Super Dave
New member
How is having a job more important then not being killed by scum?
Dave.
Dave.
Last edited:
-This is an example of an ad ignorantium argument. Your implication is that, since you cannot be 100% certain of the actions of every CCW permit holder, that you can trust none. In other words, they must be a danger, because you don't know that they are not a danger. This is worthwhile assumption in the face of an unknown. However, permit holders, as a group, are not an unknown. Since permit holders are statistically less likely to use a gun illegally, a more logically sound method to reduce risk would be to hire nothing but permit holders, and require that they carry at work. Since this is not practicable, the best of the possible courses of action would be to allow those that are licensed to carry at work.The fact that an employee holds a CCW permit is no assurance whatsoever to an employer that this employee can handle the responsibility of being armed in the workplace. Employers simply cannot afford the risk.
A couple of things: first, hearts are emotion factories. I suggest that the mind is the key to properly directing behavior. The disposition of a soul will be the result of this process.You want to reverse this pattern? It has to start with changing the hearts and souls of the people.
Is your faith giving you the fortitude to stand for what is right in the face of peril? To expose yourself to risk in order make a difference where others will not? Is acquiescing through establishing and enforcing policies that whittle away at our rights in keeping with the principles of your church?"Let’s put ‘em in the pews on Sunday morning rather than on the couch with a bag of chips."
No we don't. Not any more than employers should cut slack to lackadaisical employees or onerous government taxation and regulation. Unless you are doing your principled best, you are a legitimate target for criticism. Holding up your business challenges as justification for a policy that contributes negatively to the problems you, yourself, decry puts you on the same moral plane as welfare queens, drunken layabouts, and pork-barrel populist politicians. All these look to others to make the changes that only they can.We need to cut the employers some slack here.
The fact that an employee holds a CCW permit is no assurance whatsoever to an employer that this employee can handle the responsibility of being armed in the workplace. Employers simply cannot afford the risk.
Let's say that an employer permitted CCW on their premises.
On private property, weapons can be banned by the owner/leasee.
We need to cut the employers some slack here.
Perldog007, rather than moan and complain about American employers who have, as you put it, “a mindset justifying disarming people because they can't be trusted,” let’s consider the root causes of what creates this mindset.
JPFO’S LETTER TO XEROX:
Dear <Mr. _>:
Your corporation suffered negative publicity recently when a
criminal killed and injured a number of Xerox employees in a
Xerox facility in Hawaii. Our organization carefully monitors
workplace conditions where citizens are placed in physical
jeopardy by the actions and policies of their government or
employers. We are writing to offer some thoughts to help and to
ask for your response.
In the last two years, there have been many well-publicized
cases in which criminals attacked unarmed and undefended
employees, teachers and school children in public places. The
incident in your facility was one among the series. While
Department of Justice figures show violent crime rates dropping
on average nationwide, there appears to be an upsurge of
murderous attacks on unarmed and undefended people in schools and
office buildings.
Each of these public attack cases occurred in places where
the innocent victims were not only undefended but were also
forbidden to defend themselves adequately. In the Xerox case,
for example, the attacker faced no armed opposition whatsoever.
It seems rather logical that the attacker would choose the Xerox
facility precisely because the attacker had good reason to
believe that he would not face any armed resistance.
We have been informed that Xerox corporate policies prohibit
employees from carrying firearms or other weapons on the premises
(security guards excepted). This policy, however, virtually
assures that Xerox employees will be unarmed and undefended
targets for violent criminals.
In effect, Xerox’s anti-weapons policy creates a dangerous
working condition for the employees and visitors on the property.
The policy "may be said to have created an especial temptation
and opportunity for criminal misconduct." Cohen v. Southland
Corp., 157 Cal. App. 3d 130, 140-41 (1994)(Southland Corp. could
be liable for failing to protect customers from criminal attack
on their premises). Although it seems like an obvious point,
recent comprehensive research has confirmed that criminals tend
to avoid assaulting, raping or attempting to murder people whom
the criminals think might be armed. See John R. Lott, Jr., "More
Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws"
(University of Chicago Press, 1998). The Xerox anti-weapons
policy sets up a favorable target for attackers.
For two reasons it is not enough for Xerox to respond to the
threat of criminal attack by merely providing telephones for
employees to "dial 911" for emergency help. First, less than 5
percent of all calls dispatched to police are made quickly enough
for officers to stop a crime or arrest a suspect. Gordon Witkin,
Monika Guttman & Tracy Lenzy, "This is 911 ... please hold," U.S.
News & World Report, June 17, 1996, p. 30. As researchers put
it, "cases in which 911 technology makes a substantial difference
in the outcome of criminal events are extraordinarily rare."Ibid,
quoting the conclusions of the researchers, Northeastern
University Professor George Kelling and lawyer Catherine Coles.
Second, under the law in nearly every state the government
generally owes no duty to protect individual citizens from crime
or criminal attack. See e.g., Freitas v. City and County of
Honolulu, 574 P.2d 529, 532 (Haw. 1978), citing Riss v. City of
New York, 240 N.E.2d 860 (N.Y. 1968). To verify this legal
fact, we researched the law in all 50 states. We can supply you
with a book entitled "Dial 911 and Die," which collects the
statutes and court decisions, if the legal references will assist
you. Legally, in most cases the victims are on their own to
defend themselves.
The Xerox corporate anti-weapons policy would seem to place
Xerox in a difficult situation. By assuring the criminals that
the victims are unprotected, Xerox is creating a dangerous
workplace environment for which Xerox may face liability.
Providing handy emergency telephones and depending upon local
police forces to protect the employees under violent attack will
likely not save any lives.
Knowing the facts set forth in this letter, would Xerox
management consider adjusting the no-weapons policy to allow non-
violent, non-criminal employees to carry firearms or other
protective weapons into the workplace for self-defense? If not,
what measures will Xerox take to protect its unarmed and
otherwise defenseless employees from future attacks like the one
in Hawaii?
We look forward to your response to our questions, and
appreciate your help in this matter.
Very truly yours,
Aaron Zelman
Executive Director
Let's remember the 1st and 2nd Amendment are rights you have against government, not those individuals with which you've entered into a voluntary relationship.
It seems to me that employers would want CCW carriers. They are generally among the most law-abiding people you will encounter.
Generally speaking, ccw carriers are among the most law abiding and cool but it's those isolated incidents that can kill a business. Why take the chance?