Should a company that forbids its employees,and contracted security guards from carrying any form of weapon, (not even a pocketknife), be held financially liable if their building is attacked by terrorists and people are killed or injured ?
So who's getting arrested if a gun toting patriot shoots up a church? The pastor?
Yes. It's akin to placing English Bobbies in your building. "Stop! I say! Don't give me to say it again or you'll be in trouble!"
Should a company that does be held responsible if an employee uses a weapon to attack somebody?
See my comment to Xzach below....rules that say a person can’t carry in the office would NOT prevent someone from bringing a gun into the office ...
No, the law-breaking employee should be (and is) liable.
No. The less regulation the better. If an employee doesn’t feel safe he should quit.
Only if you are going to hold them similarly liable in the far more likely event of workplace dumbassery escalating into workplace violence. And if you hold them liable for one armed idiot shooting an innocent bystander (or probably more likely) himself if they did allow unnecessary weapons on the property. Strictly based on history and math, guns are better left at home in the vast majority of cases.
In my opinion, the terrorists should be the ones liable. They’re the ones committing the crime.
They are liable. But I am prevented from effectively defending myself due to the company’s misguided policy. Doesn’t my lack of defense count for something?
My office is a gun free zone and we have security locks and all employees have security passes to access the building. We also have security guards in the campus. Arming the employees would not make me any safer.
Do employees hold the door open for folks entering at the same time without them badging in ? We see that often at the office I work at , and folks get written up for it ... I would have no issue with trained and licensed folks carrying around me, I would feel safer ...
No, I haven’t seen anyone hold the door for someone, but that doesn’t mean it hasn’t happened. I personally don’t feel any safer around people who have license to carry. In the work places, where I have worked I think employees with guns is are a risk. A disgruntled employee with license to carry is just like a terrorist if he/she wants to shoot up the office. Is the employer responsible for that situation?
So a rule that says employees can’t carry in the office is going to stop someone intent on evil from bringing a gun to the office and killing people ? Wouldn’t you feel safer knowing if that were to occur, someone there might be able take out the shooter before he kills more people ? This is the one thing most gun control advocates miss...they assume that criminals will obey the law ...they don’t !!!!
No, just because some office employees can carry a gun doesn’t make me feel safer. The majority of people killed are killed by someone they know, not a random stranger.
Do you think everyone should carry a gun?
I have no issue with law abiding properly trained and vetted persons carry a firearm... it’s their choice whether to do that though ...
The Las Vegas mass murderer was a law abiding citizen, I think? Until he decided to kill 58 people. You just don’t know who is evil and who is not. Arming every citizen doesn’t make us any safer.
I personally don’t carry but I’m not against those who do. However I don’t live my life in fear either.
So every law abiding person who carries is a potential mass murderer ??
If you research the actual statistics , CHL holders are MORE law abiding than police officers ...
All the statistics in the world don’t change the fact that most people are murdered by someone they already know.
Thanksgiving in Richmond Va a youth pastor murders his entire family of 3 with a handgun. Does this mean we should ban guns. No! Does this mean the entire family should have been strapped? No!
My point is you just don’t know what will happen or when. If we all walked around living in fear more people would be dead from violence using the lame excuse, I felt threatened.
Don’t know where you live, but living in Texas, I take comfort in the fact that many folks carry here ...
xzach, you shouldn’t feel threatened by CCW holders who are carrying. If someone is disgruntled and wants to shoot up the office, a lack of CCW permit will not stop him. A “gun free zone” won’t stop him. And if he’s an employee then he can get right in through those badged doors.
The only way that a CCW holder makes you less safe is if that screened, law abiding person suddenly flies off of the handle, and starts shooting up people for no good reason; but would cool down on the drive home to get the gun (i.e. he is only a danger if he has instant access to a firearm). As far as I can tell this virtually never happens. Previous law abiding citizens who kill (such as the Vegas murderer) planned their murderous sprees and did not need a CCW permit to cause damage.
