2 Subway workers shot after telling man they didn't make 2 dollar sandwiches.

[gravity556]

http://blogs.browardpalmbeach.com/pulp/2011/09/subway_workers_shot_fort_lauderdale_robbery.php

Broward Sheriff's Office
Cops say this guy discovered Subway doesn't sell $2 sandwiches and shot the people working there.
​A man walked into a Fort Lauderdale Subway store last night and asked the two employees if they sold $2 sandwiches.

The employees said they didn't, so the guy demanded cash and shot both of them.



According to police, the man started demanding cash after he was told there were no $2 sandwiches.

The employees complied and opened the register, but the cops say the man shot them "for no apparent reason."

Police say the shooter then left the store without taking anything.

So much for "just give them what they want and they'll go away!" when dealing with a piece of shit nutjob like that.

[TwilightGardener]

1. Well, that was a bit of an overreaction.

[villager]

2. so much for carrying guns in Florida making everyone safer

n/t

[DrDan]

9. it does in other states?

[villager]

10. Exactly right, DrDran -- guns aren't making Americans safer anywhere, really

Just getting them shot at and killed

[TheWraith]

26. Yes, because a misdemeanor gun charge will really scare an ATTEMPTED MURDERER.

You have to be willfully blind to believe that shit.

[villager]

31. And you, astonishingly, are right too, Wraith -- we need tougher gun penalties!

That's what you proliferationists are always going on about, yes? Enforce the laws we have...?

Oh wait-- you guys don't want any gun laws whatsoever! Quite a conundrum...!

[oneshooter]

32. Please cite to source of that statement. Or retract it as a vile piece of garbage. n/t

[TheWraith]

43. Are you also in favor of mandatory minimum sentences for drug users?

I'm just curious how far your support of policies that have proven to fail goes. There is not, nor has there ever been, evidence that more severe sentencing is a disincentive to criminals. If for no other reason than the fact that very, very few people commit a crime expecting to be caught. Almost EVERYONE thinks that they can get away with it, or they wouldn't do it at all.

So you draw attention away from that fact with a ridiculous strawman argument about people supposedly not wanting any gun laws at all.

[gravity556]

12. Because it's not like it's already illegal to try and murder people for sandwiches

?
No, this guy is a piece of shit criminal who probably is already a prohibited person. Tell us again exactly what law will lawbreakers suddenly decide to obey?

[PavePusher]

13. Was either clerk armed? n/t

[spin]

14. Perhaps if a customer who had a concealed weapons permit and his weapon ...

had been inside that Subway, the result might have been different.

Perhaps if a police officer had been inside the restaurant, the results might have been different.

For that matter if several customers would have been inside the Subway, perhaps the shooter would have never pulled his weapon.

Of course, if one of the Subway employees had been legally carrying a handgun, he might have been able to stop the attack but that is probably against company policy.

Obviously all the armed police in the county did nothing to stop this incident. Therefore, do police actually make everyone safer?

I have a concealed weapons permit but I have no requirement to patrol the streets of my town and prevent crime. I am not a law enforcement officer nor am I a vigilante. I am just a citizen who has spent the money, time and effort to get a concealed weapons permit and I carry to protect myself from someone who intends to inflict serious injury or kill me, someone I love or another individual who is a victim of such an attack.

[ManiacJoe]

20. You have an odd definition of "everyone".

> so much for carrying guns in Florida making everyone safer

Only one of the three involved had a gun. :shrug:

[ileus]

3. what a rude, impolite, nasty habit this criminal engages in.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

8. Does that make him a rude toter or just a hungry criminal?

[Atypical Liberal]

17. LOL n/t

[msongs]

4. another gun owner nt

[SteveM]

21. Do you believe 80 million Americans are equivalent to da thugs?

If you do, you show a rather epic bigotry.

[Scurrilous]

5. More So. Florida:

- This happened at a gas station near my house -

Two more arrested in Miami Gardens gas station killing

"When Miami Gardens police asked Eric Ellington, 17, why he shot an unarmed man numerous times at a gas station, he gave a simple, chilling response:

“He didn’t look scared enough,” police said Ellington replied."

Read more: http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/09/15/2408298/police-two-more-arrested-in-miami.html#ixzz1Y8hC7N6m

[gejohnston]

34. and yet

there are faux intellectuals will tell you that they just want the money, so don't resist and they won't harm you.

[DWC]

6. It can happen any when, any where. Be Prepared! n/t

[dtexdem]

7. A rather ineffective way to influence corporate pricing.

I don't see this as a gun-forum issue, even.

[Boojatta]

11. Subway could have a special deal ...

If you give us a loaded gun and two dollars, then we will unload the gun and give you a sandwich. When you finish eating the sandwich, we will return the ammunition to you.

Of course, that kind of special deal won't be available until people who are in positions of authority for airport security quit their jobs and start working at Subway Restaurants.

