I'm still waiting for anyone who is arguing against my positions to actually address any of the reasons that I posted.
I'm especially interested in how you will manage to get around the fact that my workplace has already suffered a violent episode -- resulting in ICU time for the victim -- which was not in any way prevented by the "no weapons" policy if you stop completely ignoring it.
In answer to the bolded, above:
COMPANY MEMO: Past incidents of violence are not predictors of future incidents.
The Cynical Argument
The Company is more important than you.*
Workers are disposable. Rules are indispensable.
It is easier to replace workers than The Company.
The Company would rather you die than It get sued for something you did.
Pragmatism is reserved for The Company, not its workers.
* The city, the state, and the federal government take more money from The Company than from you. Thus The Company is entitled to more consideration under the law than you.
The Private Property Argument
You are private property and have private property rights to establish rules regarding your private property. (Don't touch my privates, for instance.*)
The Company is private property and has private property rights to establish rules regarding Its private property. (Don't bring guns here, for instance.)
The Company may violate your private property rights (touching your privates) by the rules it has established regarding Its private property.
Your private property rights and the rules you've established regarding that private property (don't touch my privates) may be violated by The Company, whose rights supersede yours.
* The Company cannot, under law, touch your
private privates, lest It get sued, but It
can touch some of your privates, even depriving you of them, which is okay.
The Most Likely Argument
(or at least a version of it)
The company's right to establish rules that "endanger" you in only the most exceptional of circumstances is more important than your "right" to "self defense" in the event of such circumstances.
Now, why is that?
1. Workplace violence is rare.
2. Workplace
murder is exceptionally rare.
3. The chances that anyone will be murdered at work are remote.
4. The chances that
you, specifically, will be murdered at work, are exceptionally remote.
Therefore:
5. Your workplace has good reason to establish a "no guns" policy: guns in the workplace are a solution to a virtually non-existent problem.
Furthermore:
6. You are not trained.
7. If you are trained, your training is insufficient, or irrelevant (see 5).
8. The chances that you and your gun will cause a problem at work are much more likely than you saving yourself (or anyone else) from a murderer, while at work, with your gun.