Workplace Violence & Gun Control
Gun-related violence is one of the leading causes of workplace deaths. The Bureau of Labor and Statistics reports that there were 632 workplace homicides in 2003 - accounting for over one-tenth of all workplace fatalities.
In addition, a recent study published in the American Journal of Public Health found that workplaces that allow workers to carry firearms and other weapons at work were 5-7 times more likely to be the site of an on the job homicide compared to workplaces that prohibit workers from carrying weapons. [“NRA Calls for Boycott of ConocoPhillips; Visit your Neighborhood Phillips 66 Today”]
Seems obvious, doesn’t it? Some sort of “No Gun Policy” at work seems to make the workplace just a tad safer. I like the idea of going to work and not being a little worried about what might be in who’s briefcase.
If you aren’t a Federal Marshall, a hunter, a law enforcer, or a security guard, why would you need to bring a gun to work?
Apparently there are two states (Oklahoma and Kentucky) that prohibit businesses from banning weapons on their own property. Several companies including ConocoPhillips are fighting the Oklahoma 2003 law in Federal Court
“ConocoPhillips supports the Second Amendment and respects the rights of law abiding citizens to own guns,” the Houston-based oil company says in a written statement. “Our primary concern is the safety of all our employees. We are simply trying to provide a safe and secure working environment for our employees by keeping guns out of our facilities, including our company parking lots.” [“Worker right or workplace danger?”]
In response, the National Rifle Association (NRA) has called for a boycott of ConocoPhillips, despite evidence that workplace gun bans do lower risk to employees.
Businesses should have a reasonable right to restrict what employees can and can’t do on their own property (just like I do not allow anyone to smoke in my home). If my employer can tell me what I can and can’t wear or pierce or tattoo then they should also be able to make rules that will protect me while I’m in their dress-code, right? I think it’s even more important that they have control over what gets brought on their property since they are the ones libale if someone is shot or injured while on the property.
Anyway, I’m off to find a Conoco or Phillips 66 gas station to fill up my Jeep. 
On a personal note, having once been mugged at gunpoint and realizing at the time that even if I had been armed, there was nothing I could have done, plus having nearly been shot in a New Year’s Eve celebration (bullets that get disharged have to go somewhere, folks!), I have no liking for weapons and my friends back home knew that guns were not welcome in my home. Yet they still came to visit and quite often.
tags: gun control, workplace violence, NRA, boycott
on August 17, 2005 at 4:09 pm
Big Dog said:
The interesting thing is that most gun deaths at work are the result of someone who left and came back with a gun. I would argue about people having guns making it more dangerous. In states that have open carry laws the crime rate is drastically reduced and despite the anti gun claim that road rage gun violence would rise there has been only one instance where a person carrying a gun legally shot and killed someone. It was ruled justified because the bad guy was beating the gun owner half to death for bumping his truck in traffic. The gun owner was severely beaten before shooting the thug.
You know, there are many statistics that show that where gun control is the most strict there is greater crime. Criminals prey on the weak and unarmed. Statistics often fail to mention the number of crimes thwarted because a gun or the threat of using one was made.
It is an old cliche but so true. Guns do not kill people. People kill people. The gun happens to be a tool but bats, knives and shovels are used to kill people. The real question would have to be, why should a law abiding citizen be denied a Constitutional right. Newsweek killed more people with its Right to free press than I have with my guns.
More people die in auto collisions each year than by guns and the largest murder in our country’s history took place without the use of one single gun. And as old as it might be I have to say that Ted Kennedy’s car has killed more people than my guns.
Employers have the right to make any legal rule they want. If they allow guns fine if they don’t that too is fine. But one thing is for certain, we have a Constitutional Right to own them.
In addition, to the fact that most workplace shootings happen when someone leaves and returns with a gun it is interesting to not that even though the cited article tries to make it appear that all of the 632 homicides were by gun the fact is 148 were by other means. You will notice that no one walks into a police station and starts shooting. Perhaps it is because people can shoot back.
The workplace issue involves people having guns in their own cars. The article states that the companies fired people for having guns on company property but in your car is you property. What next? Fire people with cigarettes in their car because there is a no smoking policy on company property.
I believe thre were about 6000 homicides in the workplace. So this is 10% of the total. What were the other methods used and what will we, or should we be banning next? One last item about statistics. The article stated that places that allowed guns in the workplace were 5-7% more likely to have a homicide. Not necessarily by guns, just homicide. Yet the article makes it appear that onced again the gun and not the person is the cause.
on August 18, 2005 at 9:22 am
n. mallory said:
I will agree that this is true. I don’t deny anyone the right to own a gun. My last boyfriend was a buge collector of guns and regularly goes out to the country to play with his toys. I see no problem with that.
And yet it’s been ruled that anything in my desk is searchable, including my personal purse and briefcase if my employer sees fit.
You keep mentioning that usually people leave and come back with the gun to shoot. If the gun is just in the parking lot as opposed to in their home, there isn’t enough time for them to possibly calm down. I know my commute helps me forget about my work problems.
I will however conceed that statistics can be misleading if worded the correct way. I do also agree that people are the cause of shootings and the gun is a tool but the easier it is to access the tool, the more likely it is to be used.
Of course, I will admit to my personaly bias in this matter; as I’ve mentioned before, I do not care for guns and they scare the hell out of me. Part of the problem is too many people who don’t have the brains to think before pulling the trigger have access to them.
on August 18, 2005 at 12:10 pm
Oxen said:
Seems obvious, doesn’t it? Some sort of “No Gun Policy” at work seems to make the workplace just a tad safer. I like the idea of going to work and not being a little worried about what might be in who’s briefcase.
A tad safer for who? The people in the workplace or the killer there able to fire at will at unarmed people?
If you aren’t a Federal Marshall, a hunter, a law enforcer, or a security guard, why would you need to bring a gun to work?
Let me ask and answers a few questions.
Do you wear a seat belt when you drive?
Do you own a fire extinguisher?
Do you have your own personal policeman that is with you 24/7?
———–
See I need to wear a seat belt when I drive because if some crazy driver comes out of nowhere I’m not going to have time to put it on while he’s careening towards me.
And I need to have a fire extinguisher at home in case a small fire breaks out and I need to extinguish it instead of calling the Fire Dept., running out of my home and watching it become engulfed in flames while I wait form them to arrive.
And I need to carry my gun with me because the police WILL NOT be there to protect me if someone tries to commit a forceable felony to or around me. Cops will do a dandy job of writing up a report on what happened and to whom but they’re not going to protect you.
If someone breaks into your home or office what would you rather have in your hand, an 911 operator asking you to describe the situation or a .45?
Just ponder this……..
Gun control advocates believe a woman laying dead in an ally, raped and strangled with her own pantyhose is morally superior to a woman having to explain to the cops why she just had to shoot a rapist in the head before he could attack her.
BTW… My work has no problem with me carrying and they feel safer knowing I do.
on August 18, 2005 at 12:57 pm
n. mallory said:
If someone aproaches you with a gun, more than likely if that person is ready to kill you, you will not have time to pull your own gun out.
Even in my self-defense classes (and I trained to blue belt in TaeKwonDo), they basically said that if someone comes at you with a gun, if they don’t look like they are actually going to shoot, do what they say (ie. give them the money, jewelry) unless you have the advantage. Mind you, they also taught what I call “desperate moves” to try if a gun is pressed against your head or if the attacker appears as if he/she intends to shoot.
To be honest, at my previous job, I worked with some really creepy guys who I thought could easily turn postal. Thank goodness we had a policy about that — I worked in a hospital and we had good security.
I guess just based on my own experiences, carrying a gun doesn’t necessarily make you safer. Oddly my boyfriend at the time of my mugging feels the opposite and did acquire a gun afterward. It’s a matter of perception, I guess.
on August 18, 2005 at 6:11 pm
Big Dog said:
I would imagine the ability to defend one’s self against a person with a gun is related to what kind of training the person has had. However, if there is an open carry law you are much less likely to be approached by someone with a gun because they know you might be carrying. This has been shown time and again. The more likely you are NOT to have a gun than the more likely you are to be assaulted with one.
States with high ownership rates have fewer hot burglaries (someone home) than those without. This is because criminals do not know if the person in the house has a gun or not in the places where they are allowed. In strict gun control areas there are many more such burglaries because they know you are unlikly to be able to defend yourself.
Rarely, is there a shooting in a police station. I do not necessarily advocate carrying a gun in the workplace. If your workplace is so bad you need a gun there you need a new job. However, if an employer has made the decision to allow it that is his choice. Training is the key. BTW, a person with a knife is much more dangerous close in.
on August 18, 2005 at 6:31 pm
n. mallory said:
I forgot to mention that I was mugged in the driveway of a police officer next to the squad car. The police officer was in charge of the local 911 call center. I was with his son at the time. He was a black belt in Karate.
It was admittedly the fastest the police have ever gotten to a crime scene ever, but a woman down the street wasn’t so lucky as she got shot in the head after refusing to give the mugger what he wanted.
So, I don’t know that I agree that desperate people are less likely to approach you if they think you are armed. I think desperate people don’t think about that stuff.
on August 20, 2005 at 2:03 am
Big Dog said:
I don’t agree that all criminals are desperate people. Perhaps in the incident you cites. I was not there so I can not comment. I know that you are probably in an area where guns are not owned by a lot of people. This desperate person knew he was unlikely to meet resistance in the form of a gun.
It also points out a very basic idea. The police area reactive force, not a proactive one. They are almost always there after the crime has occurred, even when they are right there.
on August 20, 2005 at 7:35 am
n. mallory said:
Well, at the time I lived in New Orleans — lots of rednecks with lots of guns; as I said I dated several.
Now I live in Maine and while I don’t think anyone carries a gun to work, I do know we’re the only state to vote to allow bear baiting.
(Well, maybe also Alaska.)
So, here’s a question, if you think everyone has a right to carry a gun wherever, then what about airplanes? What about schools? That’s one of the restricted items…and if you say “No” how is it really that different a restriction? The whole point is to make people safer?
on August 21, 2005 at 12:31 am
Big Dog said:
I don’t think everyone has a right to carry a gun, only law abiding citizens. I do not feel that they can carry them where ever. Those are things I did not say. I also said that employers had the right to ban workers from carrying guns at work but if they wanted to allow it they could do that also.
The plane analogy does not fly (sorry) because it is against the law to carry a gun on a plane. It is also against the law to carry a gun in a school. Just because people have the right to carry guns does not mean they can carry them every where. In Texas you may carry a gun but every establishment that seves alcohol has a sign saying there is a $10,000 fine for carrying a gun in athere, even if you are registered to carry!
The right to carry a gun does not give a person the right to break the law. The law makers can still decide where you may carry them (and that just makes good sense). Besides, the only people who really need a gun on a plane are the pilots though I will tell you that if just one person had a gun on the planes involved in 9/11 they might still be alive. I would have no problem with people having guns on a plane because not all 200 of them are going to be bad. The major reason I do not think they should be there is because of the depressurization that would occur if a bullet went through the wall. That is why pilots would have a different kind of bullet.
Think of it as a driver’s license. You are allowed to drive (though it is not a right), but not everywhere. You can not drive on sidewalks or the grass and you can not go the wrong way down a one way street. There are rules that govern it just like rules that govern firearms and carrying them.
on October 12, 2005 at 11:57 am
T. Johnson said:
Well, the 2nd Amendment doesn’t say “”A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed (except in the workplace)”.
Also, my workplace isn’t listed as one of the “prohibited places” by state law.
On the contrary Florida law states: “Title XLVI, Chapter 790.25 - Lawful ownership, possession, and use of firearms and other weapons.– ..it is lawful for the following persons to own, possess, and lawfully use firearms and other weapons, ammunition, and supplies for lawful purposes:.. (n) A person possessing arms at his or her home or place of business;.. ”
And that is without a permit.. So, if I have a license to carry a concealed firearm, why should my employer be allowed to overrule Florida State Law? The only people who are going to follow the “rules” are the same poeple who follow the “law”, i.e. the LAWABIDING CITIZENS. The criminals are going to do what they want no matter what the rules are.. So the rules in this case only serve to endanger LAWABIDING CITIZENS.
One of the biggest misconceptions of the “anti-gun” crowd is that anyone in favor of guns and the right to carry thinks that “everyone has a right to carry a gun wherever”. Quite the opposite; we only think that lawabiding citizens should be permitted to carry firearms, and then only within the law. Again, the only people who will follow the rules are the lawabiding people. Let me ask you a common sense question, if a person is going to “go postal” do you think he/she really gives a crap if the company he/she works for has a rule that says he/she can’t bring a gun to work?
on February 8, 2006 at 9:33 am
San Antonio Apartment Rentas said:
Hi, is there a way to receive your blog feed in my daily email? Sarah in San Antonio
on February 9, 2006 at 2:28 pm
Simon Morrow said:
How many people where killed in any year from 2002-2005, in the state of Maine is what i want to know?
on February 9, 2006 at 3:07 pm
n. mallory said:
The murder rates in Maine for 2002-2004 are:
2004 - 1.4 per 100,000 people
2003 - 1.2 per 100,000 people
2002 - 1.1 per 100,000 people
Murder Rates
The 2004 estimated population was 1,317,253.
Info Please
So that’s what? 18.5 people murdered in 2004 in Maine?
And none of them were in a war zone.