Pharmacist and Tech Shot Over Argument

[TranslationalRPh]

Scary stuff and quite shameful that a pharmacist and her tech were shot trying to do their jobs (Walgreens; Garner, NC).

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[SCRph2014]

Absolutely terrifying. Every pharmacist's worst nightmare.

 

[Momus]

They put victims and suspect in the same hospital.

 

[Charcoales]

Stay safe everyone, never know when someone might attack.

 

[Sparda29]

This is why pharmacists should be automatically cleared for concealed carry.

 

[CetiAlphaFive]

Yikes.

 

[greenteapanacea]

This is why pharmacists should be automatically cleared for concealed carry.

I thought New York City made it nearly impossible to even own a pistol?

 

[wucool33]

Why would she argue with the robber?

 

[MrBonita]

Working in a pharmacy is not easy. My coworkers call a work day a battle with patients. Patients come in distressed and sick. Just have to be ready and not trigger anyone off.

 

[WVUPharm2007]

the suspect was chased into the Golden Corral in Raleigh on Tryon Road.

Who tries to evade the police by running into a budget all-you-can-eat establishment?

 

[WVUPharm2007]

This is why pharmacists should be automatically cleared for concealed carry.

WTF is that going to do? Dude already has his gun drawn. Your average pharmacist ain't special forces. They ain't gonna whip that thing out, aim, and shoot under pressure. I hope not, anyway. Because with half of the unagile, unathletic, spastic pharmacists I know, they'd miss and shoot some old lady buying discount Valentine's candy 8 aisles over. And still get shot themselves. And still get robbed.

 

[ancienbon]

WTF is that going to do? Dude already has his gun drawn. Your average pharmacist ain't special forces. They ain't gonna whip that thing out, aim, and shoot under pressure. I hope not, anyway. Because with half of the unagile, unathletic, spastic pharmacists I know, they'd miss and shoot some old lady buying discount Valentine's candy 8 aisles over. And still get shot themselves. And still get robbed.

So true

 

[SCRph2014]

Likelihood that WAG will retailate (when they recover) and say she shouldn't have been "arguing" with a patient when we all know it was her saying you can't have your *insert controlled substance* early, or is it too big a headline?Or will WAG have all it's pharmacists do training on conflict resolution? #ThatsNotTheProblemHere

Also, did anyone see the number of comments this article got yesterday when APhA shared it?

 

[CetiAlphaFive]

Ah, the old "muh training muh speshul forces" meme.

Remember that time NYPD 35 times, shot 3 bystanders, and totally missed the intended on the Empire State Building?

WTF is that going to do? Dude already has his gun drawn. Your average pharmacist ain't special forces. They ain't gonna whip that thing out, aim, and shoot under pressure. I hope not, anyway. Because with half of the unagile, unathletic, spastic pharmacists I know, they'd miss and shoot some old lady buying discount Valentine's candy 8 aisles over. And still get shot themselves. And still get robbed.

https://i.imgur.com/FMSbVkm_d.jpg

 

[Sparda29]

Ah, the old "muh training muh speshul forces" meme.

Remember that time NYPD 35 times, shot 3 bystanders, and totally missed the intended on the Empire State Building?

https://i.imgur.com/FMSbVkm_d.jpg

Actually recently, there was a robbery at a T Mobile store in Queens. The detective squad responded first. When they saw the robber, he ran towards the back aiming a pistol at them. So the detectives ran out of the store from the front while shooting at the robber. The detectives were then gun downed by the uniformed officers outside who assumed the detectives were the robbers since they were in plainclothes.

The robber had a fake gun the entire time and never fired a shot.

 

[wagrxm2000]

WTF is that going to do? Dude already has his gun drawn. Your average pharmacist ain't special forces. They ain't gonna whip that thing out, aim, and shoot under pressure. I hope not, anyway. Because with half of the unagile, unathletic, spastic pharmacists I know, they'd miss and shoot some old lady buying discount Valentine's candy 8 aisles over. And still get shot themselves. And still get robbed.

I guess not being able to protect yourself is more important right?

 

[BC_89]

This is why pharmacists should be automatically cleared for concealed carry.

The argument of having a concealed weapon in a setting like Wags might be due to grazing or killing an innocent standby person in the building.

