Bellagio Robbery

[BillyJoe]

I prefer either of my Sig's, or my 92FS over Glock but if I'm looking for single cartridge stopping power then I'll grab my 1911 anyday. 
I thought that you lived in Illinois? Where could you carry them until recently?

[BillyJoe]

well blow my nose!    So now they are indeed UNARMED?????See, the last time I was at the Bellagio was 2006 or thereabouts.......but that surprises me now!    When did this change?I remember the Downtown casinos in the late 1990s and into 2000 all had armed security, including the Golden Nugget.Surely some other people must remember this?   seriously, when did Nevada casinos stop arming their security???

A CraigsList advertisement. Saw one for Four Queens, also...

" Armed Security Officer (Binion's Gambling Hall & Hotel)

compensation: Hourly wages, Medical, dental & vision. 401K if desired.

***IF INTERESTED APPLY AT: WWW.BINIONS.COM

***PLEASE DO NOT EMAIL RESUMES***

***WE ACCEPT APPLICATIONS ONLINE ONLY.***

Security Officer
Assist guests with directions and answers all questions in a friendly and courteous manner. Investigates all accidents and completes reports. Ensures that minors are not in gaming areas and patrons and employees are not in unauthorized areas. Protects the assets of guests, employees and the company."

[Tedlark]

[QUOTE=Tedlark]
I prefer either of my Sig's, or my 92FS over Glock but if I'm looking for single cartridge stopping power then I'll grab my 1911 anyday. 
I thought that you lived in Illinois? Where could you carry them until recently?[/QUOTE]
   Anywhere I want to.

[BillyJoe]

[QUOTE=billyjoe] [QUOTE=Tedlark]
I prefer either of my Sig's, or my 92FS over Glock but if I'm looking for single cartridge stopping power then I'll grab my 1911 anyday. 
I thought that you lived in Illinois? Where could you carry them until recently?[/QUOTE]
   Anywhere I want to.[/QUOTE]
DANG. And all this time, when I would drive up to visit family from FLA, I would stop at the Illinois border to unload and lock up, the ONLY STATE that my carry permit did not apply.

Who knew that the residents were packin'?

[Galeygoo]

Dang, and all I was hoping for was to see George and Brad again, lol

[gofaster87]

Just to let you know there are plenty of armed plain clothes security in casinos. They mingle in they crowd at all times of the day. I dont know what they are allowed to do and not do with their weapons but they are present.

[DaBurglar]

