This is a timely topic, as there has been a string of pharmacy robberies in the area lately. Pharmacies are often at an increased risk of robbery due to the expensive medications and controlled substances kept behind the counter. We are often confronted with drug seeking behavior and learn how to deal with it effectively, but how about when we cross the line into armed robbery?
Some pharmacists have decided that enough is enough. This case in particular was a very controversial one, and I'm sure we'll have good discussion of it.
Dr. Anderson has supplied me with a resource that I thought everyone would find useful as we discuss this topic and as you progress throughout your pharmacy careers. It is called RxPATROL, and it stands for Rx Pattern Analysis Tracking Robberies & Other Losses. It was started by Purdue Pharma, and its primary purpose is as a central repository for data relating to pharmacy crime. You can view recent activity and report activity to be included in their database. The site has some good videos to watch regarding pharmacy safety, and they also have a Twitter feed.
Should all pharmacists have access to weapons to protect themselves and their employees and patients in case of a robbery? What is the best thing to do if you find yourself in one of these situations?
29 comments:
I think that pharmacy employees should not have guns. This is coming from a gun owner. I believe that your typical person coming in to rob a pharmacy is a already likely on something and the typical pharmacy staff would not be properly trained which could create a very bad situation.
We are trained to calm them, give them what they want, get them out the door. No one gets harmed.
I think by having allowing pharmacist to have weapons would be increase the number of injuries and deaths related to the robberies. I think that a protective glass that separates behind the counter from the front would be effective but I don't know if it would make the patient comfortable but maybe if you could have a glass sheet that could drop from the ceiling if tripped could be an effective precaution to protect the staff and possibly prevent robberies altogether because it would become more difficult to pull them off.
I do not think that it should be that all pharmacists have access to a weapon simply because all are not capable and have not had training to know what to do with it. Without at least minimal training a weapon will be worthless and most likely be taken and used against you. Pharmacist that feel as if they need to protect themselves should be able to do so. If they comply with the legality of the situation then it should be no problem for them to have a weapon for defense. I have my conceal carry permit and I will carry when I am working in a pharmacy.
The pharmacist in the used a gun to protect his self and his store did everything perfectly until he came back in and shot the robber again to kill him. Legally you can only use an equal force and you must stop the use of that force when the threat is neutralized. I agree with him protecting himself, if he had not gone back and shot the robber again then he would have walked out a free man after the trial.
I believe that pharmacists should carry guns and make this widely known to the public. People would be a lot less likely to attempt pharmacy robberies if they knew that the pharmacist may be armed. What is stopping them from robbing a pharmacy now? It seems that it is too easy for people to decide they want to hold up a pharmacy for drugs, and without armed guards or pharmacists carrying guns I feel that we are almost welcoming people to rob us. In addition, I do not believe that having armed pharmacists will cause a more dangerous situation in the event of a robbery. Yes, we are all trained to calm people down and give them the drugs that they want but sometimes this is not enough. People may be on drugs and not in a rational state of mind while robbing a pharmacy, therefore they may not be able to reason that they have been given what they want and need to leave. This situation can elevate to a very dangerous one very fast, therefore pharmacists need to have the option to protect themselves. One of my friends used to work at a shoe store, where there was always an armed guard on duty each day. It does not make any sense to me that we accept having guards stationed at shoe stores and not at pharmacies, which are much more likely to be robbed and encounter dangerous situations due to the expensive, highly-abused narcotics that they carry.
personally I feel that if you take away a person's method to protect themselves then you need to take away the attackers method as well. Unfortunately the world is not filled with good people. Not allowing a pharmacist to protect themselves leaves them at the mercy of those individuals who might be high on drugs, desperate, or have no feeling about taking a life. Pharmacist should be allowed to protect themselves and guns should be allowed in the pharmacy.
I agree with Scott in saying that a pharmacist carrying a gun is not a good idea. Being armed encourages violence in my eyes. Most robberies happen quickly and nobody is injured or killed, but if you make the robber afraid and display a weapon then he or she will be more likely to release fire.