Oklahoma pharmacy worker with concealed carry kills would-be robber

That being said, I'm personally for concealed carry in a pharmacy setting and would defend myself as a last resort (ie robber jumps in pharmacy and corners coworkers with loaded gun vs. in the open aisles of the store seeking demands). Arguing with a robber is foolish if indeed that was the case with the pharmacist and tech being unaware of a weapon on the individual.

 

[Mambo#5]

I guess not being able to protect yourself is more important right?

The right answer is to not sell guns to people and to get rid of the second amendment. #America#1ingunviolence#lookatwhatothercountriesdo

 

[CetiAlphaFive]

The right answer is to not sell guns to people and to get rid of the second amendment. #America#1ingunviolence#lookatwhatothercountriesdo

Your last hash tag should say, "look at what other white, wealthy countries that enjoy 1st world status because of centuries of warfare and colonialism do"

 

[WVUPharm2007]

Ah, the old "muh training muh speshul forces" meme.

Remember that time NYPD 35 times, shot 3 bystanders, and totally missed the intended on the Empire State Building?

https://i.imgur.com/FMSbVkm_d.jpg

Yeah, whatever. Go ahead and play Rambo when an armed robber gets the jump on you and has a pistol pointed at your chest. I'm sure that concealed weapon will really help you out. Bad **** happens and being armed isn't generally a good solution in most armed robbery situations. Complying and diffusing the situation works way better. Having a gun around is statistically more likely to harm you than help you in any way. I'm sure you can give me anecdotal examples of when such and such saved the day with his concealed carry weapon, but the reality is that more people injure themselves than take down a criminal. Y'all can go ahead and cosplay the Wild West. Just do me a solid and make sure I'm not around for your dumb asses to accidentally put a bullet into.

 

[CetiAlphaFive]

Yeah, whatever. Go ahead and play Rambo when an armed robber gets the jump on you and has a pistol pointed at your chest. I'm sure that concealed weapon will really help you out. Bad **** happens and being armed isn't generally a good solution in most armed robbery situations. Complying and diffusing the situation works way better. Having a gun around is statistically more likely to harm you than help you in any way. I'm sure you can give me anecdotal examples of when such and such saved the day with his concealed carry weapon, but the reality is that more people injure themselves than take down a criminal. Y'all can go ahead and cosplay the Wild West. Just do me a solid and make sure I'm not around for your dumb asses to accidentally put a bullet into.

Stop ignorantly citing the Kellerman study.
You're better than that.

It's funny, but the places that allow concealed carry have the lowest rates of shootings.
Places with the strictest gun control have 80-90% of the nations shootings.

It's almost as if violence is caused by socioeconomic factors and not gun laws.

So, enjoy a "muh wild west"

 

[WVUPharm2007]

Stop ignorantly citing the Kellerman study.
You're better than that.

I only cite medical journals. The evidence is pretty sufficient to come to the conclusion that the risk of death between owning gun v not owning gun trends towards not owning gun. Statistically, gun ownership is just the illusion of protection.

It's funny, but the places that allow concealed carry have the lowest rates of shootings.
Places with the strictest gun control have 80-90% of the nations shootings.

That's more correlation than causation, though. The places with the toughest gun laws got that way BECAUSE the violence was getting ridiculously out of hand. They tried to legislate it away. But that's not even my point. It's that guns don't actually make you safer. Fort Hood, a literal military base, has had two spree shootings in the last 10 years. WTF did having all those MPs and trained soldiers do to deter a couple of lunatics? Hell, one of them the countless people with guns didn't even neutralize the shooter. He shot himself.

It's almost as if violence is caused by socioeconomic factors and not gun laws.

The reasons for the increased incidence of gun violence in America couldn't be completely explained with 100s of hours of discussion. There is something inherently wrong with our culture. I'm not necessarily against gun ownership. I just think it's a pointless security blanket that only put people around you at risk. I'm more against idiots trying to play hero and actually using their guns.

The average pharmacist is not a person I want using a firearm. Have you seen your local pharmacist? Do you remember your classmates? Just...no. They'll forget to take the safety off and get shot or some nonsense.

 

[CetiAlphaFive]

I only cite medical journals. The evidence is pretty sufficient to come to the conclusion that the risk of death between owning gun v not owning gun trends towards not owning gun. Statistically, gun ownership is just the illusion of protection.

