IOWA
Mr. Logic Pants
Yet people get MORE up in arms about the 1st amendment. Its ok to restrict the 2nd but not the 1st?
-
After 15+ years, we've made a big change: Android Forums is now Early Bird Club. Learn more here.
Right to bear arms vs. right to fire
- Thread starter OutofDate1980
- Start date
Yet people get MORE up in arms about the 1st amendment. Its ok to restrict the 2nd but not the 1st?
OstrichSaK
Android Expert
That wasn't the scenario and that's not what you said. If someone else is potentially in danger or harm's path you shoot. If you have guests or children in another room and the guy turns towards an exit but that bedroom is on the way I will probably still consider that other innocent person in danger. You're pretty clearly talking about murdering in cold blood because someone nabbed your PS3 though. To me that's just not justified and I don't care if the law does allow for it. It's not my job to execute someone for supposed past transgressions they weren't caught doing. My job is to protect myself and those close to me who have done nothing wrong.
OstrichSaK
Android Expert
No. It is not.
Not one of your scenarios is protected by the constitution as a god given right. Not one of your scenarios has a benefit or a reason for needing to bring it to work. Most of your scenarios is actually illegal by the law other than the beer. Comparing a dress code to a constitutional right is just ignorant.
Besides, I never said that his superiors shouldn't be allowed to fire him for violating a company policy as that's their right to do so. If they found out before the incident then they still could have canned him. I'm alright with all that. I'm also alright with the decision he made to ignore company policy to protect himself. If they want to assign professional armed security to each employee then I think they would have better luck telling free citizens they can't protect themselves. Until that happens it's ridiculous to think that simply saying not to protect themselves is going to be enough for every employee to obey w/o questioning.
You're trying to spark an argument with hyperbole and sensationalism when this conversation has been rather level headed. I suggest you take a step back and gather your thoughts before you continue down this path you're clearly started down.
IOWA
Mr. Logic Pants
Here's the thing though. All scenario's will be different. And decisions need to be made quickly. There are too many factors to define when its ok to shoot and not ok to shoot in black and white terms. Its just a huge grey area.
OstrichSaK
Android Expert
That's why they apply the 'Sane man theory' and that's what would a sane man do in the given situation. If you can articulate eminent danger your chances of making it through are better both mentally and financially. You may be protected by law but that doesn't mean you won't charged by a D.A. trying to set an example because HE didn't support said law. If you end up in court your very fate rests in the hands of those 12 jurors of your 'peers' which can mean anything these days. If a prosecuting attorney convinces them that murdering someone who was fleeing with your coffee pot by shooting them 7 times in the back was done maliciously and presents a solid case you're in trouble. You killed for belongings. If you're defense attorney is able to paint a picture of self defense and preserving health and life of innocent men, women and children then you're going to present much better in court. All of that aside it comes down to your own ability to sleep at night. If I have to shoot one or several people who are in my home and present a threat to my wife and I then I will cope just fine and sleep well knowing I took scum bags off the face of the earth. If it's truly my life or theirs I will live with the decision that was made. If I made the choice to end lives over belongings (regardless of 'protected' by the law or not) then I now have to live with the fact that I ended lives over belongings regardless of scum bag factor. I'm just saying that even if you aren't charged criminally or civilly you will still have to live with that baggage for life so make decisions in advance based on clear moral conscience so when situations present themselves you are presenting lethal force for the right reasons.
IOWA
Mr. Logic Pants
Agreed. If I had to choose between me and someone else, I wouldn't have to think twice. I've had several close calls already in my life and each one has resulted in no permanent injury or fatality because it didn't have to go that far. A home invasion is a different story though, this has all happened in public places where I know I'd never really encounter that person again.
Ridgerunner665
Well-Known Member
That fire extinguisher analogy up there is a good one...if there is a fire (threat), put it out.
A scumbag running for my child is gonna have 2 guns on him (me and my wife)...his chances are not good. No matter which direction he is running...he's just gonna die tired.
OutofDate1980
Android Expert
To get back on topic.
What rights does a worker have to protect oneself at a place of employment?
It was established that working conditions were hazard, i.e., prior robberies.
Company did not provide security, even after prior robberies.
Are employee's required to take one for the Gipper to stay employed ?
Companies policies are not laws, if a company's policy violates a public policy, then said companies policies are void.
What rights does a worker have to protect oneself at a place of employment?
It was established that working conditions were hazard, i.e., prior robberies.
Company did not provide security, even after prior robberies.
Are employee's required to take one for the Gipper to stay employed ?
Companies policies are not laws, if a company's policy violates a public policy, then said companies policies are void.
breadnatty08
pain rustique
I know OoD posted a bunch of questions, but I have a similar story (hope this isn't too off topic).
DC isn't your safest town, we have a bit of gun violence (okay, nothing like Baltimore). Last week there was a shooting in my neighborhood at the IHOP, at 6:30 in the morning. When IHOP first announced they were going to be open 24hrs, there was a huge uproar about potential violent/bad consequences to happen. Well, they said that there would be very frequent police visits throughout the day. Anywho, there was an off duty policeman there at the time of the shooting who "intervened".
I've no idea what that meant as the shooter got away, sounds very fishy.
Prince Of Petworth CM Jim Graham Responds to Hate Crimes at IHOP Shooting and Assault on Georgia Ave
I'm extremely anti-gun. Never have a desire to touch one, shoot one, own one. (also think hunting is pretty barbaric, okay shoot me). Given that, I still applaud the pharmacist in what he did. He likely saved lives and I'm glad he didn't kill the perps.
My question is, is it better he didn't wound/kill the perps or that he just shot his weapon as kind of a "warning signal" that he's ready to do some damage? It's obviously escalating the situation, but if he simply discharged his weapon to tell the guys "get the f out", is that okay?
DC isn't your safest town, we have a bit of gun violence (okay, nothing like Baltimore). Last week there was a shooting in my neighborhood at the IHOP, at 6:30 in the morning. When IHOP first announced they were going to be open 24hrs, there was a huge uproar about potential violent/bad consequences to happen. Well, they said that there would be very frequent police visits throughout the day. Anywho, there was an off duty policeman there at the time of the shooting who "intervened".
I've no idea what that meant as the shooter got away, sounds very fishy.
Prince Of Petworth CM Jim Graham Responds to Hate Crimes at IHOP Shooting and Assault on Georgia Ave
I'm extremely anti-gun. Never have a desire to touch one, shoot one, own one. (also think hunting is pretty barbaric, okay shoot me). Given that, I still applaud the pharmacist in what he did. He likely saved lives and I'm glad he didn't kill the perps.
My question is, is it better he didn't wound/kill the perps or that he just shot his weapon as kind of a "warning signal" that he's ready to do some damage? It's obviously escalating the situation, but if he simply discharged his weapon to tell the guys "get the f out", is that okay?
A.Nonymous
Extreme Android User
I say no. To me you never pull a weapon on anyone unless you are willing to kill them. Otherwise, you're just escalating the situation with no means to de-escalate it. You can't exactly put the gun away and say, "Just kidding." and you and the bad guy will have a good laugh over it. You pull a gun on someone you need to be willing to kill that person. This is the main reason why I will NEVER carry a gun. I'm never going to be willing to kill someone. I don't care what the situation is I'm not going to sleep at night knowing I killed someone. That's just me.
T
TxGoat
Guest
You have to look at this from an employers perspective. If you look at statistics, you'll see that there are always going to be some accidents reported when a firearm is involved. Could you imagine the liability costs for the employer if lets say the pharmacist shot an innocent store shopper? Most employers will mandate a firearm free workplace because of the liability implications.
Here's some nice proof...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zw-jTCNZSmY
Here's some nice proof...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zw-jTCNZSmY
IOWA
Mr. Logic Pants
This is true. However on the flip side, what happens when people start suing for failing to provide a safe work environment? I think the best policy is no policy (meaning let the law of the land decide if people carry) and personal responsibilty.
Frisco
=Luceat Lux Vestra=
I'm in agreement with "..the best policy is no policy..allow the law of the land.."