[spin]

16. Actually this might offer a chance for the TSA to expand ...

think of all the jobs that could be generated by putting TSA agents and body scanners in every restaurant. Now that would be a great jobs program.

[SteveM]

24. "...return the ammunition to you." So they can shoot you...

you did notice the subsequent post about a similar murder in S. Florida and the thug's motivation: "He wasn't scared enough."

It ain't the money, the food, or the habit. It's the status, power and sex within the thug community -- and the celebrity status from without.

[slackmaster]

15. Wow, what an asshole

[Speck Tater]

18. Wow! Doesn't that just make you wish that EVERYBODY carried guns? nt

[ileus]

19. Or at least Subway workers...

[SteveM]

22. Why do you fear the law-abiding gun-owner? nt

[gravity556]

25. If company policy allowed either of the clerks to be armed,

it may well have made all the difference.

Violent criminal shitbags are everywhere and don't obey the laws at all, more disturbingly, they don't fear the unarmed populace and are emboldened to utter savagery. Plan to defend yourself accordingly.

[Ben Gay]

28. Anyone at risk from thugs and who wishes to...absolutely.

...

[SteveM]

23. Why did da thug do it? For status/celebrity in his community...

...and perhaps some enablement and a little romance from the "poor sick puppy" crowd when they get into the system.

[MyrnaLoy]

27. unreq

for being anecdotal

[ileus]

29. That's the price you gotta pay to be peaceful...

[oneshooter]

30. What ya wanna bet that he didn't even have the $2 on him. n/t

[DanTex]

33. True, when a criminal has a gun, they might shoot you anyway.

Still, you're more likely to get shot if you don't comply, but there are no guarantees.

Which brings us the the larger point, which is that it is far too easy for people like this guy to get a gun in the US. In every other wealthy democracy, things like this happen a lot less frequently. They still get crimes, robberies, burglaries, etc., but far less homicides. Why would that be? Do you think that sane gun laws that make it much more difficult for criminals to get guns might have something to do with it?

[gejohnston]

35. no because

why would it limit it to only wealthy democracies? Why would it be easier for a criminal to get a black market gun in Brazil than the US? Certainly not their lax gun laws. Given our inequality of wealth and lack of universal healthcare, we are closer to Brazil and Costa Rica than Europe.
Can you actually directly answer a question with out condescending BS?

[gravity556]

36. What law, exactly would have stopped this guy?

Please, enlighten me. It's illegal to carry concealed without a permit, it's illegal to have a firearm if you're under 18, it's illegal to brandish, it's illegal to rob a store and it's certainly illegal to shoot someone during the commission of a crime. So please, explain just what law would have stopped this incident. "Sane gun laws" serve only to disarm the law abiding. You know, the people that you so disdain. They do nothing to stop individuals who have no regard for laws in the first place.

The only way to stop an armed criminal is with an armed individual willing to do so. Be they a cop or a CCW holder. You can pass all the laws you want, but the truth is that they'll only serve to embolden those who hold the laws in contempt anyhow. And since the cops are losing numbers as budgets decline, the public is going to have to deal with gang bangers and other assorted thugs on their own.

So please, do tell us just what law would have stopped this piece of shit from shooting two unarmed people over a sandwich. While you're at it, what law would stop the other shitbag who shot the gas station clerk because "He didn't look scared enough"? I'd love to know. Though I imagine that any response to this post will just be snark and evasion, trying somehow desperately to make this the fault of law abiding gun owners. Because that seems to be SOP for the PCS crowd-counteraccuse and obfuscate, all while holding a tone of superiority, hoping to bait someone into a tombstone. And I'll give you credit-you PCS folks are master baiters...

[X_Digger]

37. ...

lol

[DanTex]

38. Let's take the UK, where handguns are essentially banned altogether.

It turns out than the UK has a tiny fraction of the homicides that we have in the US. Thanks to the laws there, it is very difficult for anyone to get a handgun in the UK, and as a result you get far fewer gun crimes. Yes, there are some black market guns, but nothing like the US. Also, the homicide rate is a small fraction of what we have here.

Or else Canada, not quite as strict as the UK, but still quite effective. There are more criminals with handguns in Canada than the UK, but that is largely because of guns that come from the US. In the US it's easy for anyone to get a gun, and trafficking them to Canada, while not nearly as easy as between US states, is still doable.

Then look at the US. We don't even have handguns registered, so there are very few impediments for anyone, criminal or otherwise, to get a gun. In fact, even the background checks can be avoided by going to a gun show or a private seller in many states. So no wonder we have so many armed criminals, and no wonder we have such high rates of homicide.

The idea that arming victims helps is mostly an illusion. I know how much the pro-gunners hate science and statistics, but if you look at the evidence, there very little support for the idea that people who own or carrying a gun around are safer than people who don't, and actually what evidence there is generally points in the opposite direction.

