Posted on Dec 5, 2017
Controversial bulletproof glass bill passes committee
2.71K
93
22
8
8
0
I'm at a loss here...can someone explain how this helps solve any problem whatsoever?
Controversial bulletproof glass bill passes committee
Posted from fox29.com
Philadelphia
Law
Crime
Self Defense
Posted 7 y ago
Responses: 10
8
8
0
So "when" not "if" the first store owner or clerk is killed in Filthadelphia be sued and lose? Those screens are up their to protect the workers and owners from criminals, I see a lawsuit that the tax payers in that hellhole will have to pay money to satisfy the lawsuits because of idiots like that ELECTED OFFICIAL.
(8)
(0)
8
8
0
There was a store near me that had been robbed at gunpoint, 4 times in a couple of months. They put bullet proof glass up in order to protect workers. For some reason, the strip mall owner told them to take it down. The very next day, they were robbed at gunpoint, with one of the workers getting shot during the robbery. I am sure this will work out well in Philly since it is the City of Brotherly Love (NOT)! But, I guess it is more important to make people "feel" better about themselves, than actually "making" them safer...
(8)
(0)
8
8
0
First, what I want to know is WHY the city of Philadelphia feels it's necessary for them to step in and regulate "bulletproof glass" that business owners may feel is necessary in the first place?
Seems to me that if the owner of a business wants to put up bullet proof glass, then more power to him.
Second, reading through the article, it's evident to me that the politician pursuing this piece of legislative horse manure (Cindy Bass) don't know anything on the subject in the first place. "Bulletproof glass" isn't "plexiglass"...plexiglass is brittle and will shatter under impact. If you're using a "plastic" material for bulletproof protection, it'll be Lexan (polycarbonate).
THAT SAID: This bill was amended to provide a 3 year period to create regulations for the use and removal of bulletproof glass in these places. And this is what I have to say on the matter:
Such regulations should be based upon meeting actual standards for the construction and installation of bulletproof glass...NOT on whether or not any given institution OUGHT to be 'allowed' to install such protection.
Why?
Because we've already seen through the terminology in one political example that often people don't understand what "bulletproof" means, in either materials or practice. And THAT is important. You cannot just put up any old piece of plastic/glass any old way you want and call it "bulletproof". There is real science and construction behind the whole subject.
Seems to me that if the owner of a business wants to put up bullet proof glass, then more power to him.
Second, reading through the article, it's evident to me that the politician pursuing this piece of legislative horse manure (Cindy Bass) don't know anything on the subject in the first place. "Bulletproof glass" isn't "plexiglass"...plexiglass is brittle and will shatter under impact. If you're using a "plastic" material for bulletproof protection, it'll be Lexan (polycarbonate).
THAT SAID: This bill was amended to provide a 3 year period to create regulations for the use and removal of bulletproof glass in these places. And this is what I have to say on the matter:
Such regulations should be based upon meeting actual standards for the construction and installation of bulletproof glass...NOT on whether or not any given institution OUGHT to be 'allowed' to install such protection.
Why?
Because we've already seen through the terminology in one political example that often people don't understand what "bulletproof" means, in either materials or practice. And THAT is important. You cannot just put up any old piece of plastic/glass any old way you want and call it "bulletproof". There is real science and construction behind the whole subject.
(8)
(0)
LCpl Emanuel W.
If the people of Philadelphia haven't complained about the "indignity" of being served through a barrier, then what's the big deal? I'm thinking this is a ploy to put the Mom & Pop stores into a state of extinction. I'm sure that once the barriers come down, the crime rate towards these stores will rise. Then the only option available to these owners is to permanently close up shop. This will then leave everyone with no other choice but to go to big business to get their needs. Convenience will be a thing of the past.
(3)
(0)
CPO Glenn Moss
SSgt Christopher Brose - I read the article. It's also important to read the part the came just before what you quoted:
"She says she wants to put some controls on these small stores that, from her point of view, sell booze, very little food and are a source of trouble for her district."
She wants to prevent people who run a business from protecting themselves and their employees because they "are a source of trouble for her distict".
There are serious undertones here that this councilwoman is pushing a bill to prevent business owners from protecting themselves and their businesses in areas of the city which don't enjoy the amount of police protection that other, perhaps more affluent, areas do.
And this is a valid concern.
If other institutions, like banking and money lending institutions, can erect such barriers, then why not these? The whole argument that this is an "indignity" is hogwash.
If these businesses are actually doing something illegal, then address THAT. Why should they be punished, to the point of suffering serious bodily injury or death, for otherwise running a legal business?
"She says she wants to put some controls on these small stores that, from her point of view, sell booze, very little food and are a source of trouble for her district."
She wants to prevent people who run a business from protecting themselves and their employees because they "are a source of trouble for her distict".
There are serious undertones here that this councilwoman is pushing a bill to prevent business owners from protecting themselves and their businesses in areas of the city which don't enjoy the amount of police protection that other, perhaps more affluent, areas do.
And this is a valid concern.
If other institutions, like banking and money lending institutions, can erect such barriers, then why not these? The whole argument that this is an "indignity" is hogwash.
If these businesses are actually doing something illegal, then address THAT. Why should they be punished, to the point of suffering serious bodily injury or death, for otherwise running a legal business?
(1)
(0)
SSgt Christopher Brose
CPO Glenn Moss - It appears we are on the same page, so perhaps I misread the tone of your opening question. I agree with everything you just posted.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google