John, you didn't get the meaning of most of what I said. I was tired, i'm tired now, and no, what I say doesn't always make sense.
When you can get even one scenario that goes completely against the conventional wisdom of an idea, that right there is a chip off of the truth of the conventional wisdom.
A corporation that bans carry on property will be at a certain amount of risk, still. Since we're not talking about reality, necessarily, but the perception of realithy by the corporation, we need to accept that the corporation may assume that banning in the lot will make it safer still, and in some cases, it will be. so, they will oppose guns within easy walking distance, based on the terribly small advantage it will give. Given the right and opportunity, companies would forbid employees to own guns at all, because that may add a little more margin of safety. Given opportunity, they would disarm the nation, to make it even safer. What in the world do they have to gain by allowing guns in the parking lot? even if they have only a miniscule increase in perceived risk, with nothing to gain, they will choose the risk averse course. The fact that they did oppose it supports what I have said.
isn't this what the brady foundation is doing? trying to make the world safer by removing all firearms from the hands of the public? Not just in the workplace, the parking lots, bars, churches, hospitals, etc, but completely taking them out of the hands of every citizen?
The bradyites (ostensibly) want to do it for public safety. A business would want to do it for several reasons; one is workplace safety, and the other is to prevent company liability if an armed employee causes trouble in any manner that implicates the business. Like dragging a gun out of the car after a particularly stressful termination.
It doesn't have to make sense, if a company perceives potential loss, they will block it, logical or not. You honestly would not believe the "safety" bulletins and other regulations that my wife winds up getting at work. Some imbecile comes up with an idea that nobody ever had, goes shouting to the paranoids in the administration, gets a pat on the back, and as of then, employees are forbidden to carry personal flash drives that could be used to steal valueless files or carry viruses.
Perceptions of risk are more important to a lot of people, especially a risk averse large capitol corporation.
Perceptions of wrongdoing are also important in court. Especially when a jury is spoon fed a story of how evil and stupid a company is, and they then have to decide whether that company was negligent and liable when something random and crazy happens.
yes, the people who come up with policy are often way out of touch with reality. Reading dilbert is not amusing to me. Dilbert is the shadowy reality of business. I worked for a place once that had a written policy that we couldn't cash our monthly pay checks until a full seven days had passed. Nobody ever explained why.
