"Understand that it is practiced all over America. And it saves lives. We are not considering 3rd world hellholes. We know that, in the US of A, we are better off, as in our employees don't die as often, when we let them have it. And, to your point, in areas in this country where it works against us, we hire armed security. I pay a pretty big bill for that every month."
I also understand that when banks are robbed, there is a
big, disproportionate push by police to catch the baddies, because they know if the crooks get away, they will doubtless try their luck again. Also that armed security isn't exactly an argument against the idea of the establishment defending itself; it's specialization to more effectively form a defense (because cashiers are better at working tills than triggers). The passive tellers are not what prevents robbers from swarming these places daily; it's the enormous force countermeasures that would be leveled against them during or after the fact. Employees wouldn't die so often when resisting robbers if the buildings were set up to be in any way defensible, but that's not a possibility for an exposed clerk --so the classic mode of defense from
that particular position is inadvisable.* It's a tactical disadvantage to be avoided at all costs by not instigating their gunfire. But that's not an argument to completely remove the option from yourself should they open up. So why remove the option from yourself?
As far as reckless/idiotic behavior; that's an argument against recklessness and idiots, neither of which can be regulated despite the best of intentions, neither of which should be tolerated in a free society, and for both of which we have numerous laws that punish their actions. We will also suffer the cost of their actions in some way regardless (no matter how many warning labels). Maybe if we had mandatory gun-safety/handling training for kids growing up in schools, we wouldn't have so many reckless buffoons bumbling around with guns falling down their pants. In any case, I see no logical reason to constrain the intelligent for the sake of the moronic, or the responsible for the sake of the not-so.
If you craft a system so constrained that morons cannot deviate from proper men, you've created a system of morons
. I fully support an owner's freedom to dictate his workplace, I just don't think restriction in this area achieves benefits commensurate with the shear ubiquity of no-gun rules in businesses. Considering how pretty much
every business of decent size has the rule, you'd think there would be a very clear and measurable quantity of cost related to tolerating firearms (and we could decide for ourselves if it was worth losing this human right for 8 hours of the day). There is a very clear cost to not allowing employees to question manager dictates (an analogue to free speech) in the form of inefficiency/impropriety, so it's not like human rights are incompatible with a workplace environment (and self-defense is every bit as basic as self-expression)
Like most anti-gun rules/laws, I'll bet it is in fact based on a lot of 'common sense thinking' by people who just don't think guns are a good idea; it colors government thinking, why not a corporation's?
TCB
*Yes, I'm aware of that jewelry store idiot that shot like ten robbers over the course of a handful of robberies; that guy was an idiot for not hiring security or moving his jewelry store to a less insane location. Maintaining a jewelry store in the middle of impoverished gang territory raises its own questions, but I won't go there.