Does employer's policy override CCW license?

[David Armstrong]

Assumption contrary to fact. I am not an attorney but have at least rudimentary training in common law and negligence. Trained P.I. and certified protection officer by the IFPO.

Actually it would appear assumption supported. Apparently the majority of folks here that are actually invovled in running a business or deal with litigation and the law have taken a positiojn that is contraty to yours. I'm familiar with PIs, and I've trained a fair number of them in my time, and I see little in PI training that addresses the complexities of reasonableness and self defense as legal constructs, not to mention the ideas of civil rights, as being discussed in this thread.

 

[David Armstrong]

To help us quantify for the purposes of discussion, how much does such a policy, as a line item, reduce your premiums?

This isn't directly comparable, but when I looked at the insurance for my range, allowing the range to be hot (guns loaded all the time) as opposed to cold (guns loaded only during firing) the difference was a bit over 50%.

 

[David Armstrong]

How about, if I don't like it, carry anyway? Since there is no legal penalty for CCW against an employer's rules, the only consequence to being caught is getting fired, and that is only if your employer finds out.

Personally, I feel my concern for honesty and acting honorably is fairly important. I always question gun owners who would suggest acting otherwise.

 

[Perldog007]

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.

Actually we have a bunch of Russian kids down at the shore every summer working in Restaurants and we say that all time down here. But while we are talking about it, Victim disarmament is a communist policy. Allowing people to keep and bear arms is a policy of Liberty.

The inside joke is that these hard working youth will say "Nyet Tovarich" in a friendly way with a smile but what it means is "No way in Hell!". Yet considerably more polite.


If you read the Constitution, the Federalist Papers, and the historical works they derived from you are left with the conclusion that the right exists before the state and it is the duty of the state to preserve that right.

I do not advocate letting business run roughshod over the people in order to make a buck. The job of the government is to preserve our rights. If Business steps on those rights as they have done in the past the State is obliged to intervene.

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.

Actually there are links to studies and references as well as empirical data cited to prove that ccw makes everywhere safer.

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.

So enlighten me. Perhaps more productive to be instructive. If it is quite clear please explain it. If there is anybody who can know everything, I am sure of one thing - it ain't me.

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 empirical evidence backs up the studies showing that certain professions are at an unusual risk for homicide. The studies that show the presence of armed civilians reduce violent crime. The studies that show submitting to the criminal in a robbery is more dangerous than resisting with a firearm.

What the thread is bereft of is any empirical evidence, academic studies, or statistics that support the position that making workplaces safe for criminals also makes them safer for employees. In spite of this employee safety has been cited repeatedly as a reason to for employers to make workplaces safe for murderers, rapists, and thugs.

We also do not have any thing to back the assertion of the divine right of employers to strip employees of their rights at will. Perusing FindLaw will provide much evidence of the contrary.

Quote:
Once again you reply with nothing but rhetoric.

As do you, I might point out.

No Sir. I have responded to those who say victim disarmament provides for the safety of employees by referencing data, studies, and actual news events that indicate the opposite.

I have shown that choking deaths from ingested objects are more prevalent than accidental firearm deaths.

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.

So what? that proves that injury from a firearm accident is less likely than other common hazards, and therefore not a sound argument for victim disarmament.

Safety irrelevant? Employee safety is one of the primary reasons for not allowing employers to be dictators. It has also been mentioned many times by those supporting making workplaces safe for criminals.

Why does an employer have the right to wish away my legal licensed effective means of self defense when it does not interfere with her business?

She can't wish other rights, why is the right protected by the 2nd and affirmed by the state retractable by the employer?

The reason that the employers wishes are "under the boot" is not a matter of prior restraint like the victim disarmament policies. The reason that employers don't get to do whatever they wish is because of real harm and injury caused in the past.

The argument against ccw at work comes down to prior restraint and that is based on emotion not logic. Employers cite rampages and accidental shootings that would cause the corriders to run red with blood. IN other words they want to ban defense tools because of things that might happen, and in spite of things that are happening.

Just like the media hoopla when Florida went Shall Issue in '87. The anti-EFFECTIVE-self-defense crowd was wrong then and they are wrong now.

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.

Actually, Bureau of Labor Statistics on all workplace fatalities have been discussed and a link to those figures provided.

Workplace homicides other than multiple victims have been discussed.

Agreed, just as there is no right to carry a firearm with you everywhere you go.

I disagree. I concede that our current state of de facto government does not recognize the intent or the letter of the Second and Fourteenth Amendments. That does not mean those Amendments do not exist. There is a difference between a right existing and being recognized.

Sometimes it takes social and political change to get rights recognized.

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.

I would tend to agree, but employers are arguing that keeping your defense tool locked in your car is no different than carrying it to work.

Florida law says you cannot stop visitors from carrying in your place of business if it is open to the public. Allowing licensed people who are employees the same freedom is the next logical step.

 

[Perldog007]

Actually it would appear assumption supported. Apparently the majority of folks here that are actually invovled in running a business or deal with litigation and the law have taken a positiojn that is contraty to yours. I'm familiar with PIs, and I've trained a fair number of them in my time, and I see little in PI training that addresses the complexities of reasonableness and self defense as legal constructs, not to mention the ideas of civil rights, as being discussed in this thread.

I did say rudimentary and laid out duty, breech, injury, and causation of fact. If you train P.I.s' you know that negligence is covered in some states like Virginia because the existence or lack of these elements can be worth a bunch of cash.

In stating my level of training I am inviting implicitly and have asked for a person with more training to explicitly explain the current trend of safe crime zones as it relates to the basic elements of negligence as taught to us knuckle dragging note and picture takers.

As far as positions if you google the Oklahoma law ans court challenge you will find a State Senator who has us both trumped in credentials taking the same position I do. There is no reason to fear licensed people.

 

[David Armstrong]

But while we are talking about it, Victim disarmament is a communist policy. Allowing people to keep and bear arms is a policy of Liberty.

Nobody is being disarmed. 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.

Actually we have a bunch of Russian kids down at the shore

My wife is Russian, as is my daughter.

I do not advocate letting business run roughshod over the people in order to make a buck.

Nor do I. Failing to allow CCW at work is far from running roughshod.

Actually there are links to studies and references as well as empirical data cited to prove that ccw makes everywhere safer.

Sorry, but talking about broad studies regarding CCW are of limited applicability to the specific area we are discussing. Again, if you have anything that is actually applicable I'd love to see it.

So enlighten me.

I and others have been trying to that, so far with limited success.

No Sir. I have responded to those who say victim disarmament provides for the safety of employees by referencing data, studies, and actual news events that indicate the opposite.

Sorry, but this is my area of expertise. I do research for a living, and virtually everything you have offered as proof is of limited value, if any at all. Measuring an apple when we are talking about a watermelon isn't particularly valid.

So what? that proves that injury from a firearm accident is less likely than other common hazards, and therefore not a sound argument for victim disarmament.

Again, so what? The danger from "A" has no bearing on whether or not "B" should be allowed. You are almost arguing that marijauna should be legal becaseu cigarettes are bad.

Safety irrelevant?

In discussion of rights, yes. The danger of libel does not change the right to free speech.

I disagree. I concede that our current state of de facto government does not recognize the intent or the letter of the Second and Fourteenth Amendments.

One can disagree all they want, but that de facto government is how the rights are defined and recognized.

 

[KMO]

Back to Dave85's question...

Many of the business owners defending the implementation of no-gun policies on the basis of cost/liability mention the insurance considerations. To help us quantify for the purposes of discussion, how much does such a policy, as a line item, reduce your premiums?

I decided to talk to our insurance broker about this question. There is nothing to quantify. To the best of our broker's knowledge (he's pretty sharp), all insurance carriers share the same policy, that is, zero tolerance for weapons in the workplace unless it is a requirement of the position. In other words, if a carrier finds an insured company knowingly permitting weapons in the workplace (even CCW), that company's policy will be dropped like a hot potato unless the company takes immediate corrective action.

Some posters on this thread need to drop the anti-corporation mindset, and realize that companies are not America's greatest evil. They provide jobs in a capitalistic economy, and they exist in a hostile environment with restrictions and government intervention to a high degree.

We can try to lay the blame on the insurance companies, but that isn't fair either. They simply deal with levels of risk and probabilities.

Who to blame then? Well, how about ambulance-chasing attorneys and liberal judges?

In the meantime, businesses must do the best they can to survive.

 

[divemedic]

As will I. I will continue to carry concealed, and to hell with what some corporation thinks of it. There is no law preventing me from doing so.

I think we should have a law that mandates a business be held liable if a customer or employee becomes a victim while obeying a disarmament policy.

 

[Perldog007]

We can try to lay the blame on the insurance companies, but that isn't fair either. They simply deal with levels of risk and probabilities.

Who to blame then? Well, how about ambulance-chasing attorneys and liberal judges?

In the meantime, businesses must do the best they can to survive.
kmoffitt is offline

Well first of all, thanks to Kmoffit for answering the 64K question.

As for the anti-corporate mindset I would argue that making people safe is conducive to corporations.

Nothing like a multiple victim shooting or fatal robbery to disrupt business. Raping and robbing employees on their way to and from work can't be good either. I would hope that we could agree on this.

If the insurance companies are responsible for making workplaces safe operating environments for criminals I can't see who else to blame. I have been a licensed producer, and my stepfather has been making regular trips to Lloyd's over yonder for years. Insurance companies are not fountains of ethical thought and action whether you believe it or not.

They have done some good though, through re-insuring the 911 losses were absorbed. That was done for the companies benefit but it kept a disaster from being worse.


So my question then becomes what stops companies from appointing what the Marines call "Guardian Angels". Managers who are trained and licensed and are charged with the responsibility of workplace safety officers. Or hiring armed guards?

How about restricting access unless required for commerce and then providing safe areas? My job does none of that. Anybody can walk in at any time and our defense is a telephone. How is that reasonable care?

Also since it is proven that ccw reduces violent crime what probabilities are the insurance companies operating on? I could use some clarity on that, as apparently could others.

I know in the past the Kellerman study has been a favorite of Insurance wonks. At least at one major insurance company. I know this because my mom became familiar with it through her work at that company.

Nobody is being disarmed. 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.

I need some help on this one. Which part of our Constitution puts the rights of the employer above the employee?

My understanding is that the Constitution prohibits the government from trampling on individual rights and charges the government with safeguarding those rights. Perhaps you can set me straight on this.

What is it about a no weapons policy for anybody even in their cars is not disarming people. Are you suggesting that because your defense tool is miles away you are armed?

If you are not able to be armed how are you not disarmed?

My wife is Russian, as is my daughter.

Then you could be reasonably expected to know that all Russians are not communists nor is every Russian reference a communist reference.

Nor do I. Failing to allow CCW at work is far from running roughshod.

We will have to agree to disagree on this one. I would agree that banning individual weapons in the workplace would be more reasonable if it did not impact my ability to effectively defend myself going to or coming from work AND if reasonable alternative protection were provided.

ferinstance - going to a courtroom. everybody gets the metal detector treatment, there are armed officers about and you can stow your weapon in your car if parked in a public venue. In some cases on courthouse parking.

But to seriously suggest that no weapons on me or in my car and no other alternative security except a phone to call 911 with is not impairing my ability to defend myself, and that of everyone else on site as well?

Sorry, but talking about broad studies regarding CCW are of limited applicability to the specific area we are discussing. Again, if you have anything that is actually applicable I'd love to see it.

Oh I forgot, the workplace is a magic place where the employer's wishes are king and normal paradigms of society do not apply.

Because if ccw makes entire states safer there is no way in heck this translates to the workplace.

The fact that criminals tend to avoid attacking people who they think may be armed is also irrelevant.

Since nobody ever gets robbed at work the fact that resisting robbery with a firearm is the safest response is also invalid.

If we ban guns at work there is no way a disgruntled employee will bring one in and start shooting.

Since criminals are a fair bunch, no way they would lower themselves to attack somebody coming home from a defense free zone.

I don't buy it. What is it you are selling again?

I and others have been trying to that, so far with limited success.

Well since I am basing my assertions on what I honestly believe are known facts and you may or may not be that is part of the problem.

When I do post facts and links to studies, actual events you simply say that means nothing. So you say. Cite your proof. You are a skilled intelligent debating machine, but let's see some third party validation.

Repeated requests for such have been meant with obfuscation and waffling.

You even said

Given that more ADs/NDs occur than intentional discharges at BGs, to claim that carrying guns at work would make the place safer is not in evidence.

Well then why does research show that licensed people carrying guns make society as a whole safer? Please clear that up for us.

Also since 97% of defensive gun uses do not involve any discharge of the firearm - how is that relevant?

Then you said

Once again, my point is that the safety issue is irrelevant.

But safety is relevant. Because employers cannot simply say "I wish this to be so - your state licensed right to carry defense tools is not going to fly here" If they could they would.

What the employers and businesses are saying, what my debating partner kmoffit said, is that these policies are driven by concerns for safety.

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?

We are going to have to agree to disagree. My understanding it that the government's job is to protect my rights. Clear me up on that one, where did I go wrong?

One can disagree all they want, but that de facto government is how the rights are defined and recognized.

100% agreement. And working to change the status quo is why you can step into a voting booth without regard to skin color.

 

[Perldog007]

I think we should have a law that mandates a business be held liable if a customer or employee becomes a victim while obeying a disarmament policy.

Where is Stage2 when you need him?

I think we do have the laws on paper now. Civil liability applies, I am not sure about criminal reckless endangerment.

My perception - as a layman with minimal legal training - is that the problem is getting the courts to buy it.

Something happened in the Sixties. I was a small lad but I remember the D.C. Law. I was unaware of the translated Nazi law becoming federal law until much later in life. Somehow after that shift guns were evil - mala in se - and everything having to with personal armament was turned upside down.

The laws exist. Rights exist as well, but both the laws and rights seem to exist only on paper in some cases. Our problem is like the civil rights movement. Getting the laws enforced.

 

[HKuser]

In general, there is no duty on the part of businesses to protect their customers or employees from the illegal acts of third parties with very little exception. That is a very old common law principal and almost every jurisdiction follows it.

 

[Perldog007]

In general, there is no duty on the part of businesses to protect their customers or employees from the illegal acts of third parties with very little exception. That is a very old common law principal and almost every jurisdiction follows it.

That is indeed interesting. I saw some reference to a case involving Southland Corp and am going to have to chase it down.

One other thing I found very interesting: I cross the line every day to work in Maryland. Fairly difficult to get a carry permit and generally considered a progressive anti-effective-self defense state.

I was shocked to learn that not only can business owners and major shareholders carry concealed within their businesses but supervisors can be granted same by their employers.

Could it be that even fairly restrictive state legislatures see some reason to allow for protection of work places by armed citizens and insurance companies are making it virtually impossible?

Edit - I can't find the page I previously read regarding Southland just yet, but I found this. It is true that property owners generally owe no duty to protect employees or visitors from criminal acts of third parties. When those acts are reasonably foreseeable then a duty arises Source:

http://crimeforeseeability.com/uploads/Jumsptarting_foreseeability.pdf.

I guess the debate shifts to what that duty is. Also, Kmoffit's report on the insurance situation would seem to absolve the employer of that duty, in regards to defense tools, when they need insurance to function. Not having the business at all would appear to me to be a greater injury than the unfortunate tragedies that befall some workers.

In light of the forseeable danger and what is known about ccw statistics and crime in general does the insurance company incur any liability when they force an employer to take less than effective measures?

¶17. A person is generally only liable for his or her own torts. Lewis v. Physicians Ins. Co. of Wis., 2001 WI 60, ¶11, 243 Wis.2d648, 627 N.W.2d484. Under certain circumstances, however, the law will impose vicarious liability on a person who did not commit the tortious conduct but nevertheless is deemed responsible by virtue of the close relationship between that person and the tortfeasor. The doctrine of respondeat superior ("let the master answer"), less frequently referred to as the master/servant rule, has been well-settled in the law of agency for perhaps as long as 250 years. See Floyd R. Mechem, Outlines of the Law of Agency §349, at 237 (4th ed. 1952). Vicarious liability under respondeat superior is "liability that a supervisory party (such as an employer) bears for the actionable conduct of a subordinate or associate (such as an employee) because of the relationship between the two parties." Black's Law Dictionary 927 (7th ed. 1999).

If the insurance companies are driving anti-EFFECTIVE-self-defense policies are they the "master" in this relationship? I don't see how Kmoffits company can provide jobs for 600+ people without insurance, the insurance companies will not insure them if they do not enforce a zero tolerance policy for defense tools.

 

[HKuser]

That article should tell you just how hard it is to establish liability for the illegal acts of third parties. Also, respondeat superior just not apply. For respondeat superior to give rise to vicarious liability an employee would have to be acting within the scope of his employment. If a UPS driver, while on his route runs you over, then respondeat superior would apply. If, however, he blows out the brains of a co-worker, which I would think is not part of his job description, then respondeat superior normally would not apply. I don't see how raising respondeat superior helps your argument.

 

[allenomics]

kmoffitt, I totally understand and support your position. Detractors should try to view this issue from a variety of perspectives.

 

[Perldog007]

Master/Servant as concerning the Insurance Company preventing the employer from allowing licensed ccw at work.

The employee is arguably deprived of his normal opportunities for protection. The danger from a robbery or rampage shooting could be reasonably foreseeable to some folks. If it wasn't why are potential workplace shootings constantly mentioned as a justification for banning ccw @ work?

http://www.courts.state.nh.us/supreme/opinions/2002/0205/dupon051.htm

Both the Alabama and Kentucky Supreme Courts have adopted a rule thatliability does not attach to an employer for a third party’s criminal act unless the plaintiff clearly shows that the employer "greatly and unreasonably increased [the] risk [of criminal attack] without taking reasonable precautions for the safety of the employee." Thoni, 488 S.W.2d at 357; see also Parham, 402 So. 2d at 887. The mere potential or possibility of harm to the employee is not sufficient to impose liability. "It is only when the risk reaches the stage that injury to the employee is the likely or probable result of the condition of employment that liability attaches." Thoni, 488 S.W.2d at 357.

.............

We now hold that while employers have no general duty to protect employees from criminal attacks, such a duty may arise when the employer has unreasonably created a condition of employment that foreseeably enhances the risk of criminal attack. As the courts in Parham and Thoni posited, liability should not be imposed upon an employer unless the "conditions of employment are such that they invite attack upon employees by creating highly unusual and unreasonable exposure to danger without the employment of reasonable protective measures." Parham, 402 So. 2d at 886; Thoni, 488 S.W.2d at 357.

Generally, in the types of incidents I referenced - robberies and multiple victim shootings that is a hard standard to reach according to this document.

In Thoni, for instance, the court ruled that the employer was not liable for the shooting death of its employee, a gas station attendant who was killed by a robber while working at the employer’s gas station late at night in a dangerous area of town. The court held that "as a matter of law the conditions of the employment were not so fraught with danger as to render a crime against the employee a likelihood or a probability and the issue should not have been submitted to the jury." Thoni, 488 S.W.2d at 358.

The Alabama Supreme Court reached a similar conclusion in Parham, ruling that the employer was not liable as a matter of law for injuries the employee sustained when she was robbed at gun-point while working as a clerk in the employer’s liquor store. Parham, 402 So. 2d at 885-87.

In this case, the plaintiff has not alleged that the defendants created conditions of employment that were so "fraught with danger" that it was likely, or even probable, that the defendants’ employees would be subject to criminal attack by third parties. As the trial court noted, "[t]he [defendants] did not create or allow to exist an environment which placed [the decedent] at risk any more than if [he] had been at home or on the street." Compare id. at 885-87 (employment conditions, which involved working at night in store in lighted area of main thoroughfare regularly patrolled by police, did not "greatly and unreasonably" enhance risk of attack) with Lillie v. Thompson, 332 U.S. 459 (1947) (employment conditions requiring employee to work alone in isolated section of dangerous area and to admit anyone who knocked into building lacking windows and outside light foreseeably enhanced risk of criminal attack). Thus, the plaintiff has failed to allege a viable negligence claim against the defendants under this theory of liability.

What I got from that is the attendant at the gas station and the liquor store clerk were determined not to be exposed to any risk they would not face at home or on the street.

Perhaps that could be challenged. Also would a citizen with a ccw obeying a no weapons policy be considered to be deprived of his normal opportunities for protection?

Would the fact that stores have hold up procedures, cameras, etc and the fact that nine out of ten cashiers who die on the job are murdered constitute a reasonably foreseeable danger?

I wonder what the life insurance tables say about that, working in a liquor store as cashier or a gas station in a bad neighborhood at night no more risk than sitting at home?

The companies who ban weapons often cite safety and "hothead" workers taking their guns out and shooting in anger or retrieving them from cars are scenarios used to justify these policies. So then do the employers reasonably foresee these dangers?

If they don't believe that the danger exists, are they responsible in depriving employees who are licensed of their normal opportunities for defense based on those concerns?

If there is no justification needed, why is safety always given as a reason?

I would be interested in a civil trial attorney or two breaking this down in light of the current trend of states affirming the right of ordinary citizens to carry concealed handguns.

kmoffitt, I totally understand and support your position. Detractors should try to view this issue from a variety of perspectives.

I understand that no insurance means no business, no jobs.

I also understand that everybody unarmed means that in the event of a serious violent assault victims die without any effective means of defense.

Seems that a dead victim who followed the rules is no biggie for the insurance companies. Not sure I understand that.

Nobody gets to ask those five people who just got killed at Lane Bryant if they understand. But they were respecting the gun restrictions in Illinois and the workplace rules of Lane Bryant. Guess the insurance companies are well satisfied, as should be the lawmakers in Illinois.

 

[David Armstrong]

Also since it is proven that ccw reduces violent crime what probabilities are the insurance companies operating on? I could use some clarity on that, as apparently could others.

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.

I need some help on this one. Which part of our Constitution puts the rights of the employer above the employee?

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.

My understanding is that the Constitution prohibits the government from trampling on individual rights and charges the government with safeguarding those rights. Perhaps you can set me straight on this.

From a techinical standpoint the Constitution was originally considered a controlling document only with the federal government, and was not considered to restrict or bind the actions of the states or the individual. Recent jurisprudence under the 14th Amendment has adopted a policy of selective incorporation of rights essential to due process. 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.

What is it about a no weapons policy for anybody even in their cars is not disarming people.

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.

Then you could be reasonably expected to know that all Russians are not communists nor is every Russian reference a communist reference.

Yes, and which is why I do know the "Nyet, Tovarich" comment is a communist reference, and not a particularly complimentary one.

But to seriously suggest that no weapons on me or in my car and no other alternative security except a phone to call 911 with is not impairing my ability to defend myself, and that of everyone else on site as well?

Are you seriously suggesting that "impairing abiliyty" and "running roughshod" are linguistically equivalent?

Oh I forgot, the workplace is a magic place where the employer's wishes are king and normal paradigms of society do not apply.

Once again you resort to hyperbole and distortion rather than discuss the actual issue. Why is that?

Because if ccw makes entire states safer there is no way in heck this translates to the workplace.

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.

Since nobody ever gets robbed at work the fact that resisting robbery with a firearm is the safest response is also invalid.

I hate to do this sometimes, but folks a little knowledge without an understanding of how it is used is often a lot of trouble. First let's recognize that the entire "resists with firearm" data from the NCVS is based on about 100 incidents out of almost 500,000. Second, let's realize that while resisting with firearm was the most successful, it also resulted in making the situation worse in about 1/3 of the incidents. Let's also recognize that there are almost as many recent studies indicating that there is no noticeable effect pro or con when CCW is introduced in violent crime rates. There are also several studies indicating that when one resists with weapons of any type the number of injuries go down but the severity of the injuries goes up significantly. So a couple of studies, particularly when done by the same authors, while interesting are certainly not overwhelming evidence. Again, we would not accept such from the anti-gunners, nor should we accept it from the pro-gun side. For those who want to look into this more, a good source is "Crime Control in America: What Works?" by John Worrall.

When I do post facts and links to studies, actual events you simply say that means nothing. So you say. Cite your proof.

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. They tend to so say because they know. I say they mean nothing because they mean nothing. Sorry, but I don't think anyone wants me to post a couple dozen pages here on research methodology and statistics. But your evidence is comparable to asking someone what color their hair is and them saying most of their family is blonde. That might be nice to know, but it has very limited applicability to the subject at hand. You also keep asking for proof of something that I keep telling you is not there. You can ask for studies showing CCW in the business place is dangerous, but there aren't any, just as there aren't any showing that it makes the business safer. The difference is that I am reluctant to try to then cram something totally different into the fray and try to claim it matters.

I don't buy it. What is it you are selling again?

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. You tend to one-sidely push items that you think tend to support your view, while ignoring all those items that tend to challenge it. If I'm selling, what I am trying to sell is full disclosure of information and integrity of data in discussion of issues.

Well then why does research show that licensed people carrying guns make society as a whole safer? Please clear that up for us.

Because the two have nothing to do with each other. You seem to have a hard time understanding that. I'll try this. I live in Louisiana. LA as a whole has a pretty high crime rate, and a very high murder rate particularly in New Orleans. I live in a nice house in a rural area clear across the state from New Orleans. You would seem to say that since something is happening in New Orleans and something is happening in the state as a whole, it impacts what goes on in my house. Sorry, it doesn't. Why? Macro versus micro data. Society as whole is safer (a questionable claim) does not mean everywhere in particular is safer.

Also since 97% of defensive gun uses do not involve any discharge of the firearm - how is that relevant?

That is my point. Most of this stuff you keep wanting to talk about is irrelevant because it has nothing to do with the issue. About the same percentage of offensive uses of firearms also do not involve the discharge of the firearm. Almost all AD/NDs do not occur in the business environment. If they did the known number and effect of them might be far more. Almost all your studies do not reflect the business environment. But if you want to discuss irrelevant stuff I'll be glad to do it. If you want to focus on all known facts, and only relevant facts, I think it would be much better. These tangents you keep going off on do nothing to clarify the issue, IMO.

But safety is relevant.

No it is not, not when you are discussing rights. Rights are not determined by safety. If so, using your position, I would have a right to CCW at a job with poor security but would lose that right if I want to work for a business with good security. So yes, the safety issue is irrelevant. I know you keep trying to go in that direction, but that is not the issue.

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.

My understanding it that the government's job is to protect my rights. Clear me up on that one, where did I go wrong?

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. They ar not the same. It is the responsibility of the government to refrain from restraining your rights (Constitutional) more than is necessary for the safety and security of society. If there is a protection issue, it is based the idea that if one is going to accept government funds one has to respect certain enumerated rights (civil) specifically designed to prevent discrimination. In essence, the government is saying "If you are going to take our money you have to agree to follow our rules" (sound familiar??). There are certain exceptions, such as commonly considered public access services, but that is about it.

 

[JohnKSa]

...while resisting with firearm was the most successful, it also resulted in making the situation worse in about 1/3 of the incidents.

There was no "perfect" way to resist, only ways with varying levels of success. Resisting with a firearm provided the best chance for remaining uninjured. Given that your chances of being injured were HIGHER if you didn't resist at all, it's not correct to say that resisting with a firearm made things worse in some cases.

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.

In my case, I had worked at the company for years before they changed the policy such that I was disarmed even while commuting. I did not "voluntarily agree", I agreed because I had too much invested in the company in many different ways to just pack up and leave. Furthermore as pointed out these policies are typically very similar from company to company and even if they're not similar today there's no guarantee they won't change tomorrow--like my current company did. It's only reasonable to state that compliance is voluntary if there's a reasonable chance of finding an acceptable employer that DOESN'T have a similar policy.

Unless you're implying that being unemployed or employed at a small fraction of one's earning potential is a reasonable choice. I invested many years and a lot of money so that I could work in the field of my choice and make what I make. I've invested years at my company, much of it in a type of work that is not easily marketed. Then my company changed its policy. Sure, I could leave because I don't like the new policy, but how would I pay for my wife's doctor and hospital bills? Where would I find employment in my field at a company without a similar policy? If I somehow managed to do that, should I just pack up and leave again when/if they change their policy?

When you say "voluntary" it's a nice neat package until one really realizes what's inside. Inside the package are people who don't have nearly the wide range of options that the word "voluntary" implies on the surface.

 

[Perldog007]

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.

 

[David Armstrong]

Given that your chances of being injured were HIGHER if you didn't resist at all, it's not correct to say that resisting with a firearm made things worse in some cases.

Sorry, but you will have to argue that with the Dept. of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics. And of course, as I mentioned, the literature on victim injury and resistance is not monolithic. For example, "....nonphysical resitance by the victim in stranger perpetrated assualts cut [female victim] risk of injury by a factor of three" were the findings in an article in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology in 2002.

In my case, I had worked at the company for years before they changed the policy such that I was disarmed even while commuting. I did not "voluntarily agree", I agreed because I had too much invested in the company in many different ways to just pack up and leave.

Thta souonds voluntary to me. You made a choice as to what would be in your best interest and you then made the decision. Nothing was forced. Again, I disagree that a company should have the right to insist on non-carry in your own vehicle on your own time.

It's only reasonable to state that compliance is voluntary if there's a reasonable chance of finding an acceptable employer that DOESN'T have a similar policy.

When one gets to make up their own definitions I suppose they can prove anything. I prefer to work within the normal and standard definitions of terms.

Inside the package are people who don't have nearly the wide range of options that the word "voluntary" implies on the surface.

There are no implications. Voluntary is just that, voluntary. You are given options up to and inclulding not to participate at all, and you get to choose the option(s) that you feel are the most beneficial to you.

 

[Perldog007]

I find myself in the unenviable position of pointing out that from what I can gather, the "special relationship" clause does not generally apply to employees because the courts consistently rule that employment is voluntary.

While I could passionately argue that every morning at zero dark thirty when my alarm clock goes off, Dave is correct in the light of current juris prudence.

If the courts ruled otherwise, a special relationship would exist between employer and employee and the employer would presumably be liable for injury resulting in the employee being deprived of their customary means of defense.

I agree that there is no real choice for most, therefore the dictionary definition of voluntary, specifically meaning without coercion, does not apply. I would like for somebody to show me the jobs in my area that offer standard benefits that lack a "zero tolerance" policy towards weapons - even those licensed.

Where I find a possible bridge is danger reasonably foreseen. This would seem arguably with cashiers, and delivery drivers, limo drivers, cable and sattelite installers, etc.

Also in regard to workplace rampages, given the wording of policies of companies and spokespersons presenting "hothead" employees as justification for the "parking lot" restrictions, it could be hard for them to argue that a "spree shooting' was not reasonably foreseeable.

This seems to be the crux of the matter in a sense. The employee killed by a criminal is less of a liability than an employee or guest killed by an employee permitted to carry. At least in the current climate.

I don't think it's right, or moral. Certainly not healthy for civilized society, but that's the way it is until we can get some reform.