See, this is what I am talking about....this has the potential to be a great, interesting thread!   Sure, it started with a post about a casino robbery, but look what we have now, a debate about gun control and all its relevant sub-issues and the implications.The second amendment to the constitution,, is one of the more GENERAL and Debatable portions of the entire US constitution.   If it were really, truly as decisively clear as both sides (pro and con) of the gun control debate claim it is, then there would, in fact BE NO DEBATE!!!!! lolMy issue with this topic is this:  we must clarify if we are talking about gun CONTROL, or is the issue whether a private citizen has ANY right at all to ANY firearm?I am in favor of gun ownership, with the adequate and reasonable control(s) needed to protect society from what can (and often does) go wrong.I am not LIBERAL mr pokerforme, but thanks for divulging where you fall in the position of left or right of center.The 2nd amendment was written in 1785, and the world and circumstances in which it was conceived were VASTLY and FUNDAMENTALLY different than the world we now inhabit.   This is not debateable....when the US Constitution was ratified, slavery still existed, hostile Indian Tribes bordered many settlements, wild animals roamed everywhere (even in so-called large cities of the day!)    The need for firearms was self evident!    But all that aside.....the 2nd Amendment actually centers and focuses on the need for a "WELL REGULATED MILITIA"!   Therefore, it was also self evident that the people who would form this "Militia" would need to have a GUN to bring to the party.  (incidentally, the "Whiskey Rebellion" of 1794 was suppressed when President Washington ordered the PENNSYLVANIA Militia to put down the revolt.......almost two thirds or 67% of the 7,000 militiamen had to be PROVIDED guns by the federal government before marching off to suppress.....look it up!)In today's world, all of that previous list of issues, no longer have the importance or relevance.    What's more, in today's world, the actions or inaction of individuals can have greater collateral effect than in the past, mostly due to technology.If someone like Tedlark feels he really truly needs to have several firearms, for whatever legitimate NON-criminal reasons, then so be it.....but they must be registered, he must show a minimum level of competence and awareness of the safe use and storage of his weapons, and he must be held responsible if he accidentally blows the head off of someone while exercising his "right to bear arms".....also if his gun(s) is stolen, they must be reported within 24 hours otherwise he is an accessory after the fact for any crime committed with his stolen gun(s).    This is all part of sensible gun control, which is a good solution for this debate.  It allows people who are qualified (both morally and technically) to own guns if they so choose, while protecting the rest of society.Background checks, which are required for things like job applications and offers of jobs which involve a slew of sensitive areas, should also stringently apply for gun ownership.   If Tedlark, and those like him, want to own a 1911 colt 45 plus a sig plus a beretta plus a mossberg etc etc, than that is their right......but if was previously convicted of a felony, no dice (and no ammo).   its that simple, and I dont see any reasonable person disagreeing with such a requirement.In 1785, gun ownership was almost an ESSENTIAL part of being able to live in the world....simply put, you NEEDED a gun.   in 2014, in the vast majority of the inhabitable, civilized continental USA (excluding Alaska for obvious reasons), you do not NEED to have a gun in order to survive.  It is no longer essential.....owning a gun (especially a handgun) is a choice, an option, perhaps even a type of luxury or hobby.   Intelligent debate on this topic takes this into consideration.

[DaBurglar]

Also....gun ownership does NOT, make society (or individuals) safer....and it certainly does NOT prevent crime in the first place.    These are facts that you can look up and see demnstrated via a number of different ways, but I strongly endorse simply looking up the FBI crime stats and observations through their website!The USA (population 300 million plus) has the highest number of firearms (legal and illegal), the highest number of private registered gun owners in the world.   It also has the highest number of deaths from gunfire that are NOT related to open warfare, and it has the highest crime rate and rate of incarceration of any developed industrialized society in today's world.    Clearly.....CLEARLY, guns do not equal Safety or Less Crime.     it is more evident that they CONTRIBUTE to all these problems.Still, even with this info, I support the right to OWN a gun for the right person(s)......afterall, the USA is all about Individual rights and freedom, not collective safety and security.   I still have a hard time envisioning, though, how MArk David Chapman would have been thwarted if John or Yoko was packing a 38 revolver......Bodyguards would have been best, but apart from that, simply owning and carrying a gun does not PROTECT a person.  

[BillyJoe]

See, this is what I am talking about....this has the potential to be a great, interesting thread!   Sure, it started with a post about a casino robbery, but look what we have now, a debate about gun control and all its relevant sub-issues and the implications. The second amendment to the constitution,, is one of the more GENERAL and Debatable portions of the entire US constitution.   If it were really, truly as decisively clear as both sides (pro and con) of the gun control debate claim it is, then there would, in fact BE NO DEBATE!!!!! lol My issue with this topic is this:  we must clarify if we are talking about gun CONTROL, or is the issue whether a private citizen has ANY right at all to ANY firearm? I am in favor of gun ownership, with the adequate and reasonable control(s) needed to protect society from what can (and often does) go wrong. I am not LIBERAL mr pokerforme, but thanks for divulging where you fall in the position of left or right of center. The 2nd amendment was written in 1785, and the world and circumstances in which it was conceived were VASTLY and FUNDAMENTALLY different than the world we now inhabit. 

  This is not debatable....when the US Constitution was ratified, slavery still existed, hostile Indian Tribes bordered many settlements, wild animals roamed everywhere (even in so-called large cities of the day!) Actually, substitute "gangs" for "tribes", and you have the South Side of Chicago today. The need for firearms was self evident!

