I can't believe that Pizza Hut has not been sued silly for having anti-self defense policies and not providing any alternative security .
This would be because you don't understand the law or the concept of "reasonable" when it comes to security, and don't seem to understand that a non-guns policy is NOT an anti-self defense policy.
A policeman's sidearm is worth more than you can get robbing a pizza delivery person on average. Why don't the thugs just report a minor disturbance and hope a lone cop shows up. Then they could overpower the officer and steal the sidearm, maybe a BUG.
Why? because as pointed out many times in this thread and supported by studies from Ralph Brown back in the day to John Lott in '99 CRIMINALS PREFER UNARMED VICTIMS
Actually, I would have to say because killing a Pizza guy will get you 5-15 with a good lawyer, killing a cop will get you the needle. Just my thoughts..
If employers can reduce insurance costs by instituting no carry policies, etc. and limit liability in lawsuits then in the interests of the company, that's what they SHOULD do if they are in the business of making (and keeping) money.
Nearly nine out of 10 retail cashiers who died on the job last year were murdered.
Restaurant and hotel management also saw a high percentage of workplace murders, with homicides accounting for 80% of workplace deaths. Cab and limousine drivers were also targeted. Fifty-nine percent of drivers and chauffeurs killed on the job were murdered, much higher than the percentage killed in highway accidents.
But highway accidents were the biggest overall killer in 2002, accounting for a quarter of all worker deaths. Falls killed 13%. Men were still, by far, the most likely to be killed on the job. Ninety-two percent of all workplace fatalities were male.
Among the 441 women who died on the job, though, the chief cause of death was homicide.
what costs would a business incur in a civil lawsuit if a customer was injured by a badge-heavy or over-zealous employee?
Robber comes in, employee pulls out CCW, misses robber but hits and kills a customer. Better be a pretty good size company to be able stay in business after that and still afford insurance premiums.
If you don't like it, get another job.
I'll accept that. I would assume, like most costs, that they are on the rise. But rising or falling, any workplace rule which represents a specific savings on an insurance policy will be quantified on the insurance policy.If premiums were on the decline at all that might be easier to answer. Fact is, they go up every year at a ridiculous rate.
I suppose that is an interesting hypothetical legal question. Maybe a lawyer can answer that. My question, to the business owners posting here, was intended to gather real insurance data. How much, in dollars, does implementing a strict no-gun policy save per month? There need be no guessing to answer it. If it is a box on his checklist, the insurance agent will know how much it takes off your premium.A better question is, what costs would a business incur in a civil lawsuit if a customer was injured by a badge-heavy or over-zealous employee?
I am not an attorney...Yep.
...but have at least rudimentary training in common law and negligence.
And yet you don't understand that if an employer provides a reasonable level of security, they have fulfilled their legal duty to protect employees and patrons alike. Simple things like lighting, security cameras, etc. usually suffice for being reasonable security measures.
Here is the crazy thing - if you check it out you will find a lawsuit won on behalf of victims injured in a shooting at a PH. They sued the gun maker
So why didn't they sue and win against PH? Simple. They didn't have a winnable case. Just curious, what case was it where the gunmaker was successfully sued?
All I find is the Glock and McMann's Roadrunner suit
http://www.gunlawsuits.org/features/articles/pizza.php
where PH people were killed and neither the gun seller or Glock were found liable. http://www.gunpolicy.org/Articles/2001/150801.html
And yet you don't understand that if an employer provides a reasonable level of security, they have fulfilled their legal duty to protect employees and patrons alike. Simple things like lighting, security cameras, etc. usually suffice for being reasonable security measures.
That has become obvious. As it is quite clear to those who actually have to deal with the problem I can only assume it is a result of your lack of experience in that area.I advocate Government having MORE control over the power of Businesses to interfere in private matters, such as the very private decision to be responsible for one's own safety. How that interferes with the market place is beyond me.
Again you make an assumption that is not in evidence. There is no valid proof that not allowing CCW in your business makes a business safer. Apocryphal stories are nice, but prove nothing.Making workplaces safe for criminals interferes with the market place. Show me where allowing CCW at work has interefered with the marketplace.
Ahh yes, the ever popular ad hominem response. Usually it is a pretty good indicator that one cannot defend their position with logic, facts and reason. But I would point out that if you are trying to attach a label, the communist position of the state being able to decide these things is far closer to your position than the capitalist free-market position I have advocated.Nyet Tovarich,
Again, a few stories do not constitute evidence. We would not accept that tactic if it was done by the anti-gunners, I equally do not accept it from the pro-gunners.The stories I googled up and posted links to all support CHL in the workplace with real life events.
As do you, I might point out.Once again you reply with nothing but rhetoric.
So what? Unless you are attempting to eliminate all risk, comparisons such as that are totally irrelevant. Once again, my point is that the safety issue is irrelevant. The issue to me is strictly the rights of the employer to expect workers to follow his wishes in his workplace.I have shown that choking deaths from ingested objects are more prevalent than accidental firearm deaths.
Again irrelevant. Whether or not it is a good idea has nothing to do with rights.BTW that argument if true would be a darn good reason not to carry anywhere, and we know that's not a good idea.
Agreed, just as there is no right to carry a firearm with you everywhere you go.There is no right to run a business any way you want.
And I would support your right to carry to and from work, as that is your right, depending on various factors (ie, is the empoyer providing the vehicle) as I have previously stated.When an employer tells me I can't have any defensive tools on me or in my vehicle that means I have no RKBA on their time or to and from work on my time.
So in other words this number you have been tossing around is only one small part of the story. That is exactly my point. One needs to look at the whole picture in order to make accurate and valid claims. It appears that has not been done here.That's just deaths from multiple victim shootings.
I have made no claims either way. Again, my point on this part of the argument, which I consider totally irrelevant to the main issue, is that there is no valid evidence on the issue one way or another. If you can provide a study that compares workplace violence and death between CCW-friendly businesses and non-CCW business I'd love to look at it. My main issue, again, is that it doesn't matter in the context of employer/employee rights.So you cannot refute that evidence exists that legal handguns in the workplace stop violence, and that disarming chl holders encourages violence,
And I argue that nobody has provided anything to support that concept. In fact, there is significant evidence that employers work to reduce the danger to their employees. You might disagree with the effectiveness of those measures, but it seems to work pretty good.I argue that employers may not capriciously place their employees in danger.
Not real sure what that has to do with the fact that both groups apparently have a problem with ADs/NDs. In fact, as these are the two businesses where we see the greatest number of trained individuals carrying at work it would seem to be a pretty good example.The LE and Military are not licensed citizens carrying concealed weapons to work. They hunt things and look for trouble. So the comparison suffers on it's face.
So none of these have to do with a private employer prohibiting an employee from carrying concealed while at work, which is what I think this thread is supposed to be about.Laws are on the books for the parking lot issue. One of these is in court being challenged. In Florida a business open to the public cannot discriminate against CHL holders but I think they may retain control of their employees. They cannot however ban guns at their business if they are open to the public.
You assume that those who support employers rights are not pro self defense. I would suggest that assumption is quite flawed.I had previously assumed that people who would own defense tools would be pro self defense.
One might equally ask how far can an employee go before you think they have gone too far? Is it OK to take a job based on you not smoking at home, then you smoke at home?How far can a company go before you will admit they've gone too far?
Again, there is no evidence to indicate you trade away any of your safety based on a no-guns company policy.Why should I have to trade away some of my safety (even if the odds are relatively good) to keep my job?