Potential Threat at Work

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted by manta49
Is it worth losing your job because your fear of crime stops you going to work without carrying a firearm.

Geez Manta... You still have that mentality? It's been years man... We carry guns everywhere here in America because we are able to even when we aren't allowed to. The media doesn't show when stories like this happen and a concealed carry citizens carries anyways and saves their own life. But it's happened more often than not.
 
Geez Manta... You still have that mentality? It's been years man... We carry guns everywhere here in America because we are able to even when we aren't allowed to. The media doesn't show when stories like this happen and a concealed carry citizens carries anyways and saves their own life. But it's happened more often than not.
I would have thought the Majority of Americans manage to go to work etc without carrying a firearm. Some obviously can't function without carrying a one. I manage the best without carrying a firearm, and i could carry one if i wanted to.

We carry guns everywhere here in America because we are able to even when we aren't allowed to.
Be my guest next time you are going into a government building school or similar carry a firearm with you.

Is it worth losing your life over a stupid policy your superiors made up? If you want to die for nothing, be my guest
How have you jumped from a few emails to losing your life. Reading your post you would think if you go to work without carrying a firearm someone is automatically going to try and kill you.
 
We carry guns everywhere here in America because we are able to even when we aren't allowed to.

No, we don't. Most folks are honest and ethical.

I would have thought the Majority of Americans manage to go to work etc without carrying a firearm

That is correct
 
Getting fired for carrying at work has resulted in other companies reaching out to hire the individual. Especially those who were fired because they shot the intruder before the shooter killed a half dozen coworkers.

Plenty of companies backpedaled on their firing when the public attached their disposable income to a suggestion it would be spent elsewhere. It does have an effect on retail business. It's different in that workplace because the door is open and you let the public in. You are in business to get their money, not persuade them to deal with their competitor with gun control policies.

As for the individual employee - you make your own choice, and no one else can do it for you. NOBODY has a right to direct you to obey or disobey a "policy." It's simply mutual agreement at the face to face level. Most no-gun policies are insurance and liability related, the company gets another discount for posting the signs. Plenty don't. It's no different than no smoking or no cell phones - and we understand those policies are a joke. Right?

No gun or knives is simply more of the same to a responsible carrier. He's not the issue here - it's the distressed person who might consider using them who is the problem child. More people are killed in America by attacks from their co workers than terrorists - and yet all we have are signs in the workplace, while spending millions on armed security and being basically strip searched when flying.

I think people have their priorities wrong when your inalienable Right to self defense - to Keep and Bear Weapons - is tossed aside for a policy in a workplace that will do nothing to pick up the slack. If you chose to be defenseless, it's your choice. And nobody can tell you one or the other about it. Same for going armed - it's nobody else's choice, and no one has the authority to say otherwise.

When you look at the big picture, it's the guy who goes home to his family who is the winner - not the guy who died "honorably" holding up company policy as a shield against a random shooter in the workplace.

Some need to quit directing about who can or can't carry wherever - that right doesn't exist. The Right to Keep and Bear Arms, however, does - and exercising it judiciously and responsibly is the discussion. Not disarmament.
 
Getting fired for carrying at work has resulted in other companies reaching out to hire the individual. Especially those who were fired because they shot the intruder before the shooter killed a half dozen coworkers
Have you examples of that. ?


Some need to quit directing about who can or can't carry wherever - that right doesn't exist.
So you would be happy for any individual to carry in your home or private property even if you instructed them not to. ?
 
The flip side of carrying at work where prohibited is that if you produce the weapon--for whatever reason--internal security could probably justifiably blow your tuckus away, even if by accident.

I agree with the assessment of either let internal security deal with the issue--or if you feel it's not be adequately addressed go find employment elsewhere.

I have personally found out the hard way that whether or not your concerns are justified--others more often than not will "reinterpret" your words to cast you as a potential gun-nut threat. Trust me, you do not want to end up staring down the barrel of large caliber pistol three feet away pointed between your eyes while nervously watching a twitching finger on a trigger.
 
