Sigh. Once again we see that rather than deal with what was said you change it to something completely different to try to make your point. I guess if you can't deal with what was really said you can only argue with what you wish was said. State statutes and Constituional requirements are different, as I said. Sometimes there is a relationship, sometimes there is not. Maybe when you understand that we can have an intelligent discussion on the topic.
First you stated that the Second Amendment has nothing to do with the Florida laws.You said if it was a Second Amendment right there would be no need for a statute. I pointed out that laws are passed all the time to uphold Constitutional rights. Also Marion Hammer lobbied for the Florida laws because of the belief that they would uphold a Constitutional right, namely the Second Amendment.
Cite my proof of what, that there is no proof?
Precisely. I tend to believe that laws which allow citizens to carry effective means of defense are a good idea. There is research to indicate that these laws deter crime and keep people safer than mandating defense tool bans. You counter that the watermelon of an entire state or several states has no relationship to the apple of the work environment. Are the citizens different citizens? Are the criminals different criminals? If your work has uncovered some reason that the statutes that 36 states appear to think makes their citizens safer do not apply to the workplace please share with the group.
We know the business environment is not society at large, but people are people everywhere. Why is it apparently good policy that they be armed in public, at home, but not at work?
b.) Not when it is being used incorrectly or without any validity. And yes, I say so. That is a big part of what I do for a living, I think I have some vague idea about it.
IME societal norms and conventions are not irrelevant when setting policies and practices in business. I would suggest that while society at large is beginning to see the futile nature of gun bans and carry restrictions, businesses are lagging behind - tethered by liability due to the relationship between insurance guidelines and case law concerning liability.
c.) Again, so what? Safe workplace issues are irrelevant when discussing employer rights to control behavior.
OSHA
Acknowledging that there are certainly rights for property owners, these are not absolute. Over time responsibilities and restrictions have caused the rights of individuals and property owners to evolve.
e.) studies on apples have little bearing when discussing watermelons.
Apples and watermelons are not entirely unrelated, neither are workplaces and the streets and other places outside their confines.
.
I know, your difficulty in understanding subtle yet important nuances has popped up regularly. Let's try to make it real simple for you. Saying that the government denying an employer a specific right is a communistic policy is very different from saying the government interfering with the wishes of the employer is communism. I know you are having trouble with that, but perhaps it is symptomatic of this ongoing inability to differentiate between micro and macro level items.
We were discussing the wishes of the employer relating to banning weapons on thier premises to include licensed ccw.
You are debating what the definition of is is.
No. Again, try to deal with what is really said instead of making things up. I said no study existed that said what you were claiming. Then I also said that I read the study referenced in the article you posted the link to, and it did not say what you were claiming.
The Loomis study pertained to allowing weapons in the workplace and concluded that doing such resulted in an increased risk for homicide. The study, like current policies made no distinctions between licensed ccw and blanket policies allowing employees to be armed.. There was discussion on weapons other than guns and guns in particular. The study discussion concluded with a statement that appears to advise against allowing firearms at work.
I will concede that the study did not differentiate between licensed ccw and firearms in the workplace generally, neither do the policies we are discussing in this thread.
The study is specifically referenced in articles advising against allowing licensed ccw at work. You said there were no studies that would prove allowing ccw would make the workplaces less safe. The hoplophobic community cites the Loomis study as doing just that.
Would that be in your opinion, or by divine proclamation?
Neither. It would be by the organizations own declaration of intent.
See Penn and Teller Videos on Gun Control to find out where that one falls then. The organizations intend to make money. If liability was shifted tp a company taking a huge loss whenever an employee obeying a weapons ban got injured and if customers/guests were deemed to be in the "voluntary" relationship and that shielded the company from being liable for their damage the employers might very well issue weapons to save a buck.
My position is that having weapon prohibition does not work because only people who follow the rules abide by it.
That is a nice position, but one without any valid support in this specific instance. You have not shown that CCW prohibition does or does not work to increase safety in the workplace, period
Sometimes levity is helpful in illustrating what should be an obvious point. For your viewing entertainment:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=S7pGt_O1uM8
Actually my position stated above is proven by 20.000 plus gun laws on the books that do not stop criminals from using guns. In the workplace or outside of it.
.
And as mentioned so often, I'm not sure what that position has to do with the issue of rights as is being discussed here.
Because it does not seem to be within judicial notice that banning licensed ccw in workplaces can endanger workers. If that were true, the liability situation might change.
Liability is what drives the policies from what can be learned in our discussion here. The thread is not about allowing all employees to carry, it is about having a state permit to carry and having a "no weapons" policy at work.
I advocate property owners taking responsibility for their actions.
Yet you are also advocating taking away the right to decide what those actions should be from those same property owners. Seems somewhat hypocritical, doesn't it??
It could, if one failed to notice that my position is that either the owner/employers should accept liability when the policy leads to injury or that the choice should be taken away if they will not. Either/or works for me.
One example, you say starting a gunfight in the middle of a robbery is a bad idea.
Yes. Do you think it is a good idea?
Common sense tells us that should be evaluated by the person who is in danger. Being prohibited from having a licensed firearm takes that option away. Sometimes it may indeed be the best thing to do. If one has a concealed weapon they have more options. The current state of affairs says that the employer's money is more important than the employee's life.
I don't think it's wrong to discuss that situation or to disagree with it.
Survey says - the best chance for not being injured in a robbery is resisting with a firearm.
And once again you might look at the whole data set instead of trying to cherry-pick certain items that you think support a position you have already decided on, as thta is only part of the issue. Again, micro versus macro.
Relating to robbery the persons who resisted with a firearm were less likely to be injured than those who submitted.
Darn! those few stories mean nothing....
Oh, they might mean something, but only in context of the whole picture, which you keep missing. For example, part of that picture needs to include the story of the shooting at the City Council meeting outside of St Louis, where strangely enough, there were armed people there. And that prevented the attack, didn't it? Oh wait, no it didn't. In fact, it provided an additional weapon for the BG to use to inflict MORE injury.
There were armed Police Officers there. Since one was shot after the shooter entered the council chamber it seems reasonable that the shooter may have taken one of his two handguns from another officer shot before entering the chamber. I can't find the details of any officer besides Ballman being shot, and he was in the chamber. The news reports do say two officers were shot. One would think that if an officer was shot outside before the shooter entered that it may have been heard inside, but maybe not.
Then again we both know that uniformed officer's guns are at risk for being snatched because they are carried openly and the officer often is required to be in close proximity to an offender to effect an arrest. Which is all the more reason for citizens to see to their own protection and carry concealed defense tools.
In fact the only people in City Hall who were authorized to carry open or concealed handguns other than LEO were the Mayor and Council Members. There was nothing in any reports (AP based news reports) that I could find to indicate that those council members or the mayor were armed. The citizens attending the meeting where prohibited from carrying weapons. As was the shooter, who did not obey the ban.
http://www.myfoxstl.com/myfox/pages...n=2&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=VSTY&pageId=1.1.1
I would think that incident tends to support my position that people are responsible for their own defense, and that those predisposed to illegally act with lethal violence do not obey no weapons policies.
You can spin it any way you want, but having a right and being right are two different things.
Once again you try to argue something that is not there. No spin needed because I have not said anything close to that either pro or con.
We seem to agree that employers do have the right to ban ccw at work in general. Are you agreeing that doing so is not always the right thing to do?