Well, I tried to have a discussion and started with a rhetorical question. I assumed the High Road could do that . . . and the mod's decided some can't handle a theoretical exercise.
So, as pointed out repeatedly by the pro gun business owners, it's insurance company bias that requires them to make the better economic decision - they have to go along with a no gun policy, even against their wishes, to get a decent price.
Not having insurance isn't an option. Paying double to make a point really isn't - it's just forking over the prepayments for not exercising prior restraint on the employees.
Which may be legal in terms of insurance, but not Right, as in recognizing and allowing us to exercise them. Should employees be allowed to bring guns into the workplace, who knows, all sorts of shootings could occur.
Ah, think about that.
So, the no guns policy is posted, the rates go down, and it never happens, right?
Just like the no guns within 1,000 whatevers around a school.
REGARDLESS, we still have workplace shootings, and we still have school shootings. The insurance company mandate is just as stupid as the school mandate.
How many of you paying the insurance are attempting to make this point with your insurer? Posting a NO GUNS rule means nothing. In fact, it was specifically mentioned - the rule was posted, and guns are still carried on the property, just concealed.
Not criticizing those owners who are making the decision, but aren't we being forced into the unethical practice of saying one thing and doing another? All because the insurance companies say, "We will charge you more for openly carrying firearms." When in reality, more incidents occur on properties that are posted AGAINST carry.
The irony of calling it "going postal" in the day was that we all knew there was a No Guns policy to begin with. Fat lot of good it does. As any survivor of a school shooting knows, even if they aren't willing to admit it.
So, the insurance company is really just suppressing your free speech, but doing nothing about enforcing it. Have they raised the rates for schools that have had guns on the property, or for the post office, or any business that suffers a shooting incident when posted? After all, they ALL had signs and policies, if you offer a carrot, where's the stick for those caught non compliant?
If you let a gun on the property and it's used, it's evident compliance was a farce. Lip service is no defense.
When do we see some push back about the insurance companies and their unlawful restraint on our Rights? The first thread in the series pointed out it's not the government telling us we can't carry at work - it's the insurance companies. Old saying, follow the money - who's forcing their hand on this?
I speculate that insurance agents by and large aren't anti gun, and some even carry in their workplace, too. Adds further irony.
Lie about it and get a discount. Really? Do we have to stoop to that? How is that High Road?
So, as pointed out repeatedly by the pro gun business owners, it's insurance company bias that requires them to make the better economic decision - they have to go along with a no gun policy, even against their wishes, to get a decent price.
Not having insurance isn't an option. Paying double to make a point really isn't - it's just forking over the prepayments for not exercising prior restraint on the employees.
Which may be legal in terms of insurance, but not Right, as in recognizing and allowing us to exercise them. Should employees be allowed to bring guns into the workplace, who knows, all sorts of shootings could occur.
Ah, think about that.
So, the no guns policy is posted, the rates go down, and it never happens, right?
Just like the no guns within 1,000 whatevers around a school.
REGARDLESS, we still have workplace shootings, and we still have school shootings. The insurance company mandate is just as stupid as the school mandate.
How many of you paying the insurance are attempting to make this point with your insurer? Posting a NO GUNS rule means nothing. In fact, it was specifically mentioned - the rule was posted, and guns are still carried on the property, just concealed.
Not criticizing those owners who are making the decision, but aren't we being forced into the unethical practice of saying one thing and doing another? All because the insurance companies say, "We will charge you more for openly carrying firearms." When in reality, more incidents occur on properties that are posted AGAINST carry.
The irony of calling it "going postal" in the day was that we all knew there was a No Guns policy to begin with. Fat lot of good it does. As any survivor of a school shooting knows, even if they aren't willing to admit it.
So, the insurance company is really just suppressing your free speech, but doing nothing about enforcing it. Have they raised the rates for schools that have had guns on the property, or for the post office, or any business that suffers a shooting incident when posted? After all, they ALL had signs and policies, if you offer a carrot, where's the stick for those caught non compliant?
If you let a gun on the property and it's used, it's evident compliance was a farce. Lip service is no defense.
When do we see some push back about the insurance companies and their unlawful restraint on our Rights? The first thread in the series pointed out it's not the government telling us we can't carry at work - it's the insurance companies. Old saying, follow the money - who's forcing their hand on this?
I speculate that insurance agents by and large aren't anti gun, and some even carry in their workplace, too. Adds further irony.
Lie about it and get a discount. Really? Do we have to stoop to that? How is that High Road?