But insurance companies argue that notion down, so that they can have a sort of pivot point for litigation. So, if retail outlets etc want insurance, they have to formulate policy wrt these things.
But insurance companies argue that notion down, so that they can have a sort of pivot point for litigation. So, if retail outlets etc want insurance, they have to formulate policy wrt these things.
T
TxGoat
Guest
I think employers will argue that they can provide a certain level of security for their workers. I don't even think OSHA has anything on their books that require employers to provide a certain level of protection from criminal activity. If there were federal mandates for this, I'm sure some people would be all up in arms about government intrusion.
OstrichSaK
Android Expert
This has NOTHING to do with OSHA or the Feds. This has everything to do with an agreement between an employer and an employee. If you won't let me protect myself then you need to protect me. This will include armed security on the premises on the property at all times when employees are present. As soon as you see what that will cost you may want to consider just looking the other way as those who are capable and willing to take on that responsibility free of charge do their thing.
All those who are anti-gun; why is it alright for people with a badge to carry/use them? What makes them worthy of the right yet not law abiding citizens?
A.Nonymous
Extreme Android User
It's extremely hard to argue that the lack of a security guard constitutes an unsafe work environment IMO. What is the employer supposed to do. Provide a security guard 24/7? What if the employee gets mugged behind the building while taking out the trash? Does the employer now need to provide a security guard to each employee to follow them around their entire shift. It's not reasonable. The employer could easily argue that a non-escalation policy is a protection for the employee and the employee circumvented that protection by escalating the system. Every business in America has the potential of being robbed. Should armed security at every single business be a requirement?
OstrichSaK
Android Expert
The simple solution is to allow those able and willing to protect themselves. Doesn't cost a dime.
A.Nonymous
Extreme Android User
Other than the increased insurance costs to cover accidents.
T
TxGoat
Guest
I'm not arguing one case over another, I'm stating what it will come down to, corporate rights to profit > your right to safety (in this case). I know some people think that companies are altruistic entities with deep pockets that want the absolute best for their employees, but history doesn't reflect that sentiment. Hell, look back 100 years ago and the phrase workplace safety wasn't even acknowledged until the government made companies abide by a minimum level. This isn't my belief, just a harsh reality. Look at all the 24 hour shops around the country and you'll find that companies typically don't have armed security if the expense is too large based on the sizeof their business, and I'm sure they also have a policy against carrying a weapon onsite.
OstrichSaK
Android Expert
That's just silly. How many businesses have you owned or managed that had a check box for insurance about the banning of firearms in company policies?
OstrichSaK
Android Expert
This is my point: If you feel the general need to ban employees their constitutional right to protect themselves from criminals then you must provide armed security. It's not right that as it stands companies can have their cake and eat it too. The loser is employees who need a paycheck.
T
TxGoat
Guest
I'm willing to bet that many insurance companies will either raise your premium or outright cancel your policy if you have a concealed weapon policy for your employees.
OstrichSaK
Android Expert
Nobody said you have to add a policy SUPPORTING it. That's the difference. Just done add any verbiage banning it. Just allow the laws in place to mandate who should and shouldn't just as they do once that employee walks out the door. Simple as that. There are lots of insurance companies if you're that worried about it. I just don't see why a place of employment should be so drastically different than the rest of the world or that same business to customers.
T
TxGoat
Guest
Because if something happens with an employee owned gun and the company didn't have a policy banning the gun, guess who is liable? In HS I worked at Walmart and one of our plain-clothed security guys tackled a shoplifter as he tried to flee. He was fired that week. I didn't see what the problem was until someone told me all the scenarios that could play out in that situation. It's risk management on the company's part.
A.Nonymous
Extreme Android User
There is a term for a company that has an accident in the workplace involving an employee who had/has a gun - bankrupt. If an employee is killed during a robbery, it's a tragedy, but insurance covers it and it's basically treated as an act of God. It's a random incident that can't be predicted or prevented. Having armed employees running around your business is seen as a risk that can be predicted/prevented.
Clearly the law does not agree with you. I know of no law that requires employers to provide armed security. Requiring that is a bit ludicrous. Most banks around here don't have armed security. It's an unnecessary burden to place on employers.