Know Your Enemy: Paul Viollis, Risk Control Strategies....


PDA






jfh
December 11, 2004, 07:27 PM
I see we appear to have a new antigunner working his way into the hearts and minds of (at least) Corporate America--Paul Viollis.

Here's a quick link off a google that tells us a bit more about him, from the site Security Director News:

http://www.securitydirectornews.com/2004.11/depts/editorial/com1.htm

Apparently Mr. Viollis, from New York, of course, is a master of corporate-speak. Here's a sample from the link--

The following is a three-pronged plan to prevent workplace violence:

- Craft a comprehensive policy clearly defining the various tenets of workplace violence while outlining unacceptable behavior and the consequences for non-compliance. The policy should be regularly reviewed, updated and communicated to employees.

- Provide professional training for all employees on the subject so as to confer the necessary skills to recognize, report and diffuse the early warning signs before they mature into a costly incident. Employee awareness and confidence in reporting observations confidentially is a fundamental factor in creating a secure working environment. This awareness typically prompts comments such as, “Now that you mention it…” or “As a matter of fact I did notice…”

- Conduct a holistic vulnerability assessment to ensure premise security standards meet best practices.



So, let's gather some more information about this latest thrust from the antigunners.

Jim H.

If you enjoyed reading about "Know Your Enemy: Paul Viollis, Risk Control Strategies...." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Art Eatman
December 11, 2004, 08:31 PM
Granted there is a lot of New Age jargon, but I don't see "anti-gun" in the quotes.

I gotta admit I was startled at the numbers:

"Workplace violence costs to American businesses have risen dramatically over recent years from $4.2 billion in 1992 to $36 billion in 1995. An estimated $121 billion was attributed to workplace violence in 2002. Apart from the lone gunman seeking immediate gratification, workplace violence is completely avoidable and never spontaneous, yet there is an average of 5,500 incidents per day, 17 workplace violence homicides per week and 13,000 women being assaulted, stalked or murdered at work each year by a significant other."

I'd say there's a serious decrease in courtesy and politeness...

Art

Preacherman
December 11, 2004, 08:39 PM
Hmmm... those numbers sound awful high to me, Art. Do they give definitions of what they classify as an "assault"? They may be defining it to suit themselves, just as Brady and the VPC define "child" rather liberally.

Art Eatman
December 11, 2004, 08:46 PM
I don't have a clue where the specific $$$ numbers come from, but I'd bet a statement such as "Losses due to workplace violence have increased in dramatic fashion in the last ten years." would be correct.

The numbers as to "incidents" and murders is scary enough, much less the problems of working women...

Art

beerslurpy
December 11, 2004, 08:47 PM
Banning employees from having guns only works if you also have a means of preventing armed intruders from forcing their way into the building. The only non-governmental building I have seen that approached this level of security was the front lobby of Hadassah (jewish womens magazine in NYC) that is obviously an inviting target for violent people. Even they only had 3 armed guards and a no locking doors to prevent access to the rest of the building. The truth is that properly securing a business against violent intrusion is VERY difficult.

If I wanted to shoot up my workplace, I would probably bring an Ak with a lot of ammo and shoot anyone that tried to stop me. Murder is already against the law. Violating a policy about posessing weapons on company property is immaterial. Violating a law prohibiting posession of weapon x, y or z is immaterial. Getting a reprimand or a fine or a jail sentence is insignificant when I am committing a capitol crime for which I will be executed if captured. Most such rampages end in suicide anyway.

Preventing violence by disarmament doesnt work because the violent person is already committing far more serious crimes than any posession infraction. Why is this so hard for people to grasp?

jfh
December 11, 2004, 08:49 PM
actually, Art, what got me going on him was the references to him in the thread Harry Tuttle put up, this one here:

Gun owners claim right to take their rifles to work (http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=115333)

However, I neglected to include that chain of thought, as it were. According to the link in that thread regarding the new OK law, Viollis was called upon to present the opposition side:

Paul Viollis, the president of Risk Control Strategies, is appalled at the new law. Every week there are 17 murders at the work place across America, and most of them involve guns, he says.

"It's the most irresponsible piece of legislation I've seen in my 25 years in the business," he said. "I would invite anyone who'd allow people to bring firearms to work to write the first death notice.

"The argument that emp-loyees should be allowed to bring firearms to work because they'll be locked in the car is so absurd it barely merits a response."


My thinking here is that the press is no longer seeking VPC / Brady Bunch commentary, but have found a new antigun spokesman for pithy quotes when it comes to corporate issues.

Maybe I'm wrong, but it does suggest a new / latest spin to the antigunners' continuing attempts to disarm us.

Art Eatman
December 11, 2004, 08:55 PM
Hokay. That cite makes it more clear...

What the guy doesn't realize that is implicit in his statement about guns is that our societal changes over the last fifty years or so have made us--as a group--less tolerant, ruder and more discourteous, and far more willing to use violence as a means to settle disputes. And, a lessening of respect for women in general has obviously occurred.

I won't offer to attribute causality...

:), Art

RavenVT100
December 11, 2004, 09:07 PM
"The argument that emp-loyees should be allowed to bring firearms to work because they'll be locked in the car is so absurd it barely merits a response."

And making a rule against bringing guns to work is going to discourage a person who is hell-bent on destruction how exactly?

"I was going to come in and start shooting, but the rule is 'no guns at work' so I guess I'd better not."

Standing Wolf
December 11, 2004, 09:11 PM
Maybe I'm wrong, but it does suggest a new / latest spin to the antigunners' continuing attempts to disarm us.

A new face and some revised phrasing don't add up to new. The essential message is unchanged: people are intrinsically untrustworthy.

The argument that employees should be allowed to bring firearms to work because they'll be locked in the car is so absurd it barely merits a response.

That's a completely typical leftist extremist non-response. In the first place, no one's advocating bringing guns to work because they'll be locked in cars, and in the second, dismissing a fake position as "absurd" is arrogant, deceptive, and ludicrous.

secamp32
December 13, 2004, 04:50 PM
You didn't plan to come to work and shoot the place up. Someone said something you didn't like or you got mad at your boss so you go out to your car, got your gun and shot everyone. I'd be curious to know if this has ever happened. Most the workplace shootings I've heard about involve former employees going BACK to the office/plant with the express plan of shooting people. How many people with CCW lic have shot up their work? Probably none. Most NYers believe that no one should have a gun except the criminals. They should really be part of The UK instead of US! :banghead:

If you enjoyed reading about "Know Your Enemy: Paul Viollis, Risk Control Strategies...." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!