Anyway, perhaps you'll take the time to look up the homicide rate in other wealthy democracies with stricter gun laws. You may be surprised what you find. Far from the NRA line that it's impossible to keep guns away from criminals, it turns out that every wealthy democracy other than US has figure out how to do just that pretty well.

[gravity556]

39. You're right-firearms are tightly controlled in the UK

That said, their violent crime rate makes the US look like a pacifist commune. The US has a violent crime rate of about 466 per 100k residents. The UK sports a rate of 2034 per 100k residents. Even Canada's violent crime rate is nearly double what the US's at 944 per 100k.

To head off the screaming for a cite, you can use google, or click this link. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196941/The-violent-country-Europe-Britain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html

Now it seems rather disingenuous to me to hold the UK up as a shining example of a low crime society. Any guesses as to why the US rates are so much lower than our violent friends across the pond and up north? Are Brits and Canadians just more violent people by nature? I mean, sure, your chances of being shot are lower, but that's cold comfort when some drunken loon with a goofy accent lays your face open with a box cutter. And if better policing did any good, then the UK should be spectacularly low, what with their Orwellian "Big Brother Is Watching" CCTV setup. Hell, I've even read articles about citizens in the UK being prosecuted for protecting themselves in their own homes.

So, is the US's violent crime rate so low because Americans are, on the whole, so much more civilized than the UK and Canada? Or is it because we have a longstanding tradition of self sufficiency-meaning we, as a society (well, most of us, anyway) are willing and ABLE (that's the most important part-the ABILITY) to defend ourselves personally against those that would do us harm? Would allowing law abiding Brits access to the means to defend themselves from criminals cause a decrease in crime? I don't know, prognostication and tea leaf reading is a skill claimed by the pro-criminal side. Maybe they don't have the mindset to stand for what's right. I don't know. But I do know that the "But the UK and Canada" whine is a red herring. A rotten and stinky red herring.

And maybe Canada ought to police its own country before presuming to tell us what's wrong with ours.

[DanTex]

40. Ah, the sweet smell of gun propaganda on a Saturday afternoon...

Did you read this part of the article?

But criminologists say crime figures can be affected by many factors, including different criminal justice systems and differences in how crime is reported and measured.

You see, "violent crime" is not a clearly defined thing. For example, the US violent crime numbers generally include aggravated assault but not just assault. In other countries, the line where an assault qualifies as a violent crime is often different. Canada, for example, includes a broader range of assaults than the US in their violent crime totals. According to the data you present, the UK has some 4-5 times as much violent crime as the US, while the US has some 5 times as much violent crime as Australia. Without knowing details, it is hard to tell how much of this is due to different definitions, but unless you are prepared to believe that the UK has over 20 times as much violent crime as Australia, it is pretty apparent that these definitional issues make a significant difference.

But you knew all that. Right?

On the other hand, comparisons of homicide rates are much less subjective, because homicide has a pretty clear definition. And if you look at homicide rates, the US is way out of line with all other wealthy democracies.

It is true that for most crimes other than homicide, things like robbery and burglary, the US is not way out of line with the rest of the civilized world. We have lower rates than some wealthy countries, higher than others. But homicide we are #1 among first-world countries by a pretty healthy margin.

This indicates that we are not a uniquely violent people. We just have more guns, and so we shoot each other more, and we kill each other more. We don't have more crime. We have more lethal crime.

[gravity556]

42. So you're discounting the reported numbers, then?

You're disputing "definitions of violent crime", but you're discounting the fact that breaking the law of the land is still breaking that country's laws. Even if you discounted half of the UK's numbers, it's still double the US rate of violent crime.

The UK also has a history of altering statistics when they find them embarassing. So the number of crimes is quite possibly substantially higher than reported.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article2328368.ece

http://www.civitas.org.uk/pdf/CivitasReviewJun07.pdf

[gejohnston]

45. not entirely true

because homicide has a pretty clear definition.

when it comes to murder/suicide in Japan. If dad kills mom and three kids before offing himself, we count it four murders and one suicide. Japan counts it as five suicides (although different terms are used to distinguish the difference). Murder/suicides are not that uncommon there. Besides, cold cases tend to be written off as suicides after awhile. IOW, by our definition, Japan deflates their murder rate and inflates their suicide rate. Given that their reported suicide rate is 22/100K it really makes little difference.

[X_Digger]

41. That's a lovely post hoc ergo propter hoc..

Before either country had much in the way of gun control, we still had a rate multiples higher than the UK.

[Uncle Omar]

44. Ban guns

If all guns were ban in the USA this wouldn't happen. Simple fact.

[oneshooter]

46. Again, how would pay for them, that durn Fifth Amendment thing. n/t

[gejohnston]

47. Simple fact?

Guns are banned in Russia, Jamaica, and UK.
It does happen in UK, just not as often.
The other two makes us look like Denmark and Sweden.