    But all that aside.....the 2nd Amendment actually centers and focuses on the need for a "WELL REGULATED MILITIA"!   Therefore, it was also self evident that the people who would form this "Militia" would need to have a GUN to bring to the party.  (incidentally, the "Whiskey Rebellion" of 1794 was suppressed when President Washington ordered the PENNSYLVANIA Militia to put down the revolt.......almost two thirds or 67% of the 7,000 militiamen had to be PROVIDED guns by the federal government before marching off to suppress.....look it up!)In today's world, all of that previous list of issues, no longer have the importance or relevance.    What's more, in today's world, the actions or inaction of individuals can have greater collateral effect than in the past, mostly due to technology. If someone like Tedlark feels he really truly needs to have several firearms, for whatever legitimate NON-criminal reasons, then so be it.....but they must be registered, he must show a minimum level of competence and awareness of the safe use and storage of his weapons, and he must be held responsible if he accidentally blows the head off of someone while exercising his "right to bear arms".....also if his gun(s) is stolen, they must be reported within 24 hours otherwise he is an accessory after the fact for any crime committed with his stolen gun(s).    This is all part of sensible gun control, which is a good solution for this debate. No Thank You !! The government cannot even get my birth year correct on my Social Security (they had me a year older than I am), I do not need them messing up records beyond what they already do.

  It allows people who are qualified (both morally and technically) to own guns if they so choose, while protecting the rest of society. Background checks, which are required for things like job applications and offers of jobs which involve a slew of sensitive areas, should also stringently apply for gun ownership.   If Tedlark, and those like him, want to own a 1911 colt 45 plus a sig plus a beretta plus a mossberg etc etc, than that is their right......but if was previously convicted of a felony, no dice (and no ammo).   its that simple, and I dont see any reasonable person disagreeing with such a requirement. In 1785, gun ownership was almost an ESSENTIAL part of being able to live in the world....simply put, you NEEDED a gun.   in 2014, in the vast majority of the inhabitable, civilized continental USA (excluding Alaska for obvious reasons), you do not NEED to have a gun in order to survive.  It is no longer essential.....owning a gun (especially a handgun) is a choice, an option, perhaps even a type of luxury or hobby.   Intelligent debate on this topic takes this into consideration.

Sorry, DB, but I disagree. If my sister owned and carried a gun in Colorado as a manager of a Chuck E Cheese restaurant 20 years ago, she would probably still be alive today. She may not have been able to save the others, but upon hearing the initial shots, she would have been able to defend herself against the individual that murdered her and the others execution-style, as they pleaded with him for their lives.

The police cannot be everywhere, and the bad guys have, and will continue to have, guns, regardless of any laws or regulations put in place to restrict them. I want a chance at survival should I encounter that situation.

[BillyJoe]

Also....gun ownership does NOT, make society (or individuals) safer....and it certainly does NOT prevent crime in the first place.      Clearly.....CLEARLY, guns do not equal Safety or Less Crime.    

simply owning and carrying a gun does not PROTECT a person.  

Ahh, not so much, DB...

Plantation, FL: The 71-year-old retired Marine who opened fire on two robbers at a Plantation, FL, Subway shop late Wednesday, killing one and critically wounding the other, is described as John Lovell, a former helicopter pilot for two presidents. He doesn't drink, he doesn't smoke, and he works out every day.

According to Plantation police, two masked gunmen came into the Subway at 1949 N. Pine Rd. just after 11 p.m.

There was a lone diner, Mr. Lovell, who was finishing his meal. After robbing the cashier, the two men attempted to shove Mr. Lovell into a bathroom and rob him as well.

They got his money, but then Mr. Lovell pulled his handgun and opened fire. He shot one of the thieves in the head and chest and the other in the head.

When police arrived, they found one of the men in the shop, K-9 Units found the other in the bushes of a nearby business. They also found cash strewn around the front of the sandwich shop according to Detective Robert Rettig of the Plantation Police Department.

A longtime friend of Lovell was not surprised to hear what happened. The friend said, ''He'd give you the shirt off his back, but he'd be mad as hell if someone tried to take the shirt off his back.''

Mr. Lovell was a pilot in the Marine Corps, flying former Presidents John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson.