So you want to advocate MORE interference in the marketplace, MORE government control over what the employer can do, MORE government control in provate matters? Perhaps that is where we differ.
Yes. I advocate Government having MORE control over the power of Businesses to interfere in private matters, such as the very private decision to be responsible for one's own safety. How that interferes with the market place is beyond me.
Making workplaces safe for criminals interferes with the market place. Show me where allowing CCW at work has interefered with the marketplace.
True, just as is the idea that safety will be improved by allowing CHL holders to carry at work against their employer's wishes is also unsupported.
Nyet Tovarich, The stories I googled up and posted links to all support CHL in the workplace with real life events.
Once again you reply with nothing but rhetoric.
I did not make up the account of the guy that got killed because his CHL was invalid. I did not make up the other stories of CHL holders saving lives and stopping crimes. That is real, they are factual events and they do support CCW in the workplace.
Yes, and accidental deaths from firearms were quite prevalent. However, that is not my position. Mine is simple--your rights to carry a gun do not trump my rights to run a business the way I want.
RTFT (read the fine thread
) - that was a point you raised against CCW in the workplace. I have shown that choking deaths from ingested objects are more prevalent than accidental firearm deaths.
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.
BTW that argument if true would be a darn good reason not to carry anywhere, and we know that's not a good idea.
There is no right to run a business any way you want.
Nobody has said they do. You keep making arguments that nobody has mentioned.
Perhaps we are bantying semantics. When an employer tells me I can't have any defensive tools on me or in my vehicle that means I have no RKBA on their time or to and from work on my time. To me that means unlimited, and quite a few have chimed in and supported that employers do have that right.
If you mean they don't have complete control of my ability to armed at any time I concede that. But unarmed to and from and at is unlimited power to curtail to me.
So what? By your own admission,IIRC, there have only been 209 workplace deaths associated with firearm attack in the last decade. That is pretty darned safe, given the millions of workers out there each day.
That's just deaths from multiple victim shootings. You also have victims of other types of homicide, and we know that non-gun homicides are prevalent relative to gun homicides from the published FBI crime statistics. You also have non-fatal assualts, robbery, carjacking, rape and other crimes against property which statistically would decline in the presence of armed citizens, as they have been proven to in other studies.(John Lott, University of Chicago 1999, "More Guns, Less Crime".
So you cannot refute that evidence exists that legal handguns in the workplace stop violence, and that disarming chl holders encourages violence, but so few are getting killed that the employer's wishes are more important?
I disagree. If allowing CHL holders to carry at work makes it safer, and safety is the goal then it should be allowed. If employers could do whatever they wished they would. They can't and they don't get to. They have rules just like everybody else.
I argue that employers may not capriciously place their employees in danger. The justification for safety makes no sense. More people die from choking that firearm accidents.
The justification of violence prevention is beyond ignorant. People disposed to commit violence are not deterred by gun bans. Only the law abiding victims pay attention to the rules.
The two that are pretty obvious are the military and LE, and data from LE certainly indicates that AD/NDs are quite a problem. I don't have the full data, but apocrophyl discussions would seem to indicate them to be a problem for the military also.
The LE and Military are not licensed citizens carrying concealed weapons to work. They hunt things and look for trouble. So the comparison suffers on it's face. But by all means get the full data and lay it out. Or some data, any kind of supporting evidence. Something.
There are administrative types in some PDs' that carry in an office setting and are not patrol officers. Perhaps this subsection would be good for comparison. Since they have to carry the comparison would still be strained but perhaps providing insight none the less.
Are any of the states challenging policies that prohibit actual carry while on company time? I tend to support the ability to carry to work and leave the firearm in the vehicle, but I would also suggest tha is significantly different than carrying in the workplace environment.
Laws are on the books for the parking lot issue. One of these is in court being challenged. In Florida a business open to the public cannot discriminate against CHL holders but I think they may retain control of their employees. They cannot however ban guns at their business if they are open to the public.
Of course other legislation from both sides is pending, dying in committee, being feverishly worked on etc.
)