I feel it's up to the pharmacist whether or not he/she wants to carry. I think it should be permissible if it's something the pharmacist feels is necessary for self-protection. I think conceal/carry training is important for those of us who choose to carry weapons, because like Coleman said, lots of times our own weapons are used against us. But, in a circumstance such as this, I feel having a weapon can be essential for survival if the situation presents itself in a way where we are in fear of our lives. Because we are in such a highly-targeted field, we are more likely to encounter these types of situations. Why jeopardize our lives at the expense of what we sell?
I think if someone has a concealed carry permit, then they should be able to bring their gun to work as a pharmacist. If you have the permit then it means that you have taken gun safety classes, and you have the right to protect yourself if the situation arises. I also think that the corperation should be notified by the pharmacist if he/she is bringing a gun to work. This topic makes me think of "old days" where many places of business kept guns behind the counter incase of a robbery, this way they could protect themselves, their staff, and their business.
I feel that pharmacists should have access to weaponry in their pharmacy. However, pharmacists should not just be handed a shotgun or a handgun; they should have to enroll in programs, fill out lots of paperwork, be licensed, and undergo an extensive training program in handling firearms before they would even be considered to have a firearm in their pharmacy.
My dad is a commercial pilot for Delta Airlines. He himself does not carry a handgun, and according to him, most pilots do not carry handguns either. However, some do. In order for a pilot to carry a handgun to work, they have to fill out lots of paperwork, enroll in certain programs, and undergo extensive firearm training. While I understand that pilots have much stricter rules when it comes to having firearms than most other people in the workforce, I stand behind the rules and regulations that pilots must abide by in order to be permitted to wield a weapon while flying their plane. Pharmacists should have to undergo the same legal process and training in order to have access to a firearm in their store.
The point being, yes, pharmacists should have access to weaponry; but in order to have access to weaponry, they should go through a legal process and training program to ensure that they can safely defend themselves while avoiding harsh legal consequences.
Not only do I think that pharmacists should be allowed to have guns, but I think that gun training should be encouraged. If you don't want to have one, fine, don't. But I don't think that your 2nd amendment rights should disappear the second that you put your degree on the wall as a pharmacist. I assure you, robbers are going to be carrying a gun, so why shouldn't a pharmacist be allowed to do the same? Training and keeping a cool head are still essential in the process though. I'm not advocating a pharmacist shooting at everyone that comes into a store looking sketchy...I'm saying that a pharmacist has a right to defend themselves. A robber has already decided that they're willing to do whatever it takes to get the pills when they begin a robbery. A pharmacist should have the peroguative to carry a gun, if only for their own peace of mind. Pharmacists shouldn't be flashing a gun, or advertising that they're carrying, or even threatening to use it...unless the situation warrants such action. I've seen and heard about too many robberies that might have been deterred if the pharmacist had been able to "fight back" and had been carrying a gun.
If I have a conceal carry permit and choose to carry my gun with me, unless I tell you I have it or show you the gun, you would not know I was carrying a gun. Granted places put stickers on their doors saying no concealed weapons/no weapons, again if no one mentions they're carrying a firearm, no one knows they are carrying a firearm. I personally have no qualms with arming pharmacists. My view of this subject is that when a person draws a weapon on me, they forfeit all rights to the way civilized society functions. If a pharmacy can't ensure that no weapons will enter the store, then why is it okay to place your unarmed employees out there to face them?
I believe that pharmacists should have the option to carry a firearm but that they should also let their technicians know out of courtesy. As a technician, if I knew my pharmacist had a gun I would like to know before a robber came in so I would know to make sure I do not get between the two of them. A random customer who is in the store at the same time as a robbery could be carrying a gun and try to scare off the robber; so I think arguing that simply because a pharmacist having a gun would increase the likelihood of injury or death has less credence when you think of all the other factors one cannot control.
I believe that Pharmacists should absolutely be allowed to carry guns to work. In carrying a concealed weapon, there are many training classes and certificates that ensure people are properly trained to used their weapons. When an armed robber comes into a business and is willing to use their weapon, everything should be done to protect the innocent (pharmacy employees and customers). Many of these criminals have decided that they will go to any extreme to obtain what they want, and in many cases, have injured and killed pharmacy employees even after their demands have been fulfilled. My father owns an independent pharmacy and I often feel like his safety is endangered when he leaves his store after dark. As a future pharmacist, I am not willing to go to work unprepared and defenseless against a criminal that has put my life in jeopardy.
