Employer gun free zones

[Tirod]

I find it interesting so many think that the "law" is more important that "inalieanable Constitutional Right."

The "law" has been wrong before - there are consequences for breaking the law, and no one here advocates it. But the simple fact of the matter is that Officer discretion determines if you get arrested or not.

Much the same in the workplace - it's balanced by your effectiveness in your job. Getting a well trained employee who doesn't need constant supervision is something every workplace manager covets. It reduces his workload and he's loathe to fire one just because of a infraction. Many get a lecture on getting caught more than violating it. Those who fire someone often do so to prevent being fired, and so it goes up the chain. Nobody stands on principle.

I'm convinced those who are treating a rule infraction as some ethical fault aren't seeing things clearly. Company policies are regularly violated - and will be as long as profit is the final determination.

Those advocating that workplace rules are somehow more important than their Constitutional Rights aren't thinking ethically. They are the problem in the erosion over our Bill of Rights, not the solution.

Let's not forget that if we wait for the law to get there to protect us from someone breaking it, that the response time is longer than ordering the average pizza delivery. And that more people can dial the pizza number reflexively than 911.

What's your priortity at work? Do you have a plan to protect yourself at your office? If you really advocate having a gun free workplace, have you exercised what you will do when it doesn't happen and there is an active shooter stalking the hallways? It DOES happen, just the same as someone beating in your front door at home. Are you going to just take your chances with that?

For the gun free advocates at work, I'd like to hear your rehearsal of your last few moments cowering under your desk or hiding in your closet. It's the natural and logical result of supporting the no guns policy at your workplace.

A school teacher would at least shield some students from gunfire - will you go out onto the factory floor and do the same for your workers?

Be advised you might just be getting in the way. You didn't bring a gun to a gun fight and chose to be a victim. Go ahead and act out your part. Advocating that others do the same - commit suicide - isn't High Road and is illegal.

We don't do that here.

 

[BSA1]

Those advocating that workplace rules are somehow more important than their Constitutional Rights aren't thinking ethically. They are the problem in the erosion over our Bill of Rights, not the solution.

Except that many workplace rules are a agreement between the Employer and Employee. On the other hand some rules are required by Law and many are intended to make the workplace safer. The problem with workplace violence is the Law is behind the curve on what are legal precautions for employers and employees to take. I really doubt the idea of workplace violence was never in the minds of the Founding Fathers.

The passage of conceal carry is a result of recognition of the right of self-defense outside of the home. States like Kansas has expanded conceal carry in businesses where it is prohibited to be a non-criminal act and allows for conceal carry in Government buildings unless they have security to screen people coming into the building.

So the next question is should (and would it be legal) for Government to pass a similar law for private employers? If so who would regulate it? OSHA?

 

[buck460XVR]

So you are saying here that you never speed because it's against the law. You've never changed lanes without a blinker, right? Ever come to a rolling stop up there in Alaska when no one was around? If you state that here, in front of your peers, then I guess you can preach from your high horse. If you break these laws (not rules, but laws) then you are a hypocrite. I believe you are a good person who does break the law when it is convenient for you like the rest of us do (traffic LAWS) but hey, I guess I'm the only one here who can admit that I break some laws but am still a good guy. (Those are traffic laws, right? Not traffic rules, right?)

I was wondering how long this discussion would go before the old "since I speed, everyone must speed and since everyone speeds and breaks the rules/law then it's okay to break other rules" argument was brought out. As if ever two wrongs make a right. Is that what you tell your kids too? "Everyone else your age is having unprotected sex....you may as well." "Everyone else runs stops signs when they feel like it, weigh your options and consider the consequences and then go for it if you want!" Good for you Mr. Good Guy.

