I may get myself in some trouble for this one but I just can’t help myself. I just don’t get it. The State of 
Arizona and, this is the twelfth state in the union to do this, just passed legislation making it legal for concealed firearms to be allowed in locked vehicles at the University of Arizona and other public colleges. Yippee Eio Cayay!
Now help me here. Give me some logical basis for this decision. What in heaven’s name were they thinking? Is this the answer to a crazy person entering a classroom with a gun? Just have everyone then pull out a gun and start shooting. That’ll fix those crazies, won’t it? And also put the rest of the students in danger.
The statistics are pretty clear on this. According to the Crisp Report put out by the ASIS International Foundation, more than 75% of workplace homicides are committed with guns. 1/3 of those are the result of conflicts between workers and clients, co-workers, acquaintances, or family members.
But in this one, we don’t really want to be statistics. Workplace violence is a huge problem and I don’t see how this really helps the situation. Even one workplace incident involving firearms is too much.
Just imagine yourself as a manager who has to give a job performance review to an employee who gets upset with your review. With the new law, he or she can go out to his car and get his gun and . . . Or what if you have an argument with a fellow employee who has anger management problems. Why would we want to make it easier for them to do something harmful or fatal.
Whatever happens and we may not be able to prevent this new wave of state and federal legislation, we must provide training and security for employees and managers. As an HR professional, manager or business owner, you should be finding resources to assist you in this effort. If you have one, you should turn to your EAP or at the very least, go to the National Institute for Occupational Safety for some resources. They have an excellent DVD called Violence on the Job.
Whatever you do, do something!
Tags: Add new tag, EAP, gun control, Guns, safety, violence, workplace violence
October 7th, 2009 at 7:57 am
I can understand the negatives of guns being allowed in parked cars, but there are certain freedoms to consider here. The regulations should be on who can have guns (for instance someone with a record of violence or anger would be prohibited), as opposed to restricting a qualified person from exercising their right to have one in a certain place. There seem to be two bigger picture issues here, safety vs. freedom. I think the best way to secure the first without overly restricting the second is to restrict who can have a gun, not restrict where and when a gun can go.
One exception: Alcohol and guns. I’m okay with no guns in bars, that’s just crazy.
October 10th, 2009 at 7:21 am
You make a good point. There is a question of safety v. freedom and it is a constitutional one but I am not sure that the framers of the constitution created the 2nd amendment with the intent that all could have the right to bear arms. I believe and I readily admit that I have no legal background or training, that the intent had to do with militia and the protection of our country. I realize that the right to bear arms is very touchy and raises great controversey but I still don’t see how individual members of society whose responsibilities are not to protect society, should be allowed to carry guns. I realize that this doesn’t address the “needs of hunters” but it seems that this would be an easy thing to define so that the use of guns for hunting could have clear parameters.
The main thing here is that guns have been used to hurt people and their easy access causes danger for the rest of society.
October 10th, 2009 at 7:53 am
What about the right of the common man to protect HIMSELF? Forget society, I’m talking about the freedom to protect your home and family. Laws need to be more stringent about who has a gun, but its not the government’s place (or right) to disarm its citizens entirely. A government that is trying to do that concerns me greatly. I know it is almost impossible to conceive in modern-day America, but a government is not always perfect and the ability of its citizens to rise up against it in case it goes from democracy to tyranny is something cannot be discounted, even if it appears only a symbolic gesture to allow guns at this point.
America has a strong tradition of the common man rising up to fight for what he believes in, as well as to protect himself, his home and his family. Government has no right to restrict that (though it can and should regulate it).
October 11th, 2009 at 11:39 am
Again, I think what is important is to try and understand the motivation of the framers of the constitution. My belief is that when they spoke of the right to bear arms, it related to militias or governmental entities whose purpose was to protect the common man. Now you do raise two interesting issues however. First let’s deal with the right of the common man to protect himself. Taking into consideration my opening statement, then if guns didn’t exist, we would be able to put everyone on a more equal footing, not to mention perhaps we would have to come up with more creative and rational ways to settle disputes and arguments. Number two, statistics show that in countries where there is lower gun ownership, there are far fewer homicides.