I work for a restaurant company here in Texas that has been the frequent target of armed robbers. The company has spent plenty of money installing video cameras (in most restaurants) as well as installing "panic buttons" through out the restaurant. However, according to company policy, no one is allowed to bring firearms (licensed or not) on company property. (not even the parking lot locked inside your car)
I know alot of Highroaders have discussed this before and it really boils down to the rights of the employer/land owner to control what comes on their property. If this were only the case, I'd have to shrug my shoulders and live with it. However, their reasoning is not because "they just don't like guns on thier property"; they actually believe that they are protecting us by enforcing this policy. According to their management training/policy manual, most robberies "can be stopped with simply a smile and a nice "hello"". When I asked their HR representative how many times the robbers actually started killing the employees even after they complied, they told me that they couldn't give an official number but that "it had indeed happened in more than one occasion".
Now I've worked for numerous companies before, each with their policy of "no guns" in the workplace policies. I've always ignored these policies and carried discreetly should the need ever arise, trusting that if I ever did use a firearm to protect my own or others lives, a level headed individual would agree that "it was the right thing to do, given the circumstances". I quickly remembered about the Pizza hut delivery guy who lost his job because he used a firearm to ward off some guys trying to beat him to death. This made me realize that some companies are so anti gun or are so consumed with keeping their insurance rates down, that they would willingly put our lives at risk by disarming us as a condition of employment.
I went through another training and we were discussing cash controls, and they stressed to us the importance of "not being easy targets". I thought it ironic that they would disarm employees who legally carry firearms all in the name of making us safer and to protect us from becoming "easy targets".
The reason I staunchly believe that this is so blatantly false is because I've seen plenty of studies that show that people are more likely to escape violent encounters/rapes without injury/ or very little injury if they show that they will fight back. (i.e. : not being an easy target) Heck, I've seen plenty of surveillance videos that show 100 lb girls fighting off masked gunmen with nothing more than a coffee mug or harsh words! When I poised the question to the HR representative about a scenario where resistance might be offered(with or without a gun), I was told that whether or not the resistance was justified, the employee would be summarily terminated.
My question is, is there anything a sane level headed person could do to show the higher ups that this reasoning is lunacy? I'd like to speak up more about it, but I'm also fearful of being branded a quack and a possible risk. (Ex: people avoiding me since they think I'm obsessed with guns and I could go off any minute.) What do you think a person who has a family to support, but also sees a great deal of misinformation being spouted out about keeping employees safe, might be able to do? If anything at all....
I know alot of Highroaders have discussed this before and it really boils down to the rights of the employer/land owner to control what comes on their property. If this were only the case, I'd have to shrug my shoulders and live with it. However, their reasoning is not because "they just don't like guns on thier property"; they actually believe that they are protecting us by enforcing this policy. According to their management training/policy manual, most robberies "can be stopped with simply a smile and a nice "hello"". When I asked their HR representative how many times the robbers actually started killing the employees even after they complied, they told me that they couldn't give an official number but that "it had indeed happened in more than one occasion".
Now I've worked for numerous companies before, each with their policy of "no guns" in the workplace policies. I've always ignored these policies and carried discreetly should the need ever arise, trusting that if I ever did use a firearm to protect my own or others lives, a level headed individual would agree that "it was the right thing to do, given the circumstances". I quickly remembered about the Pizza hut delivery guy who lost his job because he used a firearm to ward off some guys trying to beat him to death. This made me realize that some companies are so anti gun or are so consumed with keeping their insurance rates down, that they would willingly put our lives at risk by disarming us as a condition of employment.
I went through another training and we were discussing cash controls, and they stressed to us the importance of "not being easy targets". I thought it ironic that they would disarm employees who legally carry firearms all in the name of making us safer and to protect us from becoming "easy targets".
The reason I staunchly believe that this is so blatantly false is because I've seen plenty of studies that show that people are more likely to escape violent encounters/rapes without injury/ or very little injury if they show that they will fight back. (i.e. : not being an easy target) Heck, I've seen plenty of surveillance videos that show 100 lb girls fighting off masked gunmen with nothing more than a coffee mug or harsh words! When I poised the question to the HR representative about a scenario where resistance might be offered(with or without a gun), I was told that whether or not the resistance was justified, the employee would be summarily terminated.
My question is, is there anything a sane level headed person could do to show the higher ups that this reasoning is lunacy? I'd like to speak up more about it, but I'm also fearful of being branded a quack and a possible risk. (Ex: people avoiding me since they think I'm obsessed with guns and I could go off any minute.) What do you think a person who has a family to support, but also sees a great deal of misinformation being spouted out about keeping employees safe, might be able to do? If anything at all....
Last edited: