firearms work, how ammunition is constructed and how it works, how to properly and responsibly carry a concealed firearm (in a holster), Florida law concerning firearms and use of deadly force and the responsibility that a gun owner has to keep the public safe from negligent acts.

    ReplyDelete