That's more correlation than causation, though. The places with the toughest gun laws got that way BECAUSE the violence was getting ridiculously out of hand. They tried to legislate it away. But that's not even my point. It's that guns don't actually make you safer. Fort Hood, a literal military base, has had two spree shootings in the last 10 years. WTF did having all those MPs and trained soldiers do to deter a couple of lunatics? Hell, one of them the countless people with guns didn't even neutralize the shooter. He shot himself.


The reasons for the increased incidence of gun violence in America couldn't be completely explained with 100s of hours of discussion. There is something inherently wrong with our culture. I'm not necessarily against gun ownership. I just think it's a pointless security blanket that only put people around you at risk. I'm more against idiots trying to play hero and actually using their guns.

The average pharmacist is not a person I want using a firearm. Have you seen your local pharmacist? Do you remember your classmates? Just...no. They'll forget to take the safety off and get shot or some nonsense.

#Embarrased4U

Did you even read that?
This "meta-analysis" includes the Kellernan study.

So, the non-funded study you're citing is including an intentionally racially biased study that concludes that the presence of a gun causes a 1,700% increase in the risk of violence.

Bro. Come on.
That is embarrassing.

I think that you're struggling to find a way to prove an opinion.
In reality, your perspective of "criminals are ultra deadly DEVGRU SAD killers and armed citizens are helpless" is only indicative of your own feelings of fear and total lack of confidence in your ability to defend yourself.

A little firmer grasp of the concept of "not everyone is the same" would be helpful.

 

[josh6718]

Why would she argue with the robber?

From my understanding there was no robbery (or attempted robbery), only a dispute over his prescription he was trying to have filled

 

[owlegrad]

You know how anti-vax people like to claim that studies doesn’t prove what they prove and attempt to discredit the authors or simply claim that all the evidence and studies are wrong because reasons?

I mean...you see the connection, right? Do you have any evidence or statistics or anything that supports being armed during a robbery makes you safer? Any evidence that having a gun makes you safer from other people with guns? Or shall we just accept that you are right and all the studies are wrong because “Kellernan”.

Why can’t the agencies in charge of public health and safety study this exact issue to arrive at an even more definitive answer?

#Embarrased4U

Did you even read that?
This "meta-analysis" includes the Kellernan study.

So, the non-funded study you're citing is including an intentionally racially biased study that concludes that the presence of a gun causes a 1,700% increase in the risk of violence.

Bro. Come on.
That is embarrassing.

I think that you're struggling to find a way to prove an opinion.
In reality, your perspective of "criminals are ultra deadly DEVGRU SAD killers and armed citizens are helpless" is only indicative of your own feelings of fear and total lack of confidence in your ability to defend yourself.

A little firmer grasp of the concept of "not everyone is the same" would be helpful.

 

[mentos]

An older Rph I know used to own an independent and got robbed a couple times. He decided to get a gun. The next time he got robbed, the burglar pointed a gun at him. The Rph took out his gun and pointed it at the burglar. Then a second burglar came up to the Rph and pointed a gun to his head. The both of them beat him to a pulp and he still got robbed.

 

[CetiAlphaFive]

You know how anti-vax people like to claim that studies doesn’t prove what they prove and attempt to discredit the authors or simply claim that all the evidence and studies are wrong because reasons?

I mean...you see the connection, right? Do you have any evidence or statistics or anything that supports being armed during a robbery makes you safer? Any evidence that having a gun makes you safer from other people with guns? Or shall we just accept that you are right and all the studies are wrong because “Kellernan”.
Why can’t the agencies in charge of public health and safety study this exact issue to arrive at an even more definitive answer?

So you're saying that you, a thinking professional that understands statistics, believe that the following result is valid and should be included in a "meta analysis" of <100 studies:

"The presence of a firearm increases the risk of violent death in a household by 1,700%."

Do you believe in magic or mind control?

Bro, he literally used non-random sampling to collect data from the most violent ghettos and barrios of the time period.
All victims and actors under 18 were included under the umbrella of "children".
The significance of that in a 1980s and 90s ghetto/barrio should be evident.

This is well documented.
I'll flip your post around:
"You know how pro-vax people like to claim that studies doesn't prove what they prove and attempt to discredit Wakeman"

Sorry, but you're memeing, and anyone who used data from that study is thinking ideologically and not reasonably.

I agree that we do need to do actual, rigorous studies on the cause of violent crime.

 

[CetiAlphaFive]

Also, no one is claiming that being armed makes you safer.

How exactly would one

WVU claimed that being armed makes you more likely to be injured.
I disputed that

 

[owlegrad]

Also, no one is claiming that being armed makes you safer.

WVU claimed that being armed makes you more likely to be injured.

Isn't that the basis for wanting to be armed?

 

[CetiAlphaFive]

Isn't that the basis for wanting to be armed?

Yes, but you're attempting to sprinkle in bits of high level concept into the nitty gritty discussion of WVU's claims and present them as one cohesive baked good.

You'll note that I'm not citing any unfunded, "two guys did it on their days off" medical studies using data from 13 sthat show carrying a gun makes you 9001% safer.

 

[owlegrad]

Yes, but you're attempting to sprinkle in bits of high level concept into the nitty gritty discussion of WVU's claims and present them as one cohesive baked good.

You'll note that I'm not citing any unfunded, "two guys did it on their days off" medical studies using data from 13 sthat show carrying a gun makes you 9001% safer.

True. You aren't using any studies or data at all.

 

[CetiAlphaFive]

True. You aren't using any studies or data at all.

Yes; I'm not sure how a researcher would go about measuring the magical properties of guns that cause non-criminal users to experience negative outcomes in a disproportionate manner.

I guess I need Dr. Strange to agree to publish one.


EDIT: the bolded portion of my post was intended to be taken as farce, as anyone with a working brain would understand that guns do not, in fact, possess magical properties. Nor do the majority of law-abiding users experience negative outcomes.
There are hundreds of millions of guns in our country.
If owning a gun caused you to be more likely to die from "gun violence", we'd be seeing more deaths in states with higher gun ownership.
****ing duh.
We do not.
It is disinformation spread by people who either do not possess the critical thinking skills to understand the above, or who are so politically entrenched in an idea that they are willing to lie and sacrifice their integrity.

90% of gun-violence in this country is committed by impoverished, racially opressed people. They experience the negative outcomes, not middle class gun enthusiasts and "concealed carriers", despite what Anti-Gatters would have you believe

 

[CetiAlphaFive]

Here's this:
Texas DPS - Conviction Rates Reports

Note that violent crime convictions remain statistically insignificant for all violent (non-sex) crimes, which would be included under "You accidentally shot someone"

 

[lord999]

WTF is that going to do? Dude already has his gun drawn. Your average pharmacist ain't special forces. They ain't gonna whip that thing out, aim, and shoot under pressure. I hope not, anyway. Because with half of the unagile, unathletic, spastic pharmacists I know, they'd miss and shoot some old lady buying discount Valentine's candy 8 aisles over. And still get shot themselves. And still get robbed.

Abstracts Database - National Criminal Justice Reference Service

Also, there actually happens to be QUITE a bit of research on the issue, particularly on bank robberies and convenience stores who are the poster boys in the industry for violent customer encounters (usually armed robbery, but sexual assault is also a problem in convenience stores). That entire field is called "situational crime prevention" or SCP in the criminal justice literature. For banking, that's why you have armed security guards, and why armored cars "always" (that's what Brinks and those companies want you to think, the idea is really "usually") have the dude with a shotgun in the back. Because workers need to do their jobs, and if you have an unsafe environment, rather than having all employees on guard, hire a guard to be always ready. The literature is basically whether or not the residual productivity from being on guard is worth the loss. Simply put, even the military will not actually have everyone on combat alert even in a combat zone. There are always those who are assigned to be on guard, and everyone else is reasonably vigilant (they know where to run, they know where the stockade is, they know their battle stations), but they have other jobs to get done. The cognitive burden of being on guard all the time is too punishing on productivity such that it's not in any business's interest to have all employees have that sort of divided attention all the time.

I'm actually a decent shot, but as I've argued earlier, I'm not in favor of being armed in the pharmacy because I can't think of a scenario (and this is counting the times I was robbed in my early career) that the robber doesn't get the drop on you such that being armed is only very situational useful (not something I would think works in general). Sure, you could have a bigger and better piece, but your conclusion is what my conclusion was. Still get shot, still get robbed, probably shot with more intent having it. I'd actually would like to see trained pistol shots in pharmacy in simulated conditions practice drawing, priming, aiming, and firing without talking on someone coming up to the window. If I were a security guard that all I was doing was paying attention to customers and suspicious ones, I think I would have a fighting chance, but my experience was that I was too busy with the queue to do threat assessment all the time (although from personal experience, if anyone approaches your counter with pantyhose over their head, you need to run for your life and hope that you've done your cardio recently).

