irstupid said:
Yea the bill is just dumb. I read some article that seemed to be defending this bill or the lady for some reason. About how she shouldn't be held accountable for any future murders at those places. The ladies comments were all about the Stop and Go's being basically bad places. You know where the stores were selling drugs in the store, or they were selling crack bongs, or cough medicine (you know ingredients to make drugs) ect. She wanted them to become better places that sold like food or had restuarants or some such. You know the whole you make the atmosphere better the place becomes safer. Makes complete sense. What doesn't make any sense though is removing the bullet proof glass first. There is no need to force/tell stores to remove their bullet proof glass. At the point that the store feels safe and looks safe, removing the bullet proof glass will be what they will want to do. It is just another thing that makes the store look even safer. I mean think of all the convenient stores you have been to in your life. There is nothing that makes one think a place is more unsafe than walking in and seeing the clerk behind bullet proof glass. Whenever I go in those stores I think "whelp, better get what I need done quick and get out of here." Stores don't want to have bullet proof glass. It's expensive and sends the a message that this place is not safe. They only have it if they need it. |
The logic makes sense, but unfortunately I don't think it'll translate well in the real world.
Now, if this were in a nice suburb? Yeah, I'd understand. But in Philly I'd be worried about an increase in robbery and crime.