This issue is about respect and image. Funny how so many want everyone else to respect their 2nd Amendment rights, but choose to ignore the rights of property owners and their wishes. Respect as we frequently hear is earned, not given. Getting caught with a prohibited firearm at work is not going to endear any employer towards gun owners. Not only have we lost respect, but our image is tarnished. That image is for many of us, a responsible gun owner. Using bravado in public and on public forums claiming rules mean little to gun owners and one should break those rules if it suits them, does little to make us look "responsible". Then we wonder why so many against firearms and even those neutral to firearms think of us as "Bubba Rednecks". In the political climate at this time, a negative image of gun owners is not what we need. Even if we do not agree with the rule against CWC in the workplace, we can complain about it and ask for it to be changed, but telling folks publicly to ignore the rule if it suits them is not the image we need to portray. Besides the many long time and well experienced gun owners we have here, we also have many new, first time gun owners that come here looking for advice. Telling those folks to ignore gun rules and regs if it pleases them is no different than telling a new, first time hunter to ignore game laws if they so desire. Again.not the image I want to portray. Some of you may differ. So be it. It's kinda what makes this world go around.

 

[BSA1]

For the gun free advocates at work, I'd like to hear your rehearsal of your last few moments cowering under your desk or hiding in your closet.

Not all jobs involve sitting at a desk all day. There are a number of reasons why carrying a gun on the job should not be allowed such as a persons occupation, type of work being done, the way the work is performed, etc.

It's the natural and logical result of supporting the no guns policy at your workplace.

If this is true why aren't there more shootings in businesses and industries? People are fired or quit for poor performance, bad attitudes, refusal to follow company rules every day.

You take a risk every time you step out of door of home even just to check the mailbox. In some neighborhoods you are taking a risk by being in certain parts of your home from drive-by shootings.

Let's not get caught up in the liberal media anti-gun hype.

 

[Sam1911]

I was wondering how long this discussion would go before the old "since I speed, everyone must speed and since everyone speeds and breaks the rules/law then it's okay to break other rules" argument was brought out. As if ever two wrongs make a right. Is that what you tell your kids too? "Everyone else your age is having unprotected sex....you may as well." "Everyone else runs stops signs when they feel like it, weigh your options and consider the consequences and then go for it if you want!" Good for you Mr. Good Guy.

That isn't the sentiment, here. The sentiment is, as somebody once said, remove the log from your own eye before you try and get the speck out of your bro's eye. Or, worked around a different way, if you're without sin, go ahead and pound that guilty guy or gal to death with rocks, in your righteousness. (I might have the text a little garbled, but the idea is about right.)

This issue is about respect and image.

It actually isn't. Your own issue with the question has to do with your perceptions of image and respect for others, but that's a secondary matter to the questions of the ability to save life or divesting yourself of that ability in order to appease an employer. (Though, I'll agree that your side issue is not a completely insignificant one.)

Funny how so many want everyone else to respect their 2nd Amendment rights, but choose to ignore the rights of property owners and their wishes.

There's RIGHTS and there's "rights." Everyone claims all sorts of "rights" that may have impacts on the ability of others to pursue life and happiness. Each of us makes decisions over which "rights" are more important to us than other "rights" every day. Unless you count anything that anyone else claims as a "right" to be more important than your own interests (and hey, bully for you if that's so...) this is a hollow stump to stand on.

Respect as we frequently hear is earned, not given.

I would not ask for, nor expect "respect" from an employer. This is a transaction. Costs and benefits. This isn't who I am, or what I live for. It is a way to earn a paycheck by giving up pieces of my life in exchange for money. Don't sugar coat it.

Getting caught with a prohibited firearm at work is not going to endear any employer towards gun owners.

Do you really think that an employee being found to possess a concealed firearm on company property will do any thing at all to change how a company "feels" about gun owners? What does that even mean? If your company is already putting out anti-self-defense policies, they aren't your ally, or even neutral, to begin with. This dog won't hunt.

Not only have we lost respect, but our image is tarnished. That image is for many of us, a responsible gun owner.

I'd say a responsible gun owner is any who is safe, and takes responsibility for his/her own security at all times he or she is capable of doing so. I would in NO way claim that an employee terminated for possessing a firearm on company property is being "irresponsible" except in the minor degree of failing to conceal their gun.

Do you remember this guy? http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ported-shots-fired-Pennsylvania-hospital.html
Dr. Lee Silverman. Stopped a mass killing, and his own death, because he was armed completely against his company's rules.
Irresponsible?

Or do you, as so many others, fall into the quixotic belief that you're an irresponsible jackarse if you carry a gun where you aren't supposed to, UNLESS you happen to need it and save lives and then you're a hero?

If you can't answer that question with clarity and without dissembling, you need to completely back off your whole moralizing line of argument.