Excessive Consumption of Police Services

The real issue is whether your pharmacy (and you personally) are valuable enough to have an onsite armed security guard. My original home pharmacy was past that point, because the police literally charged Walgreens with a usage fee every time they were summoned for a robbery on public nuisance terms (something like $15k + expenses a visit, which added up fast). There was a Walgreens in the Payne-Phalen neighborhood in St. Paul, MN that was closed over excessive robberies, and same with the old Lake Street in Minneapolis (the reopened one with SCP environmental construction upgrades had to get special approval from the Board and a seven-digit deposit to the Minneapolis police). The sad part was that for that particular Phoenix pharmacy, there was enough front-end traffic that the District Manager explained to me once that it still was profitable to run a 24 hour operation despite the robberies because of the pickups. That's partially what convinced me to go to graduate school, because I wanted to be more valuable than that...

Still though, getting assaulted in a robbery is a fat-tail chance, but it really sucks when the event happens.

 

[WVUPharm2007]

CAF is trying too hard with the inflammatory hyperbole.

"I'm so embarassed for you!"

lol.

And then whips around to agreeing with my entire point that being armed ain't gonna do nothing for you in an armed robbery.

 

[Thoughtfulsinner]

From my understanding there was no robbery (or attempted robbery), only a dispute over his prescription he was trying to have filled

Which is why you just fill the prescription if things escalate to that point.

 

[Thoughtfulsinner]

An older Rph I know used to own an independent and got robbed a couple times. He decided to get a gun. The next time he got robbed, the burglar pointed a gun at him. The Rph took out his gun and pointed it at the burglar. Then a second burglar came up to the Rph and pointed a gun to his head. The both of them beat him to a pulp and he still got robbed.

Don't pull a gun if you don't intend to use it.

 

[deleted480308]

Yeah, whatever. Go ahead and play Rambo when an armed robber gets the jump on you and has a pistol pointed at your chest. I'm sure that concealed weapon will really help you out. Bad **** happens and being armed isn't generally a good solution in most armed robbery situations. Complying and diffusing the situation works way better. Having a gun around is statistically more likely to harm you than help you in any way. I'm sure you can give me anecdotal examples of when such and such saved the day with his concealed carry weapon, but the reality is that more people injure themselves than take down a criminal. Y'all can go ahead and cosplay the Wild West. Just do me a solid and make sure I'm not around for your dumb asses to accidentally put a bullet into.

the "having a gun is more likely to harm you" is not true as those stats don't met out the two very different populations of law abiding/educated/trained people verses every idiot who gets their hand on one including the criminals

 

[deleted480308]

Isn't that the basis for wanting to be armed?

I'm claiming that a person has a natural right to want to make that decision for themselves and while it should be legal for them to do so, it is improper for an employer to interfere with that

 

[297point1]

Why can’t the agencies in charge of public health and safety study this exact issue to arrive at an even more definitive answer?

Answer: Following publication of the Kellernann study in 1993 and lobbying by the NRA, the Dickey Amendment was added to the 1996 Omnibus budget bill. This amendment prohibits the CDC from spending funds on conducting research into gun violence, which was interpreted by many as "no government research on gun violence".

Democrats have been attempting to repeal this amendment since 2015. In the 2018 continuing funding resolution, the HHS Secretary clarified that the CDC can conduct research into gun violence, but still cannot use government funds to do so. Courtney Lenard, a CDC spokesperson, said "It is possible for us to conduct firearm-related research within the context of our efforts to address youth violence, domestic violence, sexual violence, and suicide. But our resources are very limited."

 

[WVUPharm2007]

the "having a gun is more likely to harm you" is not true as those stats don't met out the two very different populations of law abiding/educated/trained people verses every idiot who gets their hand on one including the criminals

Ok, well, pharmacists aren't trained in stopping armed robberies. So there you go.

Maybe we could make that a PGY-3 residency. Pharmaceutical ballistics and tactics specialist.

 

[deleted480308]

Ok, well, pharmacists aren't trained in stopping armed robberies. So there you go.

Maybe we could make that a PGY-3 residency. Pharmaceutical ballistics and tactics specialist.