I think that pharmacists should have the choice whether or not to carry a weapon while in a pharmacy. To get a weapon they should go through the legal avenues to do so and make sure they are adequately trained on how to handle the weapon. In addition to knowing how to operate a gun before the pharmacist could carry the weapon while they work they should also be trained on when to use their weapon. If someone tries to rob the pharmacy the first instinct should not be to get your gun and blow them away.
Even though a pharmacist can carry a weapon if they chose to, this in no way means they will be safe if a pharmacy ever was robbed. Being able to have a weapon could "save the day" in some cases but may still not be enough in some others. But by allowing pharmacists to be able to have a gun when working in a pharmacy, whatever pharmacy that may be (CVS, Walgreens, Rite Aid, etc.), they may be able to protect themselves and the people around them if an event were to occur.
Based on personal experiences, my opinion of fire arms is that there is a higher risk of someone getting hurt or killed with more weapons present. Personally I don't think that having a gun at the store to defend yourself should even be an option anywhere because it can easily make scary situations even more dangerous. People always say that they want a gun so that they can defend themselves, but I don't understand this point because I haven't ever heard of someone coming to a pharmacy to "attack the pharmacist". I would think that 99 out of 100 people that rob pharmacies come for only the drugs and don't want any trouble. There are always going to be those few cases where someone is going kill someone for no reason but the risk of that is so minimal compared to the risk of pulling another weapon out and trying to defend yourself and others. Even real statistics could defend this statement because so many more people die from people trying to stop a robbery then just giving the robber what they want and not trying to defend themselves.
If I was being robbed and had to choose between trying to defend myself or giving them what they wanted knowing in my mind the statistics of living for both cases, I would choose to give them what they wanted every time. Looking at past robberies I would roughly have a 95-99% chance of living with just doing what they want instead of maybe a rough estimate of 70-90% chance of living if I tried to take action.
A little off topic but this works the same way with people that own guns in their house. There is statistical proof that people that own guns have more gun related injuries including in cases of robberies than people that don't. Nothing is more important to me than the safety of my family and friends so why wouldn't I choose to not have a gun and have a better statistical chance of no one getting hurt than to take a bigger risk of having someone get hurt.
I feel that allowing pharmacist or staff members to carry a concealed weapon would just lead to more injuries and fatalities. There are much better alternatives that provide a more likely method of preventing/stopping a robbery. A security gaurd in pharmacy's would provide a good deterent for most robbers. Another thing could be to have a 911 button under the counter, that could serve as another line of defense.
I believe that a pharmacist should be able to carry a gun. People are crazy sometimes and will stop at nothing to get there medications. Withdrawals from opiates are not fun, so who's to say that someone would not kill to make those feeling go away. If a pharmacist was able to carry a gun, he or she would be able to better protect themselves against people like this and other who would potentially try to rob a pharmacy at gunpoint.
This being said, I do think it necessary, that if a pharmacist were to be able to carry a gun, that they should be required to undergo intensive training. This would ensure that they new the law, and how to use their weapon. Hopefully this would help cut down on pharmacy robberies, keeping the pharmacist safe.
I think if a pharmacist is licensed to carry a weapon, and thereby knows how and when to use that weapon, they should certainly be able to have a gun in the pharmacy with them. In an independent or community pharmacy setting, a pharmacist should be able to have weapon on site with them and know the protocol for using that weapon. This is especially important for those working in high crime areas. I think that if a pharmacist has a weapon, a sign should be posted on the entrance saying so, therefore anyone thinking about robbing the store would know what they were getting in to. For retail pharmacies, pharmacists must abide by company policies, though I think retails should reconsider their gun policies.
Kyle Crisco, P1
Class of 2015
I do not feel as if pharmacists should be able to have guns on them in case of a robbery. Most robberies are done without anyone getting hurt, but if they see a gun threatening the situation for them, they are more likely to panic and cause harm. I think it is best to just give the robbery what they want and report the incident to the police and allow the police to track down the robbery. I think a better alternative would be to have a panic button in the pharmacy to allow police to respond quickly in case of an emergency instead of pharmacists who are not trained in crime-related incidents to try to handle the situation themselves.
