See if you can figure out this story.
As part of a bill to regulate convenience stores in not-so-nice neighborhoods, a Philadelphia City Councilwoman wants to ban “barriers”–bulletproof glass, in particular–between the clerk and the customers (http://www.phillymag.com/news/2017/11/29/cindy-bass-stop-go-bulletproof-glass/).
Have armed robbers–part of the Democrat voting base–been complaining that their job is hard when the clerk is able to hide behind bulletproof glass?
The councilwoman says these shops attract a lot of ne’er-do-wells. Like, who else would she expect to hang out there–Prince William and Princess Kate? The shop owners say they need the barriers to protect their employees. Given that bulletproof glass costs a lot more than regular glass, or no glass at all, it’s difficult to see why these shop owners, not renowned for their lavish business expenses, would want it if they didn’t need it. The councilwoman replies that bars in these neighborhoods do all right without protective barriers. Uh-huh. Betcha the police are kept reasonably busy by the goings-on around some of those bars.
But why try to forbid the shop owners to spend extra money on protection for their clerks? Does this make any sense at all?
Then again, does anything about our major cities make sense anymore?