Any civilian, without needing an employer, can get the basic training and practice required to draw a shoot a man at <5yrds. This isn’t navy seal stuff

 

[WVUPharm2007]

Any civilian, without needing an employer, can get the basic training and practice required to draw a shoot a man at <5yrds. This isn’t navy seal stuff

Guy has gun pointed at you. You have a concealed gun, too. If you think the answer is to draw your weapon, you are asking to die and you are probably vastly overestimating your abilities. Not to mention the potential to harm people behind the assailant. Or for that person to harm other people in your pharmacy. Any idiot can learn to use a handgun. And become proficient at it. That still doesn't make you Dirty Harry when someone has a gun already pointed at you.

 

[deleted480308]

Guy has gun pointed at you. You have a concealed gun, too. If you think the answer is to draw your weapon, you are asking to die and you are probably vastly overestimating your abilities. Not to mention the potential to harm people behind the assailant. Or for that person to harm other people in your pharmacy. Any idiot can learn to use a handgun. And become proficient at it. That still doesn't make you Dirty Harry when someone has a gun already pointed at you.

You are building straw men here.

I’m not saying to shoot every robber, part of all firearm training is knowing what’s behind the target, and sometimes the bad guy starts shooting (for instance in the case that started this thread) and you need to fire back. There is nothing dirty harry about defending yourself

 

[WVUPharm2007]

You are building straw men here.

I’m not saying to shoot every robber, part of all firearm training is knowing what’s behind the target, and sometimes the bad guy starts shooting (for instance in the case that started this thread) and you need to fire back. There is nothing dirty harry about defending yourself

My entire thing is that it probably wouldn't have helped. If they were armed, they'd have still gotten shot. I can understand how people might find the illusion of safety comforting, though.

 

[VictorOfHungerGames]

I guess not being able to protect yourself is more important right?

I never understood this concept. So the guy has a gun already drawn on your face, you still gonna try to reach for your gun? And this is protecting yourself? Haha

Btw, thats from a personal experience. I used to help my parents with their business and we had a few armed robbers while I was there one of whom pointed his gun at my face from 5 feet away. We had a shot gun and a couple of small handguns at the business. My dad even had one on him. There is no fcking way youre drawing your weapon. I mean unless youre John Wick, you having a gun on you means **** when another gun pointed at your face.

 

[VictorOfHungerGames]

Any civilian, without needing an employer, can get the basic training and practice required to draw a shoot a man at <5yrds. This isn’t navy seal stuff

Wtf would any pharmacist get basic training on how to use a gun? Lol crazy stuff goes down at country hospital all the time, i dont see doctors and nurses panicking about needing to carry a gun.

 

[mentos]

Don't pull a gun if you don't intend to use it.

I mean, sure he could have shot the first guy but the second guy would have killed the Rph. This was back when there were no techs in the pharmacy, just one Rph running the show.

 

[Thoughtfulsinner]

I mean, sure he could have shot the first guy but the second guy would have killed the Rph. This was back when there were no techs in the pharmacy, just one Rph running the show.

I'm glad the 2nd criminal let him off the hook for not shooting the 1st criminal... LOL

 

[CetiAlphaFive]

CAF is trying too hard with the inflammatory hyperbole.

"I'm so embarassed for you!"

lol.

And then whips around to agreeing with my entire point that being armed ain't gonna do nothing for you in an armed robbery.

Nope, I pointed out that I wasn't making embarrassing statements like you.
"Nobody's saying"
Go re-read my post.

I.e., if I were debating an anti-vaxxer, I'd have posted "Nobody's saying vaccines are 100% effective, I'm just saying they don't cause [negative outcome]"
It's a communication technique that I try to use to snap ideologues out of their irrational, dug in positions.

I do think it's embarrassing that you posted that joke of a meta-analysis without carefully examining it.

My entire thing is that it probably wouldn't have helped. If they were armed, they'd have still gotten shot. I can understand how people might find the illusion of safety comforting, though.

You can be shot and still fight back.
The majority of handgun rounds are not show-stoppers.

Guy has gun pointed at you. You have a concealed gun, too. If you think the answer is to draw your weapon, you are asking to die and you are probably vastly overestimating your abilities. Not to mention the potential to harm people behind the assailant. Or for that person to harm other people in your pharmacy. Any idiot can learn to use a handgun. And become proficient at it. That still doesn't make you Dirty Harry when someone has a gun already pointed at you.

Again, you are projecting your own insecurities.