This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Classic Theme
Thottbot Theme
Discrimination on... gun holders?
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
Squishalot
Just read this article at work today:
http://www.smh.com.au/world/americans-fight-for-right-to-bear-arms--at-work-20121213-2bc23.html
So, if these sorts of laws come on board, then people will be allowed to bring weapons into office and workshop environments.
If a company can't legitimately employ a policy preventing people from bringing weapons to work, can they discriminate against gun ownership? Is that a legitimate form of discrimination? Could you mount an argument on the impact of gun ownership (and gun possession) on productivity, I wonder?
Questions, questions... though I'd suggest that they would be very hard pressed to make this legislation work, even in the US.
Post by
b4xx
I don't even understand, why would somone... Ahh forget it. Sounds utterly ridiculous to me.
Post by
HiVolt
From the way your source article reads, it only seems that gun owners would only be allowed to keep guns concealed in their own cars in the parking lots where they work. Going on the idea that they wouldn't actually be allowed to carry guns inside, I don't see this as that great of a change from the way things already are with concealed carry laws. Technically speaking, the car is someone's personal property, and they should be allowed to keep a gun there if they wish, provided that it is legal for them to carry concealed weapons in that state. It's really not that much of a change, in my opinion. Not that I'm for the legislation or anything... in fact, my gut tells me that it's not a good idea. (It's nothing against protecting oneself but just against guns in general. Anything that allows someone to instantly kill another person from more than a couple of yards away throws up red flags for me.) But, I don't see it as that much of a departure from current law.
As far as discrimination against gun ownership goes, it's entirely possible and completely applicable. Owning a gun is completely voluntary, not unlike using recreational drugs. Companies discriminate against recreational drug users, so it's no stretch of the imagination that they might discriminate against gun owners if they really wanted to fight this. But, companies, large ones at least, would be putting themselves in bed with the competition, in a way; by aligning themselves with the detractors from these laws, whom will more than likely be Democrats, they could be opening themselves up to more regulation, which they certainly don't want. Traditional Republicans siding with Democrats in order to combat more traditional Republicans... It'll certainly be interesting to see how this plays out.
Gun ownership and productivity... not really sure about that. I'd have to look for some studies. I doubt that it would have much of an effect on workmanship beyond promoting assertive confidence, which, though I have no studies on hand to back up my claim, I would think rises with gun ownership. I.E. I own a gun, therefore I am more confident in my ability to protect myself, which transfers to my general ability to ensure my well-being, which makes me more confident about being able to handle more difficult tasks in the workplace. In that way, it might actually be a good thing: hiring gun owners. But the same principal could be applied to people who know unarmed self-defense techniques, I would think.
It certainly opens up the possibility for increased workplace violence. But, on the other hand, one could argue that it opens up the possibility for increased personal protection in the workplace to combat that workplace violence. Definitely a fine line.
Again, and I can't stress this enough, I don't support the ownership of guns for personal protection. However, I don't see this as that great of a change. Also, I welcome any and all questions about this personal philosophy of mine, seeing as it will likely draw many questions from both sides of the aisle and/or ocean/s.
Post by
331902
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
207044
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Squishalot
Going on the idea that they wouldn't actually be allowed to carry guns inside, I don't see this as that great of a change from the way things already are with concealed carry laws.
I believe that the article highlights the possibility of much higher severity work-rage incidents when firearms are within relatively close proximity (i.e. minutes at hand).
But, on the other hand, one could argue that it opens up the possibility for increased personal protection in the workplace to combat that workplace violence.
I would argue that if that is an argument being made, then employers should be able to reduce/remove their duty of care to protect employees from violence, on the expectation that staff should protect themselves. That's not a scenario I would care to have, but it is the logical consequence of taking matters into an employee's own hands by such legislation.
I guess I'm more curious about the practicality of the situation. Suppose Magician (being the first forum member that comes to mind who has a hefty armament) comes over to my house one day, and I refuse to let him in because he's carrying a weapon. That's my right to do that, as it's my property, and my control over my personal environment trumps his right to bear arms - it becomes trespass if he chooses to stay on the property. Now suppose that it's a workplace instead. Should an employer be able at rights to reject people who carry firearms onto their property, and why should it differ?(##RESPBREAK##)8##DELIM##Squishalot##DELIM##
Post by
134377
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
HiVolt
Suppose Magician (being the first forum member that comes to mind who has a hefty armament) comes over to my house one day, and I refuse to let him in because he's carrying a weapon. That's my right to do that, as it's my property, and my control over my personal environment trumps his right to bear arms - it becomes trespass if he chooses to stay on the property. Now suppose that it's a workplace instead. Should an employer be able at rights to reject people who carry firearms onto their property, and why should it differ?
This isn't an equal parallel, though. In your scenario, he'd have it on his person and not safely put away in his car. This law would only allow someone to have it in a vehicle and not actually on their person. To me, if you were to send someone away because they have a gun in their car, that seems a little paranoid (not that keeping a gun in your car isn't a little paranoid on its own, but that's beside the point I'm trying to make here). When the gun is in the vehicle, it's not technically on your property. Only if the car were to become yours by entering your property would you be able to dictate what should and should not be inside it. In fact, one might be able to draw the same argument concerning guns on commercial flights (which, I believe, we've talked about before). I.E. so long as the gun stays safely within your luggage (regardless of it being carry-on or checked luggage), who is to say that you shouldn't be allowed to take it with you on a flight?
Back to the original topic, though: a solution to this might be in giving employees company cars with which they can travel to and from work. Since the car is company property, the company is allowed to dictate whether or not someone is allowed to keep a gun within it.
Again, and I can't stress this enough, I don't support the ownership of guns for personal protection. However, I don't see this as that great of a change. Also, I welcome any and all questions about this personal philosophy of mine, seeing as it will likely draw many questions from both sides of the aisle and/or ocean/s.
Ok the big change here is they can bring it on the commute so when they stop for gas or are driving and get a flat on the dark empty road at 4am they dont have to go without protection. Because before they couldnt have firearm even in vehicle at work thus preventing them from bringing it on the commute.
As for most things I am pro choice(not the cliche political way) unless that choice infringes on anothers rights. And when that choice does infringe on anothers rights you should face the consequences. I feel the choice to defend oneselve with a firearm is a right. Especially when it comes to violence some people dont have the size or strength to fight off a attacker even with training. Only one thing evens the playing field.
But that being said I am in the view that guns are not just for self defence. But for the defence of your countrys integrity and core. Most countrys even the ones that use nerve agents and other toxins on their own people started from some form of democracy. What caused the fall of rome giving one guy all the power. Our government has to have at least fear us at least a little or it all falls apart. We the people are the final check and balance and trust me when the time comes and the governments too corrupt our power to vote can be ignored. Our power to resist and stand up though will never be able to be ignored unless we give up that right freely.
I really don't see that as much of a change, though, beyond allowing people to indulge a bit more in what I already see as a little bit of a paranoid fantasy; in that, "Criminals have guns. They might try to use those guns to harm me or my family. I should own a gun and carry it with me so that I can defend myself and them if those possibly imaginary criminals, inexplicably targeting me and/or my family specifically, try anything." I'd rather walk around with the idea that both me and my family don't have to worry about becoming the victims of criminal activity because criminals are few and far between and would not likely be targeting me personally, even if they were around. Indeed, the right to protect oneself is important. But, one does not need to carry a gun to do that.
As far as being less physically imposing than a possible attacker, there are other ways to defend oneself that don't require one to be larger than an attacker: tasers, pepper sprays, specific self-defense techniques (ear boxing, throat strikes, etc.), and more. Having a gun is not the only way to level the playing field, unless the attacker also has a gun. In that event, they've likely already got it out and pointed at you. How does your having one also make you any less vulnerable to attack, barring many hours of training your quick draw? For me at least, it's a better idea to just allow yourself to be robbed than to risk being shot in the process of drawing your weapon and then go through the proper legal channels to bring the criminal to justice. "But, HiVolt, what if they shoot you after you give them what they want!" Well, bad luck, chum... you just happened to run into one of the more depraved criminals. They would have shot you regardless of if you'd given them what they wanted or not.