I think that as long as pharmacists receive the proper training, having guns in pharmacy is a good idea. Someone mentioned in class how pilots have a training program consisting of a few months of training. I do not think pharmacists should just receive their concealed carry license and have a gun in a pharmacy. I think there should be a more intensive program. I think having guns in pharmacy will dissuade people from robbing the pharmacy because they know that the pharmacist is carrying a gun.
I think that although having a weapon around can increase the risk of a tragedy, having a weapon should be an option for pharmacists, especially in high risk areas. If it is otherwise legal for an individual to possess a weapon, and a life-threatening danger presents itself, a pharmacist should have a means of protecting themselves. Protocol should be to initially comply; give a criminal anything they ask for. However, if someones life is clearly in danger (ex: the robber has already fired a shot at the pharmacist of someone else,) then taking action is appropriate, and should not be grounds for dismissal. The issue of whether appropriate action was taken should be a matter to be resolved in court, not by an employer.
I think that pharmacists should be able to carry a gun if they are properly trained and have the ability to use it without hurting bystanders. Usually when a robbery does occur the thief just wants the drugs and in most cases it is better just to give the drugs to the person than rather shooting them, which increases the chances of causing death. Personally I would want access to a weapon because the robber may be crazy and try to kill witnesses, so I would be more inclined to stop that sort of attack and that is why having a gun is important for a pharmacist as long as he is trained.
I agree with Coleman on this one, not everyone is trained to use a firearm and it would cause a greater risk in the case of a robbery. However, with proper training and qualification, I believe that anyone should be able to carry a firearm. After all it is our second amendment right, which is considered "unalienable" and "cannot be infringed upon." Ted Nugent says in this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LCHtw6WbbnM - view at your own discretion) that he doesn't need any document or person to tell him that he has the right to defend his gift of life. There should be no question on whether or not someone has the right to defend their life. As far as gun control goes, the more guns are taken out of citizens hands, the more crime there will be. I wrote a research paper a couple years ago on the topic (which I would be happy to send to anyone interested) and everything that I found showed a strong correlation between gun control and violent crime. There are several towns located around the globe in which every citizen is required to own a gun; the crime rate in these towns is extremely low. This is due to the fact that any criminal, given the choice to rob an unarmed citizen vs. an armed citizen will choose the unarmed one 100% of the time. They would be stupid not to. Gun control only takes weapons out of the hands of law-abiding citizens. Think about it, criminals aren't going to stop carrying guns just because there are laws against them. They couldn't care less about what the law says. A good example is given in this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1u0Byq5Qis - again, view at your discretion). The woman in the video explains that she was in a restaurant when a madman drove through the front window and started shooting whoever he could see. It was against the law to take a weapon into that business, hence the reason she left hers in her car. The shooter had no regard to whether or not he could carry his weapon into the restaurant. Like she says, had she not taken her weapon out of her purse, she could have prevented both of her parents from being killed that day. This all ties back into the discussion on pharmacists being allowed to carry. If they were, and they knew how to use the firearm, then they could possibly prevent a robbery. Back to the case of crime rate, if it was known that pharmacies had armed employees, perhaps they would not be robbed as often. Some people just want a phone to be able to call the police, but what if the person is not coming in to rob the pharmacy and is simply just wanting to kill as many people as possible. Tom Palmer, of the CATO Institute, sums it up well: “If someone gets into your house, which would you rather have, a handgun or a telephone? You can call the police if you want, and they'll get there, and they'll take a picture of your dead body. But they can't get there in time to save your life. The first line of defense is you.” The same goes for the pharmacy. So which would you rather have, a handgun or a telephone?
The most important part of pharmacy robbery is working to deter it, and also to make sure pharmacy employees have the best chance of being safe when one occurs. Pharmacies should all have easy to access panic buttons like bank tellers have, and pharmacies should be able to carry weapons with the proper trainig and liscensing especially if they are going to be working alone on a night shift.
