SUBSCRIBE E-NEWSLETTERS AWARDS COLUMNS MULTIMEDIA CONFERENCES ABOUT US RESEARCH
Reader Feedback

Thursday, October 30, 2008
Write To The Editor Reprints

James P. Anelli wrote about Florida's law preventing employers from banning guns in the automobiles of concealed-handgun permitholders (who have undergone background checks stricter than those required to enter the police academy).  His view is that, to deter would-be killers from bringing their guns to work, employers should be able to threaten them will the loss of their job.

One of the things managers can do to get around the law is to tell employees that even if permit-holders do store guns in their cars, they can still be fired if they use them to murder managers or fellow workers.  We must lobby the legislatures to ensure that the 2nd Amendment is not interpreted as protecting the jobs of murderers.  As for workers with violent, uncontrollable tempers, such people don't usually have the kind of clean police record required to obtain concealed carry permits.

If an executive believes his workers are nonetheless endangered, he might consider having his managers cross-trained as armed plain-clothes security guards.  Security guards must have a reasonable amount of intelligence and character to be trusted with weapons; but it is likely that at least some of a business' managers would be able to make the grade.

Frank Silbermann

Memphis, Tenn.

* * * * *

I had the misfortune to read James' above article, which was nothing more than an uninformed gibberish written by someone who knows absolutely nothing about the subject at hand. James may be a fine HR manager, but his knowledge of the subject of firearms is woefully lacking. Let's start with this, I quote from his article:  

"Opponents of these measures, including the American Bar Association, point to the fact that one of the leading causes of death in the workplace is employee homicide by use of firearms. For example, between 1980 and 2006, there were 16,454 homicides -- approximately 663 a year -- by shooting in the workplace. Similarly, a recent Society for Human Resource Management survey indicated that its members overwhelmingly favored an employer's right to limit firearms in the workplace, in part based on a U.S. Department of Justice survey finding that 2 million employees are assaulted and/or threatened at work annually. "

There is a huge disconnect here. All of these shootings took place at workplaces that already denied their employees their right to carry a firearm! Most of these took place at liquor and convenience stores, not offices and factories. To try and use this raw data to back an un-American, anti-freedom agenda is a distortion at best.

Did any of the companies where these shootings took place really think their "policy" was going to stop a deranged lunatic from robbing and killing? Using the America Bar Association as a reference is not going to help James' position. 99 percent of Americans already think lawyers and the bar are the scum of the earth, using them was a huge mistake.

I also like how James seems to think only of the company and its rules. Well, for James' information, not he nor any company have the authority to deny me my natural right to defend myself. Nobody has the right to tell me what I can or cannot have in my vehicle, which is my property and an extension of my home.

James needs to learn more about being an American, natural rights, freedom and liberty and learn to rely less on what his masters tell him he must do.

Bill von Besser

* * * * *

I was dismayed to read Mr. Anelli's "Firearms at Work" article after being directed to it by a friend. The position Mr. Anelli takes is fallacious and dangerous for a number of reasons.

The primary fallacy is that somehow restricting the legal ownership of guns locked in cars is going to reduce the illegal use of guns to commit violence on an employer's property. There is not one shred of evidence to support such a position and it is not rooted in any logic.

For example, many well-known cases of shootings of fellow employees in the workplace involve post offices. As you may be aware, post offices are Federal property and the possession of guns on this property by employees, customers or anyone else other than law enforcement officers is forbidden in every post office in the nation regardless of whether the employer has applied signs or other policies restricting firearms.

Yet it is clear, even a Federal law prohibiting guns in workplaces does nothing to actually prevent those intent on committing crime from entering the workplace and shooting their coworkers.

The second fallacy repeated in this article is that prohibitions on legal gun ownership and the legal carrying of guns will enhance safety. In fact there is no actual evidence that this is true and this fallacy also fails the logical test. Denying one the right to defend themselves with equal force to that of the violent criminal does not make one more safe.