In regard to protecting oneself and the public from tyranny and all that... I guess that it is a logical reason, but I would rather believe that we as a people are capable of overcoming tyranny without violence and bloodshed. We already have a system of government that protects from tyranny, just in a different way. The three branches already make sure that no one branch becomes too powerful. This isn't a feudal state where the evil Baron rules over the serfs with an iron fist, and I don't ever see it becoming that. If it does, it was doomed from the very start. We've gone over 200 years without a despot reaching the office of the Presidency, and I don't think that will become something we should worry about any time in the foreseeable future. One guy doesn't have all the power, can't have all the power, and won't have all the power, so this argument is for nil in my opinion.
To me, owning a gun for personal protection is a sort of fulfillment of a childhood fantasy. It makes you into a superhero, without having to deal with transparent secret identities and ill-fitting sportswear, by putting the power of life and death into your hands. Sure, it's a great way to boost your self-confidence, but it seems to come at the cost of increased paranoia: in that, "I own a gun. Everyone else might also own a gun, including every possible nefarious element that may or may not wish to do harm to me." Also, it makes every possible criminal into a prospective supervillain, which the vast majority of them certainly aren't. Again, my opinion, feel free to rebut if you wish.
Post by
gamerunknown
The one difference with recreational drugs is that they're illegal and there's a constitutional right to own guns. I think if the situations were reversed, everyone would be a lot more chill. Or we'd all be speaking German, but macht nichts. Funny story actually, a Tea Party state rep or something with serious creds (didn't agree with a single liberal position) got primaried due to the NRA campaigning against her. Why? She voted to allow employers to discriminate against gunholders. Wise and benevolent hand of the free market and all that.
Post by
331902
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
207044
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
HiVolt
The whole point of non-lethal self-defense is that it's non-lethal. It's not meant to kill your attacker or maim them in any serious way. The purpose is to slow them down or stop them long enough for you to get away and get help. Also, if you're shaky with a taser, you're going to be shaky with a gun. There's no guarantee that you'll hit your target with either weapon.
The analogy you make about seatbelts doesn't quite fit. A seatbelt can't pose any kind of physical threat to anyone, where a gun absolutely does, regardless of the wielder. I agree that the real problem is the illegal ownership of guns. But, I don't think that a problem of having too many guns on the street can be solved by throwing more guns at it.
I've never applied for a concealed carry permit, but I have no doubt that they are rather thorough in the process. I have no problem with concealed carry so long as the second amendment exists and the process of obtaining the permit remains thorough. But, I do have a problem with the ideology behind wanting to obtain that permit. To me, it rings of paranoia. "I must carry a gun because I can be attacked at any time." I'd rather think that I'm not going to be attacked and just go about my business without indulging in a fear of an imaginary boogeyman.
I would also consider the confiscation of legally owned weapons to be tyranny. But, that's not going to happen. Nobody who fights for gun control has ever said that it would. I don't understand this line of thinking. It's entirely constructed and entirely unwarranted. If you own your guns legally, you have absolutely nothing to worry about. The government will never attempt to come and take them away, so worrying about it is indulging in a fantasy that has never existed in this country and very likely won't ever exist. The worst you might have to worry about is the government saying that you can't legally own assault weapons (re: guns which have fully-automatic fire rates), which is entirely reasonable in my opinion. To me, it's bad enough that someone can cause the death of another human being with just the flick of a finger. Adding the ability to cause mass death with the same amount of time and energy to that already astounding idea is just asking for trouble.
Post by
331902
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Magician22773
I have said it before many times, when you come up with a way to get the guns away from criminals, then I would, at least slightly, be open to discussing disarming law abiding citizens. Until then, gun control activists have no leg to stand on.
It is the most basic of cliche's..."If you outlaw guns, only criminal's will have them".....you cannot present a valid argument against that.
As for the OP. Businesses have the right to ban weapons from their
property
, if they choose to. That is not discrimination in any form. That is the exercise of property rights. This would extend to the parking lot of the business, and thus, an employee's car. However, if an employee chose to park their car across the street, an employer should have no say in what is kept in their vehicle. If a business were to refuse to hire, or terminate employment because someone was found to be a gun owner, then that would be discrimination.
What I am waiting to see, is the first litigation filed against a business that forbid's legal concealed carry on their property that results in injury or death.
