Quote:
Crazed boy friend employee shoots female ex-GF employee with legally carried gun.
That's what they worry about.
|
Exactly. The folks who set the policies listen to the lawyers. For decades, the lawyers listened to folks who told them that an armed employee is a dangerous employee.
I know; I've been there and talked to them. A day-trader named Mark Barton went on a shooting spree in two businesses in Atlanta in 1999. I had a friend at one of them, and afterward, she showed me a revised policy on "recognizing the potentially violent employee." Factors included talking about guns or reading about guns at work. "Interest in the 2nd Amendment" was right next to "overthrowing the government."
(Incidentally, many of the "studies" cited, or were authored by, folks in the Brady Campaign and VPC)
This wasn't an isolated occurrence, or something done on impulse. I've seen the template used by several human resources divisions. The very mentality pervades a large part of the corporate world.
One guy openly carrying a gun to an employee picnic isn't going to change an attitude that thoroughly entrenched in the corporate psyche. It takes time, energy, and education. Even if things do turn around in some places, you'll still have the lawyers whispering prophecies of dire consequences, potential liability, and general unpleasantness in others.
In the corporate world, those whispers carry a great deal of weight.