You keep mixing the apples and the watermelons. A study showing violence is reduced in a state that has CCW is not particularly applicable to the effect of CCW on a more specific institution.
Common sense, personal experience, empirical data, and recognized studies tell me that criminals prefer unarmed victims and tend to avoid attacking people who they think might be armed.
Surveys of felons indicate that 52% of them fear armed citizens more than the police.
I can't see how this does not apply to the workplace.
None, just as no part puts the rights of the employee above that of the employer. So we move away from the Constitution into established legal doctrine which has consistently favored the employer over the employee in these issues.
Agreed. This is they way it has worked but it is being challenged in several states.
http://www.heraldextra.com/content/view/253901/57/
Just as laws restricting citizen carry are evolving the question of whether or not employers can restrict private possession of defense tools is also evolving.
Of course, a private business restricting CCW on its premises has never been considered an individual rights issue in either the Constitutional rights or civil rights context, nor a due process issue.
Simply not true, the OK law is in court now.
What is it about a voluntary agreement that is so hard to understand. I am not disarming you. You are voluntarily agreeing to follow my rules in exchange for employment. You are quite free to remain armed by not agreeing to follow my rules.
When every major company has the same polices is an employee really choosing? This argument has been used in the past to justify disparate wages and other policies which were later determined to be infringements. It is being challenged by and fought out in state houses and courthouses.
Yes, and which is why I do know the "Nyet, Tovarich" comment is a communist reference, and not a particularly complimentary one.
Well since you live with people from that part of the world and I only work with them I apologize and will not use that phrase again on the forum.
Are you seriously suggesting that "impairing abiliyty" and "running roughshod" are linguistically equivalent?
Reflecting on the ccw holder who was gunned down in a defense free zone, yes. Impairing peoples ability to defend themselves is running roughshod over their rights.
Once again you resort to hyperbole and distortion rather than discuss the actual issue. Why is that?
You are the one that said that there was no evidence that ccw would make the workplace safer. Then you said safety was irrelevant. Simply holding up your arguments to scrutiny.
This is where your argument tends to fall apart. If you are going to use the broad state-level context as your evidence, you also should recognize that businesses are still prohibiting CCW in those states. So are they safer? If so, then the non-CCW policy is working. If they are not safer, then the statewide CCW is harming them. Or one can do like real researchers do, and recognize that aggregate and macro-level data is often quite limited in applicabiliyt to micro-level issues.
Here is the thing. Most of America allows ccw, and overall violent crime is down. Most workplaces ban ccw and multiple victim shootings in gun free zones are on the increase. Your argument above on the effect of ccw relating to workplace safety is flawed.
To me that means that ccw reduces crime and in places where you restrict ccw criminals are more likely to find soft targets that invite attack.
So a couple of studies, particularly when done by the same authors, while interesting are certainly not overwhelming evidence.
First off, it's not just a couple of studies. It's data confirming that ccw holders are more law abiding than the society as a whole. It's the fact armed citizens can and do stop multiple victim shooters. Unarmed citizens do not, I am not making that up.
It is enough instances of crime decreasing in the wake of citizen ccw in enough states to convince many ( but apparently not your) it ain't a fluke. It's criminals own words when researchers ask them what deters them. It's common sense.
I believe that ccw does make a difference in crime and does allow people to better protect themselves. Most state legislatures agree. I believe Kleck, Lott and the others I cited more so than Kellerman or spokespeople talking about creating safe environments by banning weapons.
It's really really simple. Bad people disobey the bans. Good people obey them and that makes good people easy prey for the bad ones.
I was a Special Police Officer in National Capitol Public and Assisted Housing.
I also worked in high density housing a couple of miles down RT1 in Hybla Valley were ccw was legal and handguns were obtainable by the law abiding.
Nobody is asking for fourteen pages in a post, a link will do.
Yes, so I say. Those pesky folks who spend most of their time actually working with research and statistics, reading journals rather than a paragraph in one article in a journal and so on do tend to so say.