Using bravado in public and on public forums claiming rules mean little to gun owners and one should break those rules if it suits them, does little to make us look "responsible". Then we wonder why so many against firearms and even those neutral to firearms think of us as "Bubba Rednecks". In the political climate at this time, a negative image of gun owners is not what we need. Even if we do not agree with the rule against CWC in the workplace, we can complain about it and ask for it to be changed, but telling folks publicly to ignore the rule if it suits them is not the image we need to portray. Besides the many long time and well experienced gun owners we have here, we also have many new, first time gun owners that come here looking for advice. Telling those folks to ignore gun rules and regs if it pleases them is no different than telling a new, first time hunter to ignore game laws if they so desire. Again.not the image I want to portray.

How about we just tell them "BE LIKE DR. SILVERMAN?"

Would that suit you or is he just a dumb redneck jerk we aught to be ashamed of?

 

[buck460XVR]

For the gun free advocates at work, I'd like to hear your rehearsal of your last few moments cowering under your desk or hiding in your closet.

As I said, I work in the local High School. We had two days of active training this year in how to deal with an active shooter in the building. One of the first training sequences was to put 30 of us in a classroom and then cower under a table and wait for police. At first we heard gunshots down the hall and screams of terror. For the next twenty minutes we heard the gunshots get increasingly closer. We heard people pleading for their lives only to have their pleas cut short by gunshots. We heard people screaming for help as they thought they or those close to them were dying....and in the end the door burst open and we all looked down the barrel of a gun. Even tho thru it all we knew it was not real, it still left a huge impact on all of us. What it taught us was you do not have to be a helpless victim unless you allow yourself to be. You are not a victim just because you do not have a gun. Whether you are a victim or not may be wholly dependent on your mindset. If you want to survive, you need to fight or run and not cower in the corner and wait. There are many weapons around you if you look and there are more escape routes than you think. Just making yourself hard to get to may be all it takes. A locked door does not make you hard to get to.

Do you remember this guy? http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-hospital.html
Dr. Lee Silverman. Stopped a mass killing, and his own death, because he was armed completely against his company's rules.
Irresponsible?

Yep....I also remember this guy. Frank Hall, who without a firearm, saved the lives of students by chasing and distracting the shooter out of the building. Mindset, not a gun saved him and the students. While having a gun may have ended it sooner, it may also have escalated it. Frank made the most of what he had.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/school-shooting-at-chardon-high/

Do you really think that an employee being found to possess a concealed firearm on company property will do any thing at all to change how a company "feels" about gun owners? What does that even mean? If your company is already putting out anti-self-defense policies, they aren't your ally, or even neutral, to begin with. This dog won't hunt.

Then you need to learn how to hunt with a dog. You really think breaking the rules is going to make an employer change his mind as opposed to convincing him as to the change in a positive way? Latest poll out yesterday shows almost half the voters in the country think gun control is the number one priority in the coming Presidential election. This is above the concerns of immigration and abortion. How does all this negative imaging do to help our cause, not just to employers, but to the public in general. Lotta independent voters, neutral to gun ownership are going to the polls next election. They will be the ones deciding our fate for the next 4-8 years. Not us gun owners in the minority, not the gun haters in the minority, but those others that right now aren't sure where they sit. These are the ones that turn the tide after every mass shooting. All your chest pounding in the world is not going to change how they perceive us once they think negatively of us..

Maybe it's because we here in Wisconsin have only had CWC for a short while and have had to rely on other ways to protect ourselves for so long or maybe it's the small town Mid-western lifelong experience that makes me respect the rights of others as much as my own. Maybe it's the confidence I have with myself and some of those around me that I can overcome an incident even without a firearm if need be........even if it costs me my life, as long as I protect those around me. I don't know. I do know what I would do in the OPs scenario.

 

[Sam1911]

We had two days of active training this year in how to deal with an active shooter in the building. One of the first training sequences was to put 30 of us in a classroom and then cower under a table and wait for police. At first we heard gunshots down the hall and screams of terror. For the next twenty minutes we heard the gunshots get increasingly closer. We heard people pleading for their lives only to have their pleas cut short by gunshots. We heard people screaming for help as they thought they or those close to them were dying....and in the end the door burst open and we all looked down the barrel of a gun.

