Guns: Private Property vs. Gun Rights
Lately, at Hell in a Handbasket and in other places, the question of whether employers should forbid their employees from carrying a gun has been in the spotlight. Frankly, it's a complex issue, since employers are usually on the hook for any negligence of their employee when they're working in the course of their employment.
Then again, employers are often tasked with providing a safe workplace by various regulations. When pizza delivery guys are being assaulted and murdered just for the cash they carry, it'd seem like the employers aren't holding up their end of the bargain.
It must be noted that carrying a gun on the job isn't illegal, but it may get you fired. For my part, I'd rather be out of a job for a few months than dead permanently, but I have the luxury of family and friends to fall back on. The best thing to do might be for others to exert pressure on these businesses to change their ways - otherwise, we all might be faced with such Forks in the future.
posted by Mulliga @ 1:34 AM
2 comments
2 Comments:
Actually, I only touch on the issue as to whether a business should ban employee guns.
My take on the subject is that any privately owned business should be allowed to hire or fire employees as they see fit, for any reason or for no reason at all.
I mean, the business is theirs, right?
My objection to Mr. Drum's op-ed is that he seems to actually believe that concealed weapons, lawfully carried, will result in routine gun fights. In his mind, if the delivery guy has a gun then a fight is sure to occur.
This is absurd.
He also lays the blame for the shooting on the driver who legally defended himself, not on the perp who threatened innocent life by using a weapon during a hold up.
This is asinine.
So far as Pizza Hut firing the guy who used his gun to lawfully defend himself, I think that is their right. But I also think that they are lying through their teeth when they say they are doing so out of concern for the safety of their other employees.
I think it is pretty clear that they are only concerned with having to pay money to lawyers if some criminal decides to sue them after getting shot.
James
You're correct, James. The THR discussion is more about restraints on employers, but your post and the original op-ed are about the choice employers have. I edited my post - don't want to mischaracterize anything.
It's too bad victims of workplace violence would find it hard to sue in this case.
Post a Comment
<< Home