Well you are wrong. Like I said - I worked the streets and projects in D.C. and did the same in Virginia. Gun bans are bad and they mean honest people are unarmed and criminals are armed because criminals don't follow the rules.
I'm not trying to sell anything. That is the difference. I have no agenda, whereas it is obvious you do. Thus you tend to try to create evidence and proof where there is none, whereas I tend to focus on what thetotality of the evidence acually indicates.
I do have an agenda. Took the oath of office at least three times. Believe in it. Lived in D.C. before and after the ban. Have held a shot up kid in my arms who wasn't going to see his next birthday. Know that having everybody in a workplace unarmed does not stop bad guys from coming and hurting people.
I have buried a statistic who was my neighbor and friend. Following the rules did not stop the bad guys who put him in a box.
I did not create the work of Kleck, Lott, the Labor Department statistics on workplace deaths, the news stories of unarmed people getting killed or the news accounts of ccw permit holders surviving lethal encounters and stopping criminals.
I don't believe in victim disarmament. It's bad. That's my agenda. What's yours?
You can ask for studies showing CCW in the business place is dangerous, but there aren't any
Wrong. There is one that is is cited in trade journals. Out of North Carolina, and uses findings from Kellerman, funded by CDC as I understand. Called highly political by it's detractors and not credible on it's face, but it exists. I have already mentioned it in the thread.
edit here is another article referencing such a study :
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/330/7499/1043
...Society as whole is safer (a questionable claim) does not mean everywhere in particular is safer.....Almost all your studies do not reflect the business environment.
The reduction of crime in Florida, for example, since the ccw law in 1987 is not a questionable claim, it's a fact.
Why is the business environment so different than the rest of the world regarding people's ability to defend themselves as it relates to safety?
Quote:
As I understand your position, government interfering with the wishes of the employer is communism? But the employer interfering with my right to licensed possession of effective defense tools is liberty?
Your understanding is again questionable, as I have suggested neither of those positions.
The business is exercising its rights to establish a working environment as the employer sees fit. Denying the employer that right is a communist policy.
http://thefiringline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2683011&postcount=206
I don't know where you went wrong, but it seems you did. Part of it might be thta you seem to confuse civil rights and Constitutional rights.
The Second Amendment is what I understand to be a Constitutional right. I do believe that the government does protect constitutional rights of workers in some cases.
So yes, the safety issue is irrelevant. I know you keep trying to go in that direction, but that is not the issue.
According to every employee manual I have read it is. A compelling business case must be given to curtail a persons rights, or the policy will not stand, whether we are talking about a verbal imperative or written policy.
Let me provide a real world example. One day - BELIEVE IT OR NOT - perhaps feeling a bit rebellious I decided to wear a kilt to work. I have no contact with customers or visitors. A manager told me not to wear it again or I would be subject to termination. I called HR (work at a big national company with offices everywhere) and told them that I was a man who wore skirts and my manager was threatening my position not because of performance but because of my desire to wear a skirt to work. TRUE, whether you believe it or not.
Well, that was the end of that. HR was smart enough to realize that while managers may not wish for me to wear a kilt they had better stand down unless they wanted a beef. Indeed all kinds of suits have been settled or sustained when companies impose gender based dress codes.
The manager now respects my right to respect my heritage and dress the way I want. Visitors to our location are sometimes briefed on "the kilt situation" according to a network support technician and a recently promoted manager who disclosed as much to me.
Why is that? Doesn't the employer get to establish the work environment they desire? Not if it steps on somebody's rights, even something as seemingly ridiculous as wearing a kilt to work. So when they talk about depriving a person of their normal means of defense there has to be a reason. Wishes don't cut it.
I keep mentioning safety because if you do read trade journals and company policies they consistently cite safety. I have never seen a no weapons policy, or a security or insurance article recommending such, based on wishes.
If you know of any no weapons policies which state they are based on wishes please post links.