You went through that, and yet you still feel as you do? That is tough to understand. And hard to speak to without being very rude. I know that a big portion of society lives in that mindset, so it isn't just you, but ... it hurts my brain.

Surely you understand that all the "alternate" self-defense methods they try to teach are shadows of a real defense? Like the oxygen masks that stewardesses tell you will fall from the ceiling and save you during a jet airliner emergency? I guess it is good that the authorities do something to help students and parents and employees feel better about their chances.

A gun isn't the only defensive tool in the tool box.

But there is NO OTHER tool that comes within a mile of being as effective. You can change a tire with a screwdriver, given time and patience and creativity. But you don't accept being told you can't have a tire iron.

You really think breaking the rules is going to make an employer change his mind as opposed to convincing him as to the change in a positive way?

Nope. That's your line of argument, not mine. I said it doesn't matter, AT ALL. Period. A company or employer isn't going to change it's mind to favor gun rights simply because you're a good boy and don't bring a gun to work.

It won't change it's mind, any further against us (if that's possible?), because you DO, either.

This is a NULL argument point. It matters zero in either direction.

Latest poll out yesterday shows almost half the voters in the country think gun control is the number one priority in the coming Presidential election. This is above the concerns of immigration and abortion. How does all this negative imaging do to help our cause, not just to employers, but to the public in general. Lotta independent voters, neutral to gun ownership are going to the polls next election. They will be the ones deciding our fate for the next 4-8 years. Not us gun owners in the minority, not the gun haters in the minority, but those others that right now aren't sure where they sit. These are the ones that turn the tide after every mass shooting. All your chest pounding in the world is not going to change how they perceive us once they think negatively of us..

So you're going to completely dodge the points I've made and go on about how being "good boys" and not carrying a concealed weapon at a place of employment will -- by some cosmic stretch of the imagination -- sway the voters who would normally vote against us?

Or that some unlucky guy getting fired for being "discovered" with a firearm at work will drive masses of undecided voters against us?

Do you really believe any of that? I don't.

If you do, you do, I guess. I can't see things from your perspective, but I trust that's how you really slice it.

In the end, that simply doesn't matter.

I'll repeat what I asked before, since you apparently didn't read it:

Do you, as so many others, fall into the quixotic belief that you're an irresponsible jackarse if you carry a gun where you aren't supposed to, UNLESS you happen to need it and save lives and then you're a hero?

If you can't answer that question with clarity and without dissembling, you need to completely back off your whole moralizing line of argument.

 

[jmorris]

The only place I ever worked for that had "no gun" signs up, I just talked to the owner before I ever worked for him. He said to just keep it concealed, the reason he told me he put it up in the first place was because he had a bunch of guys "playing show and tell" with their firearms.

 

[zxcvbob]

Good question. [why did you ask Security?] Answer is HR was closed as I work night shift. My manager had also left 10 minutes early for the day. I did short work for a security firm and they had very strict rules of when they could arrest someone. Most security are just there to answer questions to the public and call the police if a matter cannot be handled internally. So I knew I wasn't in danger of getting fired or arrested for asking a question about a knife and clarification of policy. My trainer, the person who did tell me knives under 4" were fine, is very respected at the company. So this interaction is a chance to clarify for new employees coming in.

I'm not buying it. There was no need for clarification. Were you looking for an excuse to carry a gun? (sorry, that's sounds more accusatory than mean for it to, but I dunno how to reword it)

My company has a no weapons policy. They can't enforce their no guns in the parking lot rule because it violates state law, but they went to the trouble of putting up correctly worded and sized no-guns sign at every entrance, so bringing a gun in here is actually illegal. The word "weapons" in the company policy is not defined...

So I carry a kinda large pocket knife. In my desk, I keep a *sharp* pointed kitchen knife. That's not a weapon, it's for serving cakes and danish and such when I (or someone else) brings them in for the break room. If I need a weapon and don't have a knife handy for some reason, I'll look for something else (while wishing I had a knife or a gun) I don't bring my gun to work because it's not really that dangerous here, and the price for getting caught is too high.

If I delivered pizzas for a living or drove a cab, I would carry a gun and a knife. The danger there is higher, and the cost of being caught carrying against company policy is a lot lower.

You have to weight the various risks against each other for yourself, and make your own choice, then live with the choice. That's how it works.

 

[PJSprog]

For the gun free advocates at work, I'd like to hear your rehearsal of your last few moments cowering under your desk or hiding in your closet. It's the natural and logical result of supporting the no guns policy at your workplace.

That's quite an assumption you're making regarding people about whom you probably know nothing.

 

[oneounceload]

Originally Posted by Tirod View Post
For the gun free advocates at work, I'd like to hear your rehearsal of your last few moments cowering under your desk or hiding in your closet. It's the natural and logical result of supporting the no guns policy at your workplace.

This isn't about yes or no to gun free zones, it is about complying with the policies and procedures of an employer who agreed to hire you if you agreed to those terms and conditions. If an employer cannot trust you or you absolutely cannot go into your work place without a gun after your employer says no, then find another job.

 

[zxcvbob]

This isn't about yes or no to gun free zones, it is about complying with the policies and procedures of an employer who agreed to hire you if you agreed to those terms and conditions. If an employer cannot trust you or you absolutely cannot go into your work place without a gun after your employer says no, then find another job.

That trust (and lack thereof) works both ways.

 

[Teachu2]

I most certainly oppose the No Guns policy of my school district, and am actively campaigning to get it changed. Until it is, I am abiding by it.

 

[yugorpk]

I find this one entertaining. I know for a fact that the VP of HR wouldnt leave her house without her baby Browning and that the VP of Operations packs a Kahr 9mm with him all the time. i also know where I work there isnt actually a no guns policy. Someone just bought a sign and stuck it up. Don't assume that your workplace actually has a no weapons policy unless you see it in writing. Many companies do have such policies and many people think their company has such policies when they really don't.

 

[Teachu2]

That trust (and lack thereof) works both ways.

Right - you work and abide by your employer's rules, and you trust that they will pay you.

If you can't abide by the employer's rules, don't accept the job. If you are hungry enough to accept the job, abide by the employer's rules. You don't have to work there, and they don't have to hire (or keep) you. A new employee who expresses a disdain for the employer's stupid rules often fail to complete the probationary period.

 

[76shuvlinoff]

Yep....I also remember this guy. Frank Hall, who without a firearm, saved the lives of students by chasing and distracting the shooter out of the building. Mindset, not a gun saved him and the students. While having a gun may have ended it sooner, it may also have escalated it. Frank made the most of what he had.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/school-s...-chardon-high/

Kudos to Frank, his actions are admirable but I would choose to have more than Frank had to make the most of.

 

[zxcvbob]

Right - you work and abide by your employer's rules, and you trust that they will pay you.

I actually don't trust them to pay me. I trust the state to force them to pay me when they try to renege. I do a good job, they pay pretty well, and I'm too old to find a better job in this industry. I try to follow the rules but trust has little to do with it.

I agree with you that a new employee would be ill-advised to go into a new job looking to break the rules.

 

[USAF_Vet]

I can't abide by my employers rules and be able to do my job properly.

The rules are written in very general terms to cover as many employees as possible without being too long winded or writing every single exception.

Certain employees with be fired on the spot for bypassing a safety device. In order for me to do my job, there are times when I must absolutely bypass a safety device. Should I be fired on the spot?

We do have a 'No Weapons" rule. My tool box is full of potential weapons. Including incendiary devices, explosives and poisons. I'm not a maniacal terrorist, just a mechanic. At any given time, I am in possession of a number of items I'm required to have by company policy that technically violate company policy.

It's quite impossible to troubleshoot a problem on a 480 Volt 1800 Amp switchgear when it's de-energized. But it's a violation of company safety policy to work on it when it is energized.

So, when is it justified to break the rules? When breaking the rules is the only thing that makes sense.

I don't have a gun on my person while at work, most due to the job I do. Printing, exposing, or otherwise being seen with a gun inadvertently is quite possible, even probable. Doesn't mean I haven't thought about ways to better secure/ conceal a gun, or getting a smaller gun that is easier concealed.



Regarding Frank Hall: This is one instance where it worked out in the good guys favor. However, more often than not, I'd guess the unarmed guy with good intentions is just as dead as the rest of the unarmed good guys during a mass shooting.

 

[Ryanxia]

Right - you work and abide by your employer's rules, and you trust that they will pay you.

If you can't abide by the employer's rules, don't accept the job. If you are hungry enough to accept the job, abide by the employer's rules. You don't have to work there, and they don't have to hire (or keep) you. A new employee who expresses a disdain for the employer's stupid rules often fail to complete the probationary period.

First, an undefined 'no weapons policy' means you should not have anything that can be used as a weapon including scissors, car keys, cell phone, etc. you think everyone should quit their jobs or never have a cell phone on them because it would be immoral to keep yours in your pocket despite the policy?

Also, in many places, you don't read or get a copy of the handbook until after you start or have accepted the position. That's always been the case for me at least.

 

[Tirod]

I get the issue with being on someone else's property and respecting their rules. If it's someone's personal home, quite right - if it's no guns and that doesn't work for me, then I'm not intruding with it.

However - that doesn't necessarily extend to a business, especially one open to the public. If you throw open your doors and welcome anyone to get their money - then you just threw away your "right" to say what will be allowed, or not.

That's why the signs on retail businesses prohibiting weapons are basically hypocritical. Unless you enforce it, they are meaningless. Many states wrote the law to allow the "violator" an exit on discovery, and only if they refuse will the property owner then be justified to call the cops.

There's the reality - it's already too late if it was an inadvertent early discovery of someone who planned to be an active shooter. Call the cops all you want, it's a fact they will only show up too late. Those willing to accept those conditions are willing to accept they will be unarmed and will only have their desk to cower under as protection.

By no means am I saying you don't have a choice - you do. And if you accept the no guns policy in your workplace, it can easily be based on the lack of risk. I don't carry a gun into my workplace - if anything, like millions of others, I don't see any immediate risk. And I'm likely as right as you about not violating the "rules" about it.

Nonetheless I'm very aware of the slight risk every time I see someone who is Open Carrying into the store. I don't consider them the problem - it's those who come in right at closing, most of whom are rarely repeat customers. Our chain of stores HAS had employees shot dead.

And that store does allow carry on the job. Hmm, so much for corporate policy. It's not engraved in stone after all. As is usual in American life, someone had to die to make the point.

What you have to decide is will YOU be the example of why the disarmament policy is wrong for YOUR location? Are you setting yourself up to cower under your desk because you believe the company or school district will protect you? Are you selling off your Right to be armed for a sense of false security?

Like the old joke from The Magnificent Seven about a man falling off the roof of a ten story building, he was heard to say after passing each window, "So far so good." If you were to ask any victim of an active shooter what their risk was ten minutes before the gun goes off, most would say "it's a very low risk, nothing to worry about."

If you were to ask that guy in the Walmart just before he saw someone pushing a cart full of guns into the store what his risk was, he'd likely say it was very low, too. Nothing to worry about.

It is a low risk. You do get to make your decision. But, by NO means can you impose your consideration of risk on others. That is crossing the line. It is taking away the Constitutional Rights of another human and substituting your analysis of what will happen.

You simply have no authority to decide that for others. Every dead teacher and student is a glaring example of what's wrong with the analysis - signs and policies don't work, any more than laws did to prevent the shootings. The shooter scoffed at them and pulled the trigger anyway. We might depend on the "rules" to protect us but there's no guarantee.

We installed a roundabout at a busy intersection on the drive to work. There is a sign posted on the intersection at every road entering it, YIELD TO ALL TRAFFIC IN THE ROUNDABOUT." Well, the results are in, major collisions are down, which was the goal. Minor collisions, about the same, all because people won't obey the sign. It's LAW, but they won't obey. You better have your wits about you and watch what is going on, or someone will just drive into traffic anyway and hit you.

We aren't getting a free pass of safety by establishing "gun free zones," either. They are basically a lie - guns are in them anyway, and usually carried by those who have demonstrated the privilege of not using them against others unless justified. What we have are Big Boy Rules - like the servicemen on Government property who shot back at the terrorists attempting to kill them. There's a no gun policy in Government buildings, right? I guess there aren't if you want to believe in that and it gives you a warm fuzzy feeling.

There's no guns in the Post Office, either - unless the Postal Police just happen to be there.

There's no guns in a lot of places - yet we continue to hear of schools adopting policies where guns ARE being carried by staff or officers in the halls. That is common in certain major metro schools because of gangs, and now because of random shooters.

We are more likely to be shot by an American in mental distress at work or a public place of business - where there are "No Guns" signs up - than by a terrorist. Much more likely.

That's the irony here - we spend far more on hiring more security and installing more fences and cameras to prevent people from a foreign country coming here to kill us, but think that a "No Guns" sign will stop the more likely threat - some guy down the street that we might actually recognize.

That's why you need to consider why you are giving away your right to self defense to cower under a desk - you might actually know the shooter by sight. And you discounted their ability to act out their issues.

Well, here they are and you thought wrong.

 

[Sam1911]

Tirod, that was beautifully and eloquently stated.

If you could fit it on a bumper sticker, we should be teaching it to school kids.

 

[herrwalther]

I'm not buying it. There was no need for clarification. Were you looking for an excuse to carry a gun? (sorry, that's sounds more accusatory than mean for it to, but I dunno how to reword it)

There was need for clarification on the knife. My trainer told me one thing, a coworker another. Rather than ignore one or the other I asked the security desk and later my supervisor. Box cutters are okay. As long as it is only used to open boxes. And not as a prying tool, show off, threats etc

As far as the signs they are specific. It doesn't say no weapons, as anyone with enough training mindset can turn nearly anything into a weapon. The sign at my workplace separates No Firearms and No Knives.

I have several reasoning points for why I would like to carry a firearm. None of which are some weird desire I need to. The shooting at our competitor plant just across the state line, with better security is part of it. Another is no phone inside the plant can dial outside (to 911 for example) that I know of. In all my training documentation everything says "In case of X emergency dial the security extension." In which X includes fire, tornado, and active shooter. That is just another wait bracket to go through to get a police response.

I appreciate the answers so far and the varying perspectives. As of right now my firearm stays in the car and a box cutter sits in my pocket.

 

[JSH1]

I don't really see how integrity enters into the conversation here. This is a legal question, and a question of employer policy, not really a question of morality.

Every employer that I have worked for required me to sign a document stating that I understand and will follow the policies and procedures. Saying that you will follow policies and procedures while planning not to break them is lying. For the vast majority of people lying is an issue of integrity.

I agree with the others: follow the rules or find a new job.

 

[yugorpk]

Every employer that I have worked for required me to sign a document stating that I understand and will follow the policies and procedures. Saying that you will follow policies and procedures while planning not to break them is lying. For the vast majority of people lying is an issue of integrity.

I agree with the others: follow the rules or find a new job.

I don't recall ever having signed anything like that. Non competes sure but never a "I will follow all company rules" letter.

My life is more important than company rules not that my company actually gives more than lip service to banning dangerous weapons. If they did I'd probably still keep something handy.Yes, Its lying and yes, I can live with that. My grandpappy didnt teach me to shoot straight and tell the truth. That guy survived by his wits and was always one step ahead of the law.The other side of the family , well, they were just plain war criminals.

 

[Zaydok Allen]

Originally Posted by JSH1
Every employer that I have worked for required me to sign a document stating that I understand and will follow the policies and procedures. Saying that you will follow policies and procedures while planning not to break them is lying. For the vast majority of people lying is an issue of integrity.

I agree with the others: follow the rules or find a new job.

If that's all you got out of my post, you missed my point.

Sometimes a person can't afford to lose their job. Sometimes that job is not really safe, and really, any job has the potential to become unsafe since people can snap. I feel if a person fits in this category, and is truly afraid for their life, then they should do what they need to protect themselves, while seeking employment in a place with policies they can live with.

Violating and continuing to violate the rules of employment that you agreed to is not a good solution IMO. Finding a different job is a good solution.

Yes I agree with you, agreeing to rules and then planning to break them is lying. All I meant with the comment you quoted is that the conversation is cleaner if we keep it to policy, legality, and weighing the risks.

I choose to follow my employer's rules, because my life would be garbage without the work I do. It's what I am passionate about. Other people have other priorities and responsibilities.

If that rule is ever changed for my agency, I'll be wearing a gun on my hip within minutes.