You see, every position that Mr. Anelli took in this article encourages the continuance of these flaws in reason. It is quite simple: no person who is intent on committing violence using a gun, any other weapon, or even their own hands, is going to be stopped magically by a company policy. Murder is illegal in all states, whether it is on an employee's parking lot or not.

Yet somehow murder still happens. It is only by dismissing reason that one could conclude that an employer's policy is going to have greater force of persuasion than the law towards the violent criminal.

The fact is that it is a violation of privacy not only for an employer to ask if an employee is carrying a gun in their car, but also it is similarly a violation of privacy to even ask if they are carrying a gun on their person. There is no other property whose ownership is protected by the Constitution besides guns.

It would be more Constitutional to deny an employee the right to wear clothing at work than to deny them their right to carry a gun. The bearing of arms equips people in their basic human right to defend their own life, and therefore to basic survival. When you deny me the right to legally carry a gun at work, much less to store one in my car, then you deny me the means by which to defend my own life.

The statistics Mr. Anelli pointed out in his essay illustrate this point extremely well.

According to these statistics, the workplace is a reasonably violent place where an employee should reasonably expect to encounter violent crime. This is a powerful reason that employees forced into such an environment should not be stripped of their means to defend themselves against such violence.

Newsletter Sign-Up:

Benefits
HR Technology
Talent Management
HR Leadership
Inside HR Tech
HRENow
Special Offers

Email Address



Privacy Policy

Josh Karnes

* * * * *

I was dismayed to read Mr. Anelli's "Firearms at Work" article after being directed to it by a friend. The position Mr. Anelli takes is fallacious and dangerous for a number of reasons.

The primary fallacy is that somehow restricting the legal ownership of guns locked in cars is going to reduce the illegal use of guns to commit violence on an employer's property. There is not one shred of evidence to support such a position and it is not rooted in any logic.

For example, many well-known cases of shootings of fellow employees in the workplace involve post offices. As you may be aware, post offices are federal property and the possession of guns on this property by employees, customers or anyone else other than law enforcement officers is forbidden in every post office in the nation regardless of whether the employer has applied signs or other policies restricting firearms. Yet it is clear, even a federal law prohibiting guns in workplaces does nothing to actually prevent those intent on committing crime from entering the workplace and shooting their coworkers.

The second fallacy repeated in this article is that prohibitions on legal gun ownership and the legal carrying of guns will enhance safety. In fact there is no actual evidence that this is true and this fallacy also fails the logical test. Denying one the right to defend themselves with equal force to that of the violent criminal does not make one more safe.

You see, every position that Mr. Anelli took in this article encourages the continuance of these flaws in reason. It is quite simple: No person who is intent on committing violence using a gun, any other weapon, or even their own hands, is going to be stopped magically by a company policy. Murder is illegal in all states, whether it is on an employee's parking lot or not. Yet somehow murder still happens. It is only by dismissing reason that one could conclude that an employer's policy is going to have greater force of persuasion than the law towards the violent criminal.

The fact is that it is a violation of privacy not only for an employer to ask if an employee is carrying a gun in their car, but also it is similarly a violation of privacy to even ask if they are carrying a gun on their person. There is no other property whose ownership is protected by the Constitution besides guns.

It would be more Constitutional to deny an employee the right to wear clothing at work than to deny them their right to carry a gun.

The bearing of arms equips people in their basic human right to defend their own life, and therefore to basic survival. When you deny me the right to legally carry a gun at work, much less to store one in my car, then you deny me the means by which to defend my own life.

The statistics Mr. Anelli pointed out in his essay illustrate this point extremely well. According to these statistics, the workplace is a reasonably violent place where an employee should reasonably expect to encounter violent crime. This is a powerful reason that employees forced into such an environment should not be stripped of their means to defend themselves against such violence.

Brian Compton

Copyright 2014© LRP Publications