R.Ph fired for legally carrying

The problem is that it is not fair both ways. The corporation faces virtually no liability for an employee killed during a crime so it isn't balanced.
Click to expand...
True, but "fair" and "balanced" don't really carry much weight when the matter gets heard by the courts.

In the 1990's, the gun control lobby got to corporations, especially the human resources culture, in a big way. An armed employee in the workplace was a ticking time bomb, just waiting to go off on a rampage. Allowing employees to have guns in the workplace was going to result in casualties in the thousands. Watch Bob in accounting to see if he discusses guns; that could be a warning signal. Report Dan if you catch him reading anarchist literature like American Rifleman.

In the end, it comes down to the concept of liability. Corporations are convinced that an employee carrying a gun is likely to have a negligent discharge or shoot the wrong person. That sort of stuff keeps CEO's up at night and lines the pockets of the lawyers.

On the other hand, if an employee gets killed by an armed robber, the corporation just loses some property. The all-powerful concept of liability is avoided, however. Is it right? No. Is it fair? No.

But that's where we are. And they have better lawyers.
 
Fair may not matter legally but it does ethically. Remember, legal doesn't mean ethical. Therefore, those who disregard company rules to protect themselves commit no ethical wrong IMO. In this case at least;)
 
Here is yet another example of why I think employees in dangerous positions should be able to defend themselves:
Click to expand...

They are able to defend themselves. What they may not be allowed to do is to have a gun. A gun is a fine means of self defense (though we keep harping over and over how handguns are notoriously poor stoppers), but is not an only means.

Besides, we are all in dangerous positions as it isn't so much the danger as it is the consequences. Good people in non "dangerous" positions are killed every day and a lot of them are the results of things like robberies that occur to people and businesses who legally and in compliance with rules can be armed and who do not arm themselves. Why? There are those who get permits to carry guns and then don't carry. It isn't that they can qualify, but do qualify and then leave the gun at home. There are those who can and do get permitted, carry, and then never bother to learn anything about self defense. We see a bunch of stories here about CCW folks that are clueless. There are people who legally cannot carry a gun or work some place that does not allow guns and they generally do absolutely nothing else to provide for their own safety as if they could not be bothered to learn anything about self defnese, situational awareness, etc.

Far too many humans put far too little value into self defense and crisis management. They scoff at fire drills, don't read emergency plans, don't know first aid, and don't take the time to learn about self defense for the parameters of their given situations in life and when something goes wrong, they blame everyone but themselves for lacks of defense or crisis management plans and often they are the first to whine when they do break the rules, carry a gun, get caught (using it or just out of stupidity), and get fired.
 
Remember, legal doesn't mean ethical
Click to expand...
Unfortunately true about 80% of the time nowdays... Its all about the bottom line and creating litigation...

Still the store should be responsible for the defense of its employees if it prevents them from bearing arms to defend themselves or they should be liable for the consequences...
 
Double Naught Spy said:
They are able to defend themselves.
Click to expand...

I think you are really reaching here Double Naught. While you and I may have a body that is a total weapon (ala Barney Fife:rolleyes:) most do not and the best defense against a gun or other deadly weapon in the hands of a BG intent on doing you harm is most often; a gun. That is sort of why the 2A is around.

I agree that skills such as avoidance, awareness and such is good for self defense but a clerk in a store can't really do a lot about avoidance and your other examples of fire drills don't match the threat we are talking about.

You can do better than this!

Tennessee "Kung Fool" Gentleman.
 
I read a summary of a DOJ study a few years ago that actually looked at how crime victims protected themselves, and looked at the rates of injury each defense produced.

Fighting back with a gun produced the lowest rates of serious injury to the victim- the rates were lower than no resistance, as well as every other form of fighting back.

I found a link to the study:

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/ascii/hvfsdaft.txt

The values are from 1987-1992.

Here's one of the relevant portions:


Self-defense with firearms

*38% of the victims defending themselves with a firearm attacked
the offender, and the others threatened the offender with the
weapon.

*A fifth of the victims defending themselves with a firearm
suffered an injury, compared to almost half of those who defended
themselves with weapons other than a firearm or who had no weapon.
Care should be used in interpreting these data because many aspects
of crimes--including victim and offender characteristics, crime
circumstances, and offender intent--contribute to the victims'
injury outcomes.
 
