Workplace Weapon Bans Put People In Danger

Mark Belling nails it with his column.

Molson Coors bans weapons in the workplace. Most employers do the same, including my radio company. They generally announce these bans by plastering a silly sign on the door. I guess Ferrill wasn’t deterred by the sign.

The workplace weapons bans are counterproductive. They make all of us easy targets. The only way to have minimized Ferrill’s carnage was for somebody else with a gun to shoot him before he shot anybody else. Occasionally, armed security guards at a few workplaces may be around to do that. But the rest of us are reduced to begging for mercy.

[…]

Almost every mass shooting in America occurs at a “soft target” where the gunman knows nobody will be able to defend themselves or stop the slaughter while it’s still in progress. (Schools are a perfect example of this.) Until somebody figures how to stop people like Ferrill from going off the rails and slaughtering people he’s mad at, allowing a level playing field is the best approach.

We are allowed to carry weapons legally in Wisconsin in our cars, our homes, on the sidewalk and in a lot of parks. But most of us can’t carry them into work. Or the mall. Or a school. It’s not a coincidence that’s where the mass killings usually occur.

30 Responses to Workplace Weapon Bans Put People In Danger

  1. jjf says:

    OK, so you hear shots at your job and everyone’s packing.  You like to imagine you’re going to correctly ID the bad guy, right?

  2. Owen Owen says:

    Well, I defend myself. Generally speaking, I would shoot back at the person shooting at me. I may still get shot, but at least I have a fighting chance. You, on the other hand, will just be shot.

    Here’s the thing with your comment.. you can throw out all of the hypotheticals you want. The fact is that many, many workplaces allow armed citizens and so do most public places. Yet in all of the years that that has been the case, the instances of an armed citizen accidentally shooting the wrong person are very few. In fact, police are statistically more likely to shoot the wrong person. So you can speculate all you want. It doesn’t change the fact that the best way to stop a rampage is to present an armed response as quickly as possible – whether that armed response comes from an armed citizen or a law enforcement officer.

  3. jjf says:

    Except when the armed citizen accidentally shoots themselves or someone near them, when no bad guy is present.

    Because in your hypotheticals, everyone’s secured their weapon properly and never noodles around with it and never has an “accident”, right?  And accidents don’t count.  Especially when we’re fantasizing about adding even more weapons to every situation!  No one gets mad, they’re all polite!

    Or, for that matter, aren’t you also supposed to be claiming that mass shooters and workplace violence are so rare as to not warrant any legislative changes?

    I’ll let you think about your “police are statistically more likely” statement and tell me why it’s lame.

  4. Jason says:

    Look at the Pro-Choice Liberal dum-dum trying to teach Conservatives about personal responsibility and owning consequences of one’s actions.

    Your silly hypotheticals do not address the article’s points and only introduce noise and FUD that are not relevant.

  5. jjf says:

    Belling’s not-uncommon hypothetical is that this sort of attack will be shortened or minimized because (wave magic wand here) enough people will decide to make every day Carry Your Gun To Work Day.  And (wave again) this orgiastic increase in weapons won’t lead to any unintended consequences or accidents and won’t increase “work rage” attacks.

  6. Jason says:

    You are misunderstanding… probably due to your fear and bias more than your lack of intelligence.

  7. Merlin says:

    Libs shouldn’t have a problem with a pro-choice issue like concealed carry. Your choice to carry or not. Your choice to draw or not. Your choice to fire or not. You decide to defend the mass of tissue that is yourself… or others. My body, my life, my choice.

  8. Jason says:

    And that encapsulates the point I was making in my first post. The delicious hypocrisy coming from jiffy.

  9. jjf says:

    Merlin, if I had an abortion, it doesn’t affect you.

    If I carry a gun, there’s plenty of possibility that I’m well-trained and would never make a mistake, and there’s also some possibility that, say, like road rage, I’ll threaten or shoot in an uncivilized way.  You think all those incidents get reported?

    See the difference?

  10. Merlin says:

    Doesn’t matter and it can’t be any more simple. You don’t get to make Owen’s choices or own his consequences. If you choose to be defenseless, then if the time comes that somebody visits violence upon your person the method of delivery will be irrelevant. Tough to call a cop if you’re the one without a pulse.

  11. Jason says:

    >if I had an abortion, it doesn’t affect you.

    It does affect more than just you though.

    >there’s also some possibility that, say, like road rage, I’ll threaten or shoot in an uncivilized way. 

    That possibility exists even where guns are forbidden…  more proof you’re completely ignorant to Belling’s central point.

