In many ways, the onus to protect workers has shifted from the government to employers after calls for gun control measures that have stopped mass shootings from occurring so frequently in other countries have been met with legislative silence over and over again in the United States. Despite wide public support for measures such as universal background checks and assault-style weapon bans, such efforts have failed in a barrage of intense lobbying from the gun industry.
And so the prevention conversation that started with lawmakers years and years ago has filtered down to become the responsibility of employers and individuals, most recently prompting the demand for an examination of FedEx’s security plans.
The trouble with that approach is businesses have to figure out how to stop a well-armed gunman when he’s already at the office intent on killing. In Indianapolis, the shooter started spraying bullets as soon as he stepped out of his car.
It’s unclear what measures, if any, FedEx will take. In the aftermath of the tragedy, calls for more security were met with no answers from the company, which declined to share details about potential security failures or plans to re-evaluate security.
— Binghui Huang in Congress hasn’t acted on gun control. That’s placed the onus on employers like FedEx.
The government won’t take care of us?!
Just ask an American Indian how THAT worked out for them.
My question for Jim Crow Gun Control huang is…How well did Gun Control work for the Jews and misfits in nazi germany? Gun Control clowns like huang have a mighty very long way to go before comparing the body count left in the wake of a here and there madman when compared to the stacks and stacks of Holocaust corpses left in the wake of Gun Control. With that in mind surrendering your right of self defense to a Gun Control nazi like huang or to your employer is quite obviously as dumb as dumb can get.
As I understand it they wound up with independent nations, casinos, and still get a ton of our federal tax dollars. They made out like bandits, er, war parties.
Yeah, instead of supporting their culture we supported their degeneracy. Now instead of having a proud people with unique heritage we have drug addicts that get fat off of vice.
To be fair, blacks got the same treatment.
Have you been to a reservation?
Several years ago, I went camping in Havasupai Falls, a spur canyon of the Grand Canyon known for its waterfalls. The whole area is part of the Havasupai reservation. The place is a third world country. The people there are morbidly obese, without any sense of purpose or direction in life. Packs of wild dogs roam the unpaved streets. And that’s a reservation that gets lots of tourists. The ones around Phoenix that I occasionally drove through were even worse.
The whole point of the reservation system is to destroy their culture and get them dependent on the government so they turn docile. And like N said, that’s why LBJ pushed the Great Society program. (And what the government’s trying to do to everybody these days).
The Welfare Indutrial Complex could have been designed by the KKK. But democrats designed it. And it has been more effective than the KKK in destroying the traditional black family, of one man and one woman.
Yeah…. the relatively few that are left.
Maybe, just maybe, it’s starting to dawn on the low-info, corporatist, vote-blue-to-get-along Democrats that outsourcing your personal security to a third party is a bad idea. But I’m not holding my breath.
You’re assuming they are providing useful security in the first place to outsource. For typical security, an unarmed contractor can say “Sir, you can’t go in there” just as well as an unarmed employee.
The empty gun shelves at Cabela’s yesterday say you can probably go ahead and inhale again.
There are plenty of welfare recipients gaming the system who are living well.
And a lot more who aren’t…
Any game plan, no matter how sophisticated, will fail before an endless onslaught of drugs. You have to want success, it cannot be forced on you.
Every human wants pleasure. Some more than most. Which is why you have some people who want the government to pleasure them for “free”.
They want “free” condoms. They want “free” abortions. They want “free” crystal meth injections from the “free” govenment injection center. Or they want “free” medical care for their HIV or other Venereal disease they contracted at the last orgy they attended.
Making drugs legal does not eliminate the related social ills. But you should have the right to be a stupid dumb ass. By doing these stupid unsafe acts.
I know of a lazy deadbeat guy that hasn’t held a job very long in his entire life. He lived off his mom and now ex-wife. I just found out he’s been getting $2,000 per month for unemployment to sit around and do nothing. Welfare isn’t giving him a helping hand. It’s incentivizing him to not even try.
Those folks *are* out there, and need to be kicked off the gravy train. They aren’t all of them…
Unemployment doesn’t pay anywhere near that amount in any state. Try again.
That’s what he said under oath in the divorce proceedings last month. He kept it a secret and was letting his wife pay all of the bills. I wouldn’t know. I’ve never applied for any financial help in my life except a federal grant for college.
Maximum payment in Mn. is $740 per WEEK, without adding on the federal and state ” covid recovery” payments which at one time were $600 and $300 added to that . Why the hell would anyone want to have a real job like us?
My unemployment is about to pay me just shy of 700 a week. Thanks, Democrats.
But unemployment has a hard cap. You have to work and put money into it so that there’s money there to draw out later, when you’re unemployed. I suspect he meant welfare or disability.
“My unemployment is about to pay me just shy of 700 a week. Thanks, Democrats.“
You’re welcome! Glad to help!
Define “living well”, please. If you spend a significant portion of your life in prison, or you spend a significant portion of your life with a near relative locked up, that doesn’t sound “well” to me.
The dem/lib/progressive cradle to grave, school to prison welfare system doesn’t benefit you, me, or the recipients of that “free money”.
It mostly doesn’t benefit people because the bureaucrats have made it into a dehumanizing system that requires people to practically grovel to office workers earning six or eight times the benefits that groveling can result in.
Oddly the coronavirus shutdown of bureaucrat offices has had the beneficial result of allowing people needing assistance to retain a great deal more dignity… and has shown that we only need a fraction of the present number of bureaucrats to run the system!
Virtually all of these businesses have been “gun free” zones.
Why, when no other prohibition has ever worked anywhere ever in the history of time eternal, do these people think any signage, policy or law would work for this?
How many stoned kids attend school everyday? Sell and buy drugs in school or on school grounds? Hell, when I was on school there were active prostitutes selling their goods on school grounds during classes. Naturally, they were often high on what they had bought that morning upon arriving at school. If schools aren’t tight enough all of this takes place in prisons as well. Should the country be less free and more controlled than a prison?
Must be a special kind of stupid that permits people to reason this way. Or maybe it’s just child-like ignorance of how the world really works when you step outside of your posh, homogeneous, gated community. I assume the latter is why so many leftists in my area are eagerly working to lower the drawbridge and invite ruin to their own neighborhoods.
“Should the country be less free and more controlled than a prison?”
I think we know what the answer to *that* is…
“Must be a special kind of stupid that permits people to reason this way. Or maybe it’s just child-like ignorance of how the world really works…”
Now we’re getting somewhere. They are selling a fantasy where everything is just wonderful and there are no bad things and golly gee, if you vote for us, we can get there!
And the gullible buy it, hook, line and (lead-free) sinker. Because those freedoms are just too dangerous for everyone to have…
Mainly it’s liability. If a business says that employees may be armed, they can be liable if an employee then injures someone, whether justified, unjustified, or negligently. If they say an employee can’t be armed, then the armed employee broke the rules and it’s not the business’s fault. We need liability reform so that businesses aren’t liable for their employees taking independent action to defend themselves. If businesses provide armed security, they should still be liable for the actions of their guards since the business is responsible for hiring, training, and creating a policy for their use of force.
I remember a plot twist from when I was a kid in the ’60s, wherein a prisoner was released from prison after 40-odd years and had no clue what the world was like, who was president, what was a TV, burger chains, muscle cars, passenger aircraft, nothing. Today that would be nonsense, prison is just like freedom except you can’t move around. And somebody else is paying the bills. Today I think it’s a vacation, prison needs to be a hell of a lot less comfortable and fun.
Go spend a couple years in the pen you might change your mind about freedom and fun.
It’s magical thinking from people who apparently grew up in homes where every rule was followed perfectly.
Government has a role and a purpose. When it comes to these kinds of things, all I want from them is to get out of my way. They are not capable nor responsible enough to protect me. I will take care of that myself. Our biggest issues revolve around the idea that our government will take care of us.
lol….my body my choice!
Fed EX like many firms have a no weapons policy. And at least at the facility I worked at, had metal detectors at the entrance door.
How’s that work out for the FEDEX workers in Indianpolis?
He came through the door shooting. Absent a gated and secured perimeter, stopping someone like this is essentially impossible. If weapons had been allowed, he still would have come through the door shooting. Even if they have the opportunity, few people actually carry, less than one in ten on average. Despite the press reports of hundreds of mass shootings this year, most people see their communities and work places as safe.
Hell, he was apparently shooting in the parking lot! And somebody in the parking lot went after him with a gun and died for it. Yet with all that warning the company could not prevent him from entering and killing more. Might be the case everyone has been waiting for, did he kill someone who would have been armed except for the rules, and then was not protected by the company which disarmed him? I see a $100 million settlement.
It had been awhile since I had been to a concert, so I don’t know if they’re always like this these days. I saw Metallica in NC a couple of years ago. The stadium was gun free with security, so I didn’t carry. I have never seen so much police and security in my life. Every single person had to go through metal detectors. The concert started about 1.5 hours after it was supposed to. That’s the only way a gun free zone could work.
Dude, I experienced the same thing with security when I saw Metallica in Charlottesville. Morgan Harrