t seems like there's never any shortage of people who are happy to mind other folks' business. And of course, the guy with all the advice, and all the reasons why the business owner is wrong and ought to do things some other way, has neither the responsibility for implementing his notions nor bears the consequences of doing so.
I have the responsibility to follow the anti-self defense policies of my employer(s) over the years and have met that contract. I also then agree to the consequence of facing any potential criminal attack or dangerous animals unarmed. Parking lot policies mean unarmed coming and going too.
So I guess that your position is that employees have never borne the consequences of being defenseless victims of violent criminal attack?
When that happens the employees end up injured or dead. In the unlikely event that against historical experience a licensed person does something untoward with their defense tool, what does the employer lose? Money? That means more than innocent life? Citizen please!
Perhaps you are supporting the employer C'ing that A no matter how many people get killed in these mass shootings. Is the employers fortune worth more than the employee's life?
If so we can go ahead and repeal a rack of labor laws.
Has an insurance company ever been sued for promoting a defense free zone prior to an attack? Why not?
And I think it's a worthwhile question to debate. If you are licensed to carry legal self defense tools and your employer in spite of factual evidence and real world data and information denies you access to your legal licensed defense tools, is that employer not liable for any injury that might result?
In twenty years of non-discretionary carry laws there are no indicators that licensed people can't be trusted in the workplace. Experience with ccw holders bears out that they tend to be among the most law abiding citizens.
All I hear supporting anti-gun policies are logically flawed what ifs that are historically disproven. If Insurance companies or special interest groups are driving this trend don't they need to held accountable?
I would argue since the policies and laws under discussion cause me to go unarmed daily in spite of more training and more competitive experience, better range scores than most peace officers, that these policies and laws are my business.
The employer does not have the right to control my gender identity, religion, social orientation at work. What is wrong with discussing changing the current situation where the employer controls your right to carry your legal defense tools even to and from work?
I don't understand those siding with the employers unless they are anti-gun to start with. Yes I recognize the way it is most places. No I do not accept that it has to stay that way.
Seems like there is no shortage of supposed gun owners who are quick to be ostriches and accept the anti self preservation policies of the sheeple.
It would be most enlightening if one of the folks siding with the employers could post some factual data to prove that legally armed employees have done more damage than gun free zones. That is not my take and I will happily concede if anybody can put up proof.
Here is an article on cns supporting my position with real life examples and recognized analysis of the situation. :
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=\Nation\archive\200311\NAT20031118a.html