Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Tennessee Gentleman
...So, I conclude that maybe you guys like how this turned out but don't want to be seen as endorsing wholesale lying to an employer?...
|
What basically troubles me is the sweeping characterizations of an employer's "no guns for employees" policy as immoral, and an employee's choice to ignore it as moral. Those characterizations in this case are really just based on the fortuitous outcome in this case.
What if the outcome had been different. What if the employee who armed himself in violation of his employer's policy had been wildly mistaken about the need to resort to lethal force and shot someone who everyone agreed did not present a lethal threat? Would the employer's policy still be immoral? Would the employee's choice to violate that policy still be moral?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Tennessee Gentleman
...Now as to lawsuits. I am sure that had a lawsuit been filed by the crook he would have included Mr. Cothran and all CCW holders are financially responsible for every bullet they fire. So, that is already the case....
|
Except Mr. Corthan is no doubt judgment proof.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Tennessee Gentleman
...Insurance companies already cover businesses for negligent acts committed by employees so that could extend to CCW too...
|
And businesses pay some pretty fancy premiums for that insurance.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Tennessee Gentleman
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by RX-79G
I doubt most gas station owners view their $9 an hour employees as the type of people that are likely to always make great life decisions.
|
Not to get off topic but that reasoning is the same one used by antis to ban guns. We're too stupid to be allowed to have them.
|
That might be one thing when discussing the scope of government's power to regulated a constitutionally protected right and another when discussing a private entity assuming financial responsibility for the conduct of an employee.