Scenario: A business forbids firearms on their property, and is robbed. The robber shoots and kills a customer. Another customer in the store comes forward and states that he is a concealed carry permit holder, and that he would have, under normal circumstances, been armed at the time of the shooting, but the business' policy had caused him to leave his weapon in the car.
It would be very possible that a jury could find the business liable for the death of the customer because their policy directly prevented the trained CCW holder from deploying his weapon, which could have prevented the shooting.
Under the right circumstances, and with the right lawyer and jury, this type of case could be a possibility.
Post by
Squishalot
As for the OP. Businesses have the right to ban weapons from their property , if they choose to. That is not discrimination in any form. That is the exercise of property rights. This would extend to the parking lot of the business, and thus, an employee's car. However, if an employee chose to park their car across the street, an employer should have no say in what is kept in their vehicle.
I don't think that's prohibited at the moment right now anyway though, is it? The new legislation, I think, would force businesses to stop banning weapons from their property.
It would be very possible that a jury could find the business liable for the death of the customer because their policy directly prevented the trained CCW holder from deploying his weapon, which could have prevented the shooting.
There's no negligence on behalf of the business, especially not criminal negligence. There is no direct link because of that 'could have' in your sentence - 'could have' doesn't cut it. You wouldn't be able to demonstrate that beyond the avoidance of doubt, that the person would not have been shot but for the implementation of the policy. I don't think that situation would ever arise, which is why it hasn't thus far, I'd say.
Post by
207044
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Magician22773
There's no negligence on behalf of the business, especially not criminal negligence. There is no direct link because of that 'could have' in your sentence - 'could have' doesn't cut it. You wouldn't be able to demonstrate that beyond the avoidance of doubt, that the person would not have been shot but for the implementation of the policy. I don't think that situation would ever arise, which is why it hasn't thus far, I'd say.
Criminal negligence, no. But civil liability, yes. For starters, the burden of proof in civil liability cases is not "beyond a reasonable doubt", but instead is "preponderance of the evidence" (see O.J. Simpson cases, for example).
And again, it would take specific circumstances. If the CCW holder could testify, and perhaps prove via security video, that he would have had a clear shot at the robber, had he not be forced to surrender his weapon, that could be enough to swing a jury.
Post by
331902
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
gamerunknown
But civil liability, yes.
Do you have a cite to back this up? I really can't imagine any court considering the argument "I would have shot the robber if this business didn't prevent me from taking my gun in here". Far more likely is that the businesses would be required to have armed guards at checkpoints.
It is the most basic of cliche's..."If you outlaw guns, only criminal's will have them".....you cannot present a valid argument against that.
That's because it's tautological. If you outlaw sleeping rough, only criminals will sleep rough. Does that do anything to address sleeping rough? Not really. Neither does banning citizens from bearing arms - there are underlying issues to the USs murder rate.
Post by
HiVolt
You have probably already heard of the
elementary school shooting
that took place today in Newtown, Connecticut. Until more reports come in, the only information that we have is that the gunman was 24-year-old Ryan Lanza, that he carried either two or four weapons, wore black clothing and a bullet-proof vest. He killed his father and his mother (who worked as a teacher at the elementary school), and at least 18 children. It is truly a terrible tragedy.
EDIT:
Apparently it was his brother found dead in Newark, New Jersey, and not his father. Also, 20 children have been confirmed dead along with 6 adults and various others wounded.
EDIT 2:
The name of the gunman has been confirmed as Adam Lanza, not Ryan Lanza. He was an honors student. He was armed with two handguns and a .223 caliber rifle. Authorities have not been able to find any possible motive. There was no note or manifesto and Lanza had no criminal history. Ryan Lanza, his brother, was not killed in the attack, and he described his brother. "My brother has always been a nerd. He still wears a pocket protector." An old friend of Adam's said that he was always a good kid, and probably one of the smartest people he'd ever known.
Do you think this horrific event could have been avoided through stricter gun control laws? Why or why not? Do you think that with this and other recent mass murders involving firearms, that we need to rethink our position on gun control or is does this problem go beyond simple gun ownership? Do you think that the teachers might have been able to prevent the tragedy if they had been allowed to keep concealed firearms either in their vehicles or on their persons in schools?
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.