Even if this is true, regarding the law, as a business owner, I would still have to consider the overall odds. While neither is very likely, I think it is much more likely that a criminal ignores your policies and opens fire than it would be for a concealed carry permit holder to open fire. Therefore, it would actually behove you to allow concealed carry.
Even if this is true, regarding the law, as a business owner, I would still have to consider the overall odds. While neither is very likely, I think it is much more likely that a criminal ignores your policies and opens fire than it would be for a concealed carry permit holder to open fire. Therefore, it would actually behove you to allow concealed carry.
You, Sir, have made a very valid point. Property owners have the right to decide what happens on their property, but with that right comes responsibility. If they are going to prohibit people from having a means of self defense, then they should be responsible for providing defense for those individuals.
Thank you! I thought I was being clear, but everyone was hung up on the shooters actions, not the property owners actions (or lack thereof).
The real question is whether you could get a judge and jury to agree in a civil suit? This concept would seem like common sense, but the law doesn't take common sense into account every time.
That's a good question, and one than many think about. The problem I see with society's view on these things is that people place too much emphasis on the object and not the attacker.
For example...
Our company allows us to have pens and pencils in the office. What happens if someone stabs a coworker in the neck with a pencil? Who is liable? The attacker, or the company for allowing us to have pencils?
Whether it's a pencil, or a gun, I think the responsibility lies with the attacker. We [society] try too hard to place responsibility and blame on others. People need to be held responsible for their own actions.
Unfortunately, juries will most likely be filled with jurors who expect the world to care for them; so it has to be somebody else's fault.
If it's a privately owned business, I believe the owner has the right to prohibit whatever he wishes (within legal limits of anti-discrimination laws for places of business). I may not agree with that business' policies, but I feel they have the right to make those policies. I'm very much against the 'no guns' policies, but I feel the owner has the right to make their own decisions.
Customers can choose to do business there or not.
Once I go walking around in public, I can't think of any place that can guarantee protecting me. And, I don't expect them to. We each have to choose for ourselves what our acceptable risks are when we're out and about.
I don't expect business policies to be my babysitter and personal guard. I take that responsibility upon myself.
As far as being an employee at a place that prohibits firearms (which I do work at a place like that), I have to weigh the options of violating policy and losing my job or abiding by the rules. I choose to abide by the rules (and keep it in my vehicle). When we decide to accept a paycheck, we accept the rules that go with the paycheck. Otherwise, we need to find a different source of a paycheck.
I agree with this post, except for the part about anti-discrimination laws.
It's sad that people are always looking to place the blame on an inanimate object. It's even worse that people think that third parties should be held responsible for an attacker's own actions.
While i do agree that people/criminals(if they are considered people) should be held accountable for their own actions, there remains the question of: how would you defend yourself or others in any other place? If a coworker came after me with a pencil, I would have a means of the same like and kind to defend myself with. You see Sir,the fight has started on a level battlefield, he has a pencil, and I have the same. Now put yourself in the same situation exept for the fact that he has a beretta mod. 92 an you have your pencil.
Do you think that the man that killed those people would have done so if he had known that the rest of the employees were armed.
I work in a Sherriff's Office. How many times have you heard of someone coming into a S.O. and starting a gunfight?
They don't because they know they will get thier a$$ shot off.
I do hope that I don't get anyone agrivatted.
LtCCMPUnit42
I work for Budweiser and leave my firearm in my truck in the parking lot because I cant have a firearm in a commercial vehicle. It sucks when you cant carry at work but it has given me a good reason to take more edged weapons training and force on force. That shooting was at a Budweiser plant much like the one I work for, and is a very scary thing to think about.
Since he put a round through his head I dont think that he would have cared If anyone was carring or not. Im sure he knew what the end result was going to be.
The piont I was trying to make on this is that predators take action in places where the chance for retaliation is at a minimum. I agree that he didn't care if he lived or died, but he may not have killed as many if someone was there to change the outcome. The difference could have been "1 killed- 1 suicide" instead of eight lives lost.
If an employer has reason to believe that an employee will engage in actions harmful to another and does not take "reasonable" measures to prevent the attack or protect its employees, then the employer is liable for the harm resulting from inaction. It all comes down to what a "reasonable" person/organization should do knowing there is a potential threat. The fact that an employer does not allow concealed carry doesn't automatically increase its liability or its requirement to provide additional protection.
I think the guy would have done the same thing even if he knew there were people who were carrying. He went in for revenge. Even if the employer allowed carry, it would most likely be a minority of employees who took advantage of the opportunity.
Similar threads