You think Mr. Mall Cop is gonna stop an IED and guys with AK's and a deathwish? Ha
Good point...but it is a layer of security (although weak) that could warn folks and call 911...
I think it would be different for a "run of the mill" active shooter versus a trained goon squad. The establishment should be held liable in the event of some guy walking in and shooting up the place.
Should a company that allows guns in their business be held responsible in the same scenario?
Then neither should the company that bans them....
Of course they should be. The company that banned them prevented me from defending myself. If they banned seatbelts and I got in a car wreck then they should be liable as well.
Any family member of a CCW permit holder who was injured or killed should be able to sue if the company banned guns, because the company’s actions prevented their loved one from being able to effectively defend themselves.
Then so should those that "allowed" the gun in that the criminal used. Don't be hypicritical....
Agreed. If a criminal is carrying a gun then by definition it’s not allowed. If they ask the business if they may carry a gun illegally and the business grants permission, then they should be liable.
“Gun free zones” don’t stop criminals, they just carry the guns right in past the magical gun free force fields (oh, wait, those don’t exist).
They do stop CCW holders, as CCW holders are law abiding and are forced by law not to carry.
If a business’ policy allows a criminal to have a gun and the gun causes injury then hold the business liable. If it forces a CCW not to carry and his lack of gun causes him to be injured then the business should be liable. Fair?
The person may not have a criminal background, if the company "allows" anyone to bring a weapon on premises and that person injures or kills someone, that company is just as liable (or not) as much as the company that bans weapons on premises. Any argument against that is hypicriticl. Plain and sumple....
Not true. A company that is not a “gun free zone” does NOT allow criminals to carry guns. Legal CCW are the only people allowed to carry. Having a sign that says “Guns for Legal CCW only” would be redundant; all businesses are like that unless they post “gun-free” signs. Their action has NOT given permission or allowed any criminal to carry guns.
In contrast a business that is a “gun-free zone” has taken actions that have actively disarmed CCW holders.
This is really a very simple difference that any reasonable person can see.
Again , I said not a "criminal" until they decide to kill. I now know you are a hypocrite. Have a nice day....
If someone brings a bomb into a store and blows it to pieces, should the store be liable for not having a sign that makes it a “bomb-free zone”? Of course not. All businesses are bomb-free according to the law. All businesses are similarly gun-free for non-CCW holders.
Any person who will kill will ignore a “gun-free” sign. So the gun free zone won’t stop them, nor does a lack of one give them permission. If you don’t understand this then you are an idiot. So you’re either an idiot due to lack of understanding of a simple fact, or trolling by calling me a hypocrite. I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt and go with the latter.
I understand perfectly. Either both companies are liable or neither is. I stand by anyone who believes otherwise is a hypocrite. We are either going to blame the criminal or not in both scenarios. In fact, if in both instances, if both are legally allowed to have a gun, only one is breaking a rule/law by entering the business.... So again have a nice day...
The dmv's in Florida have armed state troopers at their locations. At least the ones in browsed county did.
Dang it. I put this in the wrong spot.
Should I be blamed if I am mugged and do not carry a gun?
Not the same situation ... that’s your personal nap choice ...what I am asking is does an employer have any responsibility for the safety of its unarmed employees and security personnel ? The employer chooses to create a “gun free zone”...should they be held responsible for that choice ?
Don’t know why spell check added “nap” ?
As far as I am aware guns are not allowed in the dmv. If someone decides to shoot up the dmv (definitely not out of the question) is it their fault? Not at all
In my opinion, It would really depend on if the employer (in your case the DMV) made any effort at all to secure the property (Security guards etc)...
Up here they’ve got nothing besides the occasional cop wandering around getting his registration renewed
In Texas, the driver license offices have a State Trooper present when they are open ...
I’m with gunluvr. If a company bans guns then it’s their responsibility to secure the premises with armed guards, metal detectors, etc. Otherwise they should be liable if a CCW holder is attacked.