  12. jjf says:

    I see Belling’s point.  I think he’s inflating the chance you’re going to be able to protect yourself or others against an attacker, and it’s a stretch to say it’s “the best approach.”  He’s discounting the chances that having more guns around will make the problem worse.  Oh, I know, but you’re saying there’s a chance…  and there’s a chance that Lady Gaga will fall in love with you tomorrow, too.  It’s non-zero!

  13. jjf says:

    Merlin, all those gun owners who have an accident and injure someone…  how do they take responsibility for their actions?

  14. Mar says:

    “Merlin, if I had an abortion, it doesn’t affect you.”
    If you had an abortion, you would be on the front page of the National Enquirer.

  15. Merlin says:

    Mar for the win.

  16. dad29 says:

    It’s already proven that gun-free zones have the most gun attacks and fatalities.

    I’m sure Jiffy is not in favor of more attacks and fatalities, right, Jiffy?

    So–given what we KNOW vs. what is guesswork on Jiffy’s part, such as possible road-rage, possible shoot of a co-worker, possible….unicorn farts and pixie dust……….why, even Jiffy can see where this is going.

    If only he would, eh?

  17. jjf says:

    I googled and found several Politifact-style organizations who found plenty of misinformation and hyperbole, trying to score points.  Largely inconclusive, they’d say, when someone made your claim.

    Or we can find articles like this:

    The Looser a State’s Gun Laws, the More Mass Shootings It Has

    Researchers have begun to see a trend: The rate of mass shootings is consistently much higher for places with fewer restrictions on guns.

  18. Mike says:

    JJf, here is what actually happens in the situation you hypothesize. Citizens draw there weapons to defend themselves. Notice the only people shot were by the gunman. Police complained because they had to work a little extra to ID the shooter, but no ccw citizens got shot.

    https://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-wal-mart-shooting-20171103-story.html

  19. jjf says:

    So assuming the Molson shooter had mental health issues, would he too have been encouraged to carry a weapon to work every day?  Why do you assume all the carriers will be white-hat sane John Waynes?  Why didn’t you link to a story where someone’s weapon discharged when they dropped their pants in the bathroom stall?

  20. Mike says:

    jjf, the article illustrated the fallacy of your position. multiple armed citizens took some action to protect themselves from a shooter, yet no one shot anyone else by mistake.

  21. dad29 says:

    So assuming the Molson shooter had mental health issues, would he too have been encouraged to carry a weapon to work every day?

    Only you could come up with a hypothetical that is nonsense.

    Whether or not Molson Man had ‘mental health issues’–whatever they may be–“allowing” concealed carry is NOT “encouraging” concealed carry.  But maybe English is your second language?

  22. Mar says:

    jjf, police officers have shot themselves and wounded bystanders.
    By your logic, we should disarm the police as well.

  23. jjf says:

    Dad29, I think what you’re struggling with is the all-too-common reflex to declare that any rampaging shooter must’ve had mental health issues, combined with the all-too-common reflex (as we see in Belling’s column) that more guns solves the problem.

    All the gun carriers will wear white hats and practice proper trigger discipline and never have an “accident” or any rage, right?

  24. jjf says:

    Mar, I do think we need to change the culture of policing in our country.  I didn’t say we should disarm the police.

  25. Mar says:

    Mo, jjf, you don’t mind if the cops have guns but you think civilians should be disarmed.
    I live in a very conservative county in Arizona where 1 in 5 adults, mostly mostly men openly carry in public. In the last year, with a population of area of about 80,000 people, we had 2 murders last year. 1 domestic and 1 drug related. No one misused their weapons while carrying.
    I work in a large box store and I like it when people carry their weapons in our store.
    And just FYI,I don’t own a gun and never will because I am a terrible shot.

  26. jjf says:

    Mar, it’s not just a binary choice between “disarmed” and Take Your Gun Everywhere Every Day, is it?  Cops are trained in the use of their weapons.

    All is rosy?  This article raises questions.

  27. Mar says:

    jjf, thanks for the article but the article never mentioned 1 instance of someone abusing the right to carry public.
    All the article said that there possibilities something can go wrong.
    And I am sure that driving down the street can cause certain problems a well. Same with eating a steak. There is a possibility you could easily choke on a piece of meat. And I would bet that more people have choked to death than people killed by someone misusing open carry.

  28. dad29 says:

    Dad29, I think what you’re struggling with is the all-too-common reflex to declare that any rampaging shooter must’ve had mental health issues

    You must have inhaled too much of your wackytobacky, Jiffster.  I never said what you SAY I said; in fact, YOU brought up ‘mental issues.’

    By the way, I don’t wear a white hat.

  29. jjf says:

    There you go, projecting…  I don’t smoke anything.  I was just spinning more hypotheticals about what you and yours usually say in situations like this.  Thoughts and prayers, right?  Why does the bad guy do it, according to your hat?

  30. dad29 says:

    buh bye

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.