It all depends if you are the owner, a part of an independent pharmacy or of a major chain. Everyone should have the right to own and carry a gun, with the correct permits. Responsible individuals should not have a problem with guns. The world is a dangerous place and there are many controlled drugs available in the pharmacy. Most pharmacies do not have any method to protect themselves and anyone could come in and rob or maybe even kill for some controlled drugs. I believe that life is more important than controlled drugs. I would feel safer knowing I have the option of using a gun to protect myself and my coworkers.
Gun control is always a hot topic and is basically what this discussion has been turned into: should we control pharmacists’ ability to carry firearms in their practice sites? I understand both sides of the argument but I feel that the question is getting clouded with hypotheticals and personal opinion. The reality is that the decision is the individual pharmacist’s (and sometimes that of their employer/company). I support whatever choice another pharmacy professional makes, as with all the other topics we have discussed, but just as with the other topics I feel they need to be educated to the choices they are making. There are valid statistics that support carrying firearms as effective in prevention of robberies and for the reality that they can make for disastrous results when incorrectly used in self-defense. I highly suggest that anyone that wants to defend themselves with a firearm find legitimate and thorough training program that covers “use of force” and stress-accuracy before they choose to arm themselves. It is an individual choice, but like so many of the ones that we have discussed before they can directly effect our coworkers and patients. My PERSONAL opinion is that a WELL-TRAINED armed professional is always a better option to have and not use than to be without them in a violent situation. I have a relatively strong background in the use of handguns but even I do not know if I wish to take the added responsibility of protecting myself and coworkers, though I cannot imagine having that option taken away from me.
Jonathan Graham, P1
I think that pharmacist should be able to have a weapon. A few issues brought up about having a gun in the pharmacy was that it could increase the chances of getting injured. I think that it can be a determinant especially if there are sign that are put up saying that the pharmacy is armed. A classmate shared a story of a pharmacist that was getting robbed. The robber asked the pharmacist to unlock the C II cabinet and while he bent down to unlock it the robber shot him in the head killing him. The same classmate shared another story about a pregnant pharmacist who was getting robbed, she unlock the C II cabinet for the robber and then took off running. The robber ran after her and dragged her back into the pharmacy by her hair and told her if she ran again he would kill her baby. I feel like pharmacists should be able to protect themselves and should be their choice on whether they want to keep a gun or not. They just have to use good judgment on whether it should be used in a certain situation and if it is worth it.
Jessica Farris P1
Class of 2015
I believe that a pharmacist should be able to have a gun to protect themselves if they want to have one. Our drug store had a person come in with a gun in their pocket demanding our money and oxycodones a couple months ago, and thankfully no one got hurt. But it was our pharmacist that distracted the woman and pulling out a gun on the woman that allowed the customers and employees to rush out the back door and he ended up scaring the robber off. In all robbery situations there is a danger factor and there is no way to tell how the situation will turn out. But I dont think that just having a gun in the store will cause more violence to take place. Even when you give the robber everything that they want, there is still nothing to stop them from shooting you as they rush out of the store.
Pharmacists should be able to have access to weapons in the pharmacy in case of an armed robbery. Obviously, the pharmacist must possess a license to permit him/her to use a weapon, however if company policy forbids weapon use for any reason, the pharmacist is required to comply. I believe that pharmacists should have this access because if a robber is carrying a weapon, they may be inclined to use it and that may result in a tragedy. Anybody who goes to the extent to backup threats with a weapon obviously has the intent to potentially cause harm to others. If a pharmacist is dealing with a situation to where his or her life is in danger, they have every right to defend themselves, whatever the end result of the robber may be. In the case of Jerome Ersland, I believe he is justified in the killing of the armed robber. I understand that after Jerome came back in, he shot the unconscious armed robber five more times with another gun, resulting in his death; however, I also understand that the armed robber had the intent to potentially kill Jerome since he was supporting his threats with a gun of his own. If Jerome hadn’t killed the armed robber, there is a possibility that if and when the armed robber has the opportunity, he may take the life of Jerome Ersland away, just as he first intended. I think if this view was greatly stressed upon in order to justify Jerome’s state of mind when he killed the armed robber, he may have walked out of that courthouse.
Moe Sobh
WUSOP Class of 2015
Post a Comment