Last edited:
Still the store should be responsible for the defense of its employees if it prevents them from bearing arms to defend themselves or they should be liable for the consequences.
Click to expand...
To what extent should the store be liable? Let's imagine drawing up such a law:

  • What would be the nature of protection required?
  • What would be the minimum standard for that protection?
  • What agency exists (or would have to be created) to regulate and certify that protection?
  • Would the store have to foot the bill for said protection?
  • Would the store be prohibited from cutting employees or wages in order to pay for such protection?
  • Would the store be liable if the employee was harmed despite said protections?
  • If so, how would damages be calculated?
 
I'm sure the guy signed something such as, "I understand company policies and will break them at my own risk.".

Well, he broke them and he has to face the consequences.

What happened to our word being our bond?

If he wanted to fight this, he should have done so before breaking the policy he surely signed his name to.

Ok, disobey policies that are immoral, I get it. But you can't cry because the organization then keeps it's word and terminates you just because you can't keep your word. You're busted but alive, move on.
 
Carry_24/7 said:
What happened to our word being our bond?
Click to expand...

It still is around. However, just like it is permissable to lie to a criminal (e.g. I won't call the police, or I am not an undercover policeman) it is also ethically OK IMO to lie to a corporation or company that disarms you for venial reasons.

Carry_24/7 said:
You're busted but alive, move on.
Click to expand...

We agree. You really have no legal recourse (like the Pizza Hut drivers fired for defending their lives with guns) but you have done nothing immoral IMO by disobeying the rule signed dcoument or not.
 
TN Gent; you and I are tracking the same. I'd also carry against a company policy if I felt the need, especially in a high risk job. But if busted, I understand I have to face the consequences of my actions. Being alive to find another job is fine with me.
 
Tom Servo:

Re comment in your opost #81, re "anti gunners got to corporations ...", strikes me that corporations might be described as, among other things, "gutless wonders", that being my personal take.
 
Somewhere in that bill of rights there is this little word about "bear arms" highly ignored and often forgotten its still right where it was with the Bill of Rights was signed. :o
 
BGutzMan; that is a great, and objective point. I truly wish the world worked like that.

It's not just gun rights that are stepped on in the private world, free speech also does not exist (I know, only govs are covered by the Constitution), and we see examples of such controls "everyday."

I believe it's not just a gun issue, or just a speech issue with these employers and other private entities, it's a power thing. The guy in charge has to order everybody around, right?

Question (non-sarcastic, I truly don't know), what gun advocating business owners do you know allow their employees to carry at work if they legally can? Gun shops not included. I personally know of none.
 
Well I have seen pawn shops that have people open carry but I think thats kind of a cheap answer. I personally (outside of pawn shops and gun shops) have not seen any businesses promote any sort of carry. I think that is a shame and a mistake and hopefully we can get some businesses to do this.

You posted a great question/point.
 
I pity the individual who is a delivery or service person In a "rough neighborhood" who can't carry an item for self protection. Years back a female employee of the telephone company was murdered in her truck. Robbed and Shot in the head by an unknown assailant. The company has a no firearms/weapons policy. So who was at fault?? The company ? My opinion the company, they refused back up (another employee ) to travel with her to the ghetto. (I worked there at that time)

Maxem
 
what gun advocating business owners do you know allow their employees to carry at work if they legally can? Gun shops not included. I personally know of none.
Click to expand...

I worked for a small Wrecker and Tow service (5 trucks) for about 4 1/2 years. Legal concealed carry was allowed and even encouraged, but it was not required.

There is a local Air Boat Tour company, near where I live and I see the boat operators packing openly, occasionally. Not sure if it is required, or not, by the company.
 
So far, as to employers we know who allow legal carry at work (non-gunshops), we got:

A towing company
An airboat tour company

Keep em comin....
 
I am not sure this is the thread for noting who allows carry. That might be a good topic for a brand new thread, one that could be readily searched and found in the future....just a thought.
 
Thanks for your "thought."

This was heavily related to the OPs post. The point is that practically no employer (except gun related businesses) allow their people to legally carry at work, whether they are a gun advocate/NRA lifetime member/Etc... or not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top