If I were caught carrying and fired I'd be unemployable in my field where I live. My threat assessment includes economic variables. No disrespect for those who disagree with my choice.
 
Stories of people somehow coming good from ignoring company policy or it being some smart career move are probably even rarer than stories of people going nuts (ie not robbing the place) with a gun in a work place. We hear about such shootings, yes, but in the context of all the employments across the USA the number is very, very, very small.

Companies and private property owners have, quite properly, the right to demand that people not bring firearms into that domain. Whether you agree with the reasons or not, that right is there. Ignoring that just because you don't like it isn't very considerate. It thereby paints firearms owners as selfish and irresponsible.
 
If you are fired for cause, specifically carrying a firearm at work, the next person to hire you is going to be told exactly why you were fired.

Dunno about that. It is a point worth considering. I'm not a labor law attorney, but I believe that only general information can be sought from the hiring company and provided by the former company, but that general information may be specific enough to cook your goose. It would likely come up that the person were fired for breaking workplace policy, and one can assume that the policy of prohibiting weapons in the workplace will be referenced, "He brought a gun to work."

If you believe that is the case, you might mitigate that damage in your new employment interviews, and address it. "We had a threat at work, and I was worried so I am a lawful carry permit holder and brought my gun to work, unloaded, for safety of myself and my co-workers."

Self defense does indeed encompass the entire threat horizon, including economics. Defending yourself from an unlikely workplace shooting isn't much good when you are homeless, penniless, living on the streets, and had to sell your guns for lunch money.

If this were me, and I was under this situation and decided to carry, I would first ensure that I wasn't breaking the rules. I would try to work for gun friendly companies. I might even ask for an exception to policy in writing, promising I would keep the gun and ammo separate an on my person concealed at all times.

Alternately, IF I decided to surreptitiously carry I would keep the chamber empty to avoid any possibility of an ND, and would carry in the absolute most discretion as possible. You'll also have to weigh the likelihood of discovery in your career, and if discovered by a co-worker the likelihood of you being ratted out.

I'm not encouraging breaking the rules, to be clear.

Personal story. I worked for a company with an ambiguous policy, or I don't recall what it was. I didn't inquire, just carried. About a year into the job, I was bending down to fill the copy machine and my shirt revealed my pistol on my hip and a co-worker was standing behind me. I didn't realize he was standing there. I immediately knew he saw it. We exchanged pleasantries but from his comments I was certain 100% that he saw it. I'll skip over the dialogue. He never reported it. I worked there for several more months (not carrying), and later resigned on my own terms and was actually asked to reconsider resigning. The topic was never brought up by him or anyone.

So, IF you carry, do so with a lot of discretion about how your movements at work (bending, kneeling, climbing, crawling around in small places, driving, etc.) may complicate your mode of carry. In other words, we take precautions in public, so double down on those precautions at work.

And, IF you break the rules, be prepared to live with the consequences as embarrassing and bad as they may be. It might include having a police arrest and escort from your workplace and maybe even being on the news, in a worst case scenario.
 
manta49 said:
How have you jumped from a few emails to losing your life. Reading your post you would think if you go to work without carrying a firearm someone is automatically going to try and kill you.

No. I mean that statement, assuming the worst case scenario.

So you would be happy for any individual to carry in your home or private property even if you instructed them not to. ?

there are laws in place where one could be charged with a misdemeanor for "criminal trespassing" (at least for place of business, not sure if it works the same for private home. But IMHO if you have someone CC in your house and you ask them to leave because of this and they refuse, I'm 100% positive the local law enforcement would have no problem escorting the person off the premises.
 
Some need to quit directing about who can or can't carry wherever - that right doesn't exist. The Right to Keep and Bear Arms, however, does


"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

Don't see where it says anything about workplace violence, just the ability to prevent a tyrannical force from running the government. An employer DOES have the right to dictate policies/rules for their business. In some instances, even the government will dictate those rules.

If you do not like your employer's policies - on any subject - you are free to leave and seek employment elsewhere, or better yet, start your own business.
 
Some need to quit directing about who can or can't carry wherever - that right doesn't exist. The Right to Keep and Bear Arms, however, does - and exercising it judiciously and responsibly is the discussion. Not disarmament.

I tell you what, if someone wants to come into my home with a firearm on their person their right to do so lives or dies on my say so. End of.
 
One issue not mentioned so far (I think) is that if your co-workers discover that you are carrying a firearm, whether or not they are aware of company policy, they might be confused about exactly who the threat is.

Also, according to state law, I'm well above the legal age to be included in the militia. I realize that good, law-abiding citizens can ignore the law but I'm really not that good. Never said I was.
 
Last edited:
Don't see where it says anything about workplace violence, just the ability to prevent a tyrannical force from running the government.

It doesn't say anything about tyranny, either. It, taken with contemporary writings of the people who passed it, and subsequent court decisions, says that you have a right to bear arms in defense of yourself, your family, and others. No other rights exist if you do not have the right to defend your own life; dead people don't vote, or worship, or speak.

In considering tyranny, we need to realize that governments are not the only sources of tyranny. The residents of neighborhoods ruled by gangs are tyrannized; a woman in an abusive relationship is tyrannized; a person who lives in fear because of threats or intimidation is tyrannized.
 
One issue not mentioned so far (I think) is that if your co-workers discover that you are carrying a firearm, whether or not they are aware of company policy, they might be confused about exactly who the threat is.
That was my point. My example was not a hypothetical one--it actually happened to me.

All the "me 2nd amendment Tarzan" beating of the chest is fine and dandy--right up to the point someone else perceives your rights as threatening their's.

Unless you are talking to another constant firearm enthusiast--anything along the lines of "I am armed and prepared to defend myself if necessary" is usually interpreted by the average non-carrier as "I have a gun and I'm going to shoot someone."

Even an off-hand remark to someone who doesn't even know you can easily be used against you.

I once remarked in the office of a property manager that if break-ins and vandalism continued in the neighborhood--somebody could end up getting shot.

5 minutes after I returned home I was stormed by a police rapid response team--probably had half a dozen weapons drawn and pointed at me--including one very nervous fellow who was mere feet away with a 40 pointed right between my eyes. I could see in very slow motion his finger twitching on the trigger--to this day I consider it a miracle that my head wasn't blown off.

The Lt in command later told me the manager had called in a report that I had said "I was going home to get a gun and come back to shoot everyone." The biggest irony of all was that I had no arms at all at the time either at the home or on my person--I even invited the police in to search my home.
 
Wrong quote cited

And that has nothing to do with imaginary "what if" scenarios regarding your bringing a gun to your job in violation of the company rules/policies. You either abide by those you agreed to upon hiring or you leave and find a job elsewhere or start your own business.

Trying to imagine every possible scenario would have you barricaded in your mountain-top cabin never venturing outside for fear of what might happen.
 
Last edited:
Yes, of course. But sometimes it really seems like some otherwise good people from good families believe that they are the "good guys" and can ignore the law when it suits them. It's like a form of civil disobedience. But then it begs the question, "if that's so, then who are the bad guys?"
 
Whilst I think that by breaking the law you cannot be called law-abiding I will say that if the action is one of civil disobedience this can still be motivated by a sound moral foundation.

In the eyes of the law it may well get you classed as a "criminal" but you'd probably still be a "good guy".

That doesn't however mean all civil obedience is morally sound.

I say this in general terms, not necessarily in relation to specifics in this thread.

The Lt in command later told me the manager had called in a report that I had said "I was going home to get a gun and come back to shoot everyone." The biggest irony of all was that I had no arms at all at the time either at the home or on my person--I even invited the police in to search my home.

I hope the manager was taken to court for lying to the police.
 
I hope the manager was taken to court for lying to the police.
I was informed by a lawyer I was lucky I wasn't hauled off to jail. Deep south--some parts of which they make their own laws. I followed up with the police--they said "heat of the moment...he said she said" kinda thing and that it happens all the time. Makes you wonder how easy it might be to legally get someone killed, doesn't it?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top