Forcing Guns Into Workplaces

stumble digg reddit del.ico.us news trust

Posted April 25, 2008 | 12:35 PM (EST)



Show your support.
Buzz this article up.

Forcing employers to allow guns at work? This is an idea only the gun lobby could like. Yet it is one they are trying to push into every state and workplace in America at the expense of your safety.

For several years, the NRA had been losing this fight, thanks to solid opposition from the business community, the Brady Center, the American Bar Association, and the vast majority of affected workers.

But earlier this month, Florida Gov. Charlie Crist - a potential running mate for John McCain - ignored that opposition, and concerns for private property rights, and signed his state's guns-at-work bill into law.

If this law takes effect, it will certainly increase the risk of workplace violence for millions of Floridians who go to work every day. Far too often, disgruntled and dangerous employees in a moment of rage have retrieved guns from their cars to shoot coworkers and supervisors.

Consider too, that:


  • A May 2005 study published in the American Journal of Public Health found that workplaces where guns were permitted were 5 to 7 times more likely to be the site of a workplace homicide compared to workplaces where guns were prohibited.


  • According to the most recent CDC data, murder is the leading cause of injury-related death for women in the workplace, while about three-quarters of work-related homicides are committed with firearms; and


  • 60% of major employers said in a 2005 survey that disgruntled employees had threatened to assault or kill senior managers in the last year.

We should be making these workplace gun crimes harder to commit, not easier.

What can be done? The next step in Florida will be a lawsuit arguing that this dangerous law is unconstitutional. A federal judge in Oklahoma last year struck down a similar law in that state because it ran afoul of the federal duty shared by every employer in America to provide a safe workplace. Companies can hardly meet this obligation if they no longer have control over guns on their property.

The Brady Center, joined by two major safety and security professional organizations, recently filed a brief seeking affirmance of that decision, and we will certainly support the legal battle in Florida as well.

The 7.8 million Floridians who go to work every day, and who have the power to replace legislators that put the interests of the gun lobby ahead of their safety at work, need to make their voices heard.

(Note to readers: This entry, along with past entries, has been co-posted on bradycampaign.org/blog and the Huffington Post.)

 
 

Comments
125
Pending Comments
0

Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to

View Comments:

"More than anything else, I felt betrayed. I realized that I had been manipulated by gun control advocates. They had lied to me about the origins and scope of the Second Amendment. They had lied to me about the availability of guns, and the ease with which firearms could be obtained legally. They had lied to me about so-called "assault weapons". They had lied to me about the effectiveness of gun control laws. They had lied to me about the history of gun control, never mentioning how it was used by Jim Crow-era southern governments to disarm blacks and make them easy prey for the Ku Klux Klan. All of it was a pack of lies. "
A well-written and interesting read, beginning to end: thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=359807

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:20 PM on 04/29/2008

Drurylane, I was wondering when you would meet basic academic and standards by stating the title of the NEA article we were supposed to read. "Read more, post less and you may learn something (TM)" was old when Kelli/shedances used it.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:37 PM on 04/29/2008

And most likely you will wait a very long time for any response.

Besides the NEA articles are little more than fabrications, written by a left wing author and are less creative than the tripe written and produced by the Joyce Foundation. You will find more credible writings in the Sunday Comics, or a "National Enquirer" type of Newspaper.


(Reasoned discourse TM)

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:06 PM on 04/29/2008

sorry--I meant to say basic academic and journalistic standards.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:16 PM on 04/29/2008

In order to obtain state authorization to carry a handgun, I had to pass a Federal background check, a state background check, a mental health records check, take a class on self-defense law using a state-approved curriculum, pass a written test on same administered by the sheriff's office, and demonstrated competence with a firearm in front of an instructor, (live fire). And I can pass the firearms qualification tests for most state police departments.

You are deliberately obscuring the fact that laws like this merely protect the right of those LICENSED to carry a weapon, to LOCK THE FIREARM AWAY IN THEIR VEHICLE without having to fear warrantless search.

Licensed CHL holders are not the problem, and you know it.

You realize that your intentional conflation of state-licensed CHL holders with mass murderers and other violent criminals seriously undermines your position on licensing as a prerequisite for mere gun ownership, yes? Regardless of how much you SAY you'd be OK with handgun ownership if we had to be licensed, we can see clearly how you view individuals so licensed when you label us with criminals and murderers, even though we are statistically even less likely to commit a violent crime than even the police.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:10 AM on 04/29/2008

..and I can beat up Mike Tyson. Really.

In your opinion, you are can pass a firearms qualification test for most state police departments. Additionally, Ben Ezra, nobody flunks an NRA course--unless he shoots the instructor. Even then, I'd put the odds at even he'd get the certificate.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:21 PM on 04/29/2008

It still does not change the fact, the civilian shooters seem to be more competent than the average police officer.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:16 PM on 05/01/2008

It wasn't an NRA safety course, it was a State of North Carolina class on self-defense law, with the test administered by the Craven County Sheriff's Department.

Most state police firearm quals are quite easy (they are not SWAT quals), and most competitive shooters (including me) could pass them relatively easily.

Here is the Virginia State Police standards, based on the standard B21 target:

http://www.dcjs.virginia.gov/standardsTraining/documents/performanceOutcomes/section7.pdf

Have you ever seen a B21 target? They are HUGE. And you only even have to hit anywhere on the target with 70% of your shots to qualify, even given the extremely generous time allotments. Practically all competitive shooters could pass such a course.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:10 AM on 04/30/2008

At my gun club, there have been three firearms accidents in 60 years of operation. All of those incidents involved police officers. They did not involve civilian shooters.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:31 PM on 04/29/2008


Jade,

Do you get your jollies trying to be whimsical and non constructive or do like to just stir the pot?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:07 PM on 04/29/2008

Many of the civilian shooters can shoot better than the average police. Why? We are competitive shooters and we take accuracy as a serious matter. I have been able to sometimes shoot the police qualification course, and I have been able to shoot in the high 90's on the course. The average police score on the qualification course is in the low 80's.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:58 PM on 04/29/2008

I seem to remember that certain posters that support DC and Chicago "common sense gun laws" also seem to have a difficult time telling the difference between law abiding gun owners and the Ku Klux Klan.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:56 AM on 04/29/2008


New here, but have been reading the forums from several sights for over a year. Thirpower, mike, molon, lady, melody, etc...I wanted to express my thanks for all the powerful and well researched arguments everyone has made in regards to gun conrol and the true intent from the Brady campaign.

I finally had to log in because of my residency here in Florida (born and raised), I am a gun(s) owner, ccw and hold a c&r license holder. As others have stated, the Brady`s were handing out flyers at OIA warning tourist of the "shoot first" law enacted as a scare tactic when castle doctrine law was passed and saying the streets were going to run red with blood.

My opinion, give the tools and power to the good citizens of this country to disparage crime and violence committed by those who choose to be criminals and prey on the innocent and law abiding.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:50 PM on 04/28/2008

Thanks for posting, Tencfan. It may seem futile at times to argue with people who consistently like to use lies and distortions to advance a political agenda. But venues like these boards are where the little battles are won. The ones which turn sheeple into people who are willing to do a little research and think for themselves instead of believing the lies, or not even seeing the truth because of surpressed facts.

Look at what exposure of the gun control issue has done for public opinion in Washington D.C.:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/graphic/2008/03/16/GR2008031600072.html?sid=ST2008031502430

This is the same link that Paul Helmke and Bryan Miller (CFNJ) like to cite stating that "59% of DC residents support the handgun ban." What is overlooked is the 17% shift from that opinion from Jan '08 - March '08 alone. When citing "Declining Gun Ownership(tm)" Paul and Bryan like to focus on the trends and change in percentages. I wonder why no comment from them in this instance?

Looking forward to your added insight to the "debate."

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:23 AM on 04/29/2008

As a fellow Floridian and gun owner, welcome. Share your views, too, so that it becomes clear to Mr. Helmke and others that they are not a majority, and that they do not represent us (I know, and you know, but he apparently doesn't).

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:10 AM on 04/29/2008

Welcome aboard, it is always good to have another person here in favor of the right to selfdefence.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:05 PM on 04/28/2008

Tencfan, Welcome to the discussion. Your opinion is valued and welcome by us.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:42 AM on 04/29/2008

Drurylane--please explain your moral and ethical opposition to law abiding citizens having effective tools to defend the lives of their families and themselves. So far the only thing that gunfree zones have apparently accomplished is to establish free killing zones for people like Cho.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:48 PM on 04/28/2008

Kelli said:

" I'd much rather have a choice of decent, strong gun laws over more caskets for more victims ... any day of the year. Thanks for taking my views into account on your most recent, fine blog."

Funny, because it seems like those Brady Gun-Free Zones are responsible for filling more caskets than anything that ever happens in non-gun free zones.

So, Paul took your views into account? Are you admitting that you are a shill of the BC?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:21 PM on 04/27/2008

Paul,

One problem I see from such discussions over gun laws (not only concerning Florida, but in a wider context ...) is how there seem to be people who wrongly assume that the Brady Campaign is only about the traditional "guns or none at all" politics.

I know you've addressed this, as you discuss the range of solutions the BC has been (& continue to) working on. But since interest in America's gun politics has increased greatly since the Columbine Colorado massacre and more recently, the Virginia Tech. killings, it may be worth revisiting again at some point.

Anyway, speaking for only myself -- & as someone who also values high civic morals & public health for even the most disadvantaged in our society -- I'd much rather have a choice of decent, strong gun laws over more caskets for more victims ... any day of the year. Thanks for taking my views into account on your most recent, fine blog.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:55 AM on 04/27/2008

Drurylane,
as someone who also values high civic morals & public health for even the most disadvantaged in our society -- I'd much rather have a choice of decent, strong gun laws over more caskets for more victims ... any day of the year. Thanks for taking my views into account on your most recent, fine blog.

I do not understand the context of these paragraphs. The disparity of classes in our society has nothing to do with the right to own firearms, that right is guaranteed in our constitution for the very wealthy to the working poor.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:57 PM on 04/28/2008

Unfortunately, anti-rights organizations like the Brady Campaign DO see a correlation between socio-economic status and the RKBA. One of the BC's agenda (not so much in the forefront anymore because they're too busy worrying about gun "paint" and "loopholes") was the banning of "junk guns" or "saturday night specials." However, one of the criteria they wanted to link to "junk guns" was their cost. Basically, any firearm under a predetermined price was considered a junk gun. Eliminating certain affordable firearms from circulation would effectively create a situation where those on the low income rung could not afford a weapon to protect themselves.

http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/faqs/?page=sns

Now I personally know that is bogus. I own 4 Makarovs and the only one i paid over $200 for was the more coveted East German variety. They are one of the most dependable and accurate weapons I own.

But we're not seeing this just from anti-gun organizations, but from potential presidential candidates as well. Barack Obama clearly sees a difference between "rural folk" and "urban folk" and believes that the RKBA does not extend equally to both.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:43 PM on 04/29/2008

I see your questions. Quickly, when referring generally to "disadvantaged," I'm mainly talking about others who cannot be expected to own or operate a gun -- or who are not willing to -- even for self defense reasons. There are many who fall into such categories, and this ought to be perfectly acceptable. In terms of morality or morals with respect to others and guns -- my own personal belief is, that it is wrong to push guns (or any other type of weaponry for that matter) onto others in society who say no. When people continue to push a gun agenda that's already been rejected ... then such efforts seem to be overly-hostile. Whether you agree or disagree with the above, I hope that clears up the confusion and answers your questions today.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:51 AM on 04/29/2008

Drurylane, how is someone who make the choice to obtain and utilize a concealed carry permit pushing guns on society. 39 state have made the choice that once a background check is passed, individuals have the right to carry a firearm to defend their lives. Since these laws were passed by the legislatures, it is thereby the "Will of the People(tm)" , or do you have a problem with the "will of the people(tm)" when it goes against your preference for disarming innocent victims.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:27 PM on 04/29/2008

Drurylane, please stop putting words in other people's mouth. I have yet to see a person that supports the right to keep and bear arms that does not also support the choice not to own firearms. Paul advocates the other extreme--namely that no one who is not a government agent is allowed the ability to own a firearm for any purpose. The Brady campaign has provided ample evidence for its support of complete bans on the possesion of functional firearms in the home as evidenced by its brief and statements on the Heller case.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:20 AM on 04/29/2008

"Drurylane (AKA Kelli) has stated that she believes it is alright for the elite of society to be able to protect themselves as they are more important than the "disadvantaged".

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:12 AM on 04/29/2008

The Brady Campaign is all about "no guns at all'. There is no restriction or ban which they have not supported or criticized. The DC gun ban is Exhibit A. They had a chance to display what they say about their claimed opposition to banning guns, but instead they fully support the ban without nuance. That, and so many other tests of their position, have demonstrated very well what they are about.

Deeds, not words.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:33 PM on 04/27/2008

apparently the only people that drury and Paul consider trustworthy with firearms are the police and their personal bodyguards, otherwise they would support the ability of the average law abiding citizen to defend themselves and their families (or are the lives of the police worth more than the lives of the people paying their salaries?)

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:39 PM on 04/27/2008

Or they could AT LEAST support non-FFL access to the NICS as a compromise so that they could shut down that god awful "Gun Show Loophole(tm)" and "Unregulated Private Assault Weapon Machine Pistol(tm)" sales which they claim are killing so many "The Children(tm)".

But when compromise really doesn't contribute toward your ultimate goal of civilian disarmament, why bother?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:52 AM on 04/28/2008

So how are those "decent, strong gun laws" working in Chicago? You know, the city where guns are banned yet has 5x the murder rate of the rest of the state?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:08 PM on 04/27/2008

Better math skills, please.

Illinois has a population of 12.8M. 9.7M of these folks live in Chicago.

In 2004, there were 770 murders in Illinois, 449 in Chicago.

If we go the calculator, we see Chicago contains about 75.7% of the state's population. We also see that Chicago accounts for over 58% of the state's total murders.

How that translates into "5x the murder rate of the rest of the state" is bizarre.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:16 PM on 04/29/2008

It does appear Mayor Daley has effectively put Chicago under martial law. Police are being equipped with M 4 full automatic weapons. It sounds a lot like military patrols, instead of ordinary police patrols.

What does this indicate about gun control in Chicago? The result, of Mayor Daley's 'progressive gun control policies' (as you would call them), is to turn Chicago into a war zone. In other words, gun control is totally ineffective in controlling violent crime.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:54 PM on 04/27/2008

I saw that this morning on Fox news. I quess having grown up in the Presbyterian church, I see defense of innocent life as a moral obligation. BTW drury, advocating for more laws that don't work does not qualify for defending innocent life. The only practical effective of Chicago or DC style gun bans that I see is the empowerment of criminals, since the balance of threat and power is shifted away from the law abiding citizens to the benefit of criminals by the "progressive gun policies" that are advocated by you and Paul. To make things very clear, law abiding citizens should be able to protect themselves from the criminals until the police arrive with something more effective than a telephone.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:48 PM on 04/27/2008

Looks like Kelli's tilde key (~) is broken. Valiant effort, but nobody's buying your disguise Superman!

That being said, I must say this is one of the most level-headed posts I've EVER seen from you. Crawl, walk, run...eventually you'll get it! Patience.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:37 PM on 04/27/2008

I find it quite ironic, but I found this through a pro-gun-control organization's links:

* Florida adopted a right-to-carry law in 1987. Between 1987 and 1996, these changes occurred:

------------------------------------Florida-----------United States
homicide rate-----------------(-36%)-------------( -0.4%)
firearm homicide rate-------(-37%)------------(+15%)
handgun homicide rate-----(-41%)------------(+24%)"

As I read the concluding comments of Paul's article, I can't help but think that the 'unusual' correlation between Florida's decrease in crime and adoption of and increase of concealed carry of firearms was met with very similar remarks. Hm. I won't predict a sudden (as in the above statistics) decrease in homicide, firearm homicide, and handgun homicide rates, but I do predict a statistically-insignificant relationship between the new Florida law and ANY change in crime rates.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:25 AM on 04/27/2008

I find it less than ironic - let's call it "predictable" - that you aren't aware Florida is the fourth most violent state in the country today, and that between '87 and '97 (the first 10 years after it adopted CWP) it was number 1 in the country for violent crime. (By the way, the 3 most violent states in the U.S. today? South Carolina, Nevada and Tennessee. Concealed carry is doing wonders for them, too.)

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:11 PM on 04/27/2008

Yet when Florida passed its nondiscretionary concealled carry weapon law, the crime rates dropped, despite all of the warnings of the return of "the Wild West with shootouts over parking spaces and blood running down the street (TM)".

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:38 AM on 04/28/2008

And during that time, the rate averaged out to the same level , the same as the US average did. While, as sneaky noted, the homicide rate in FL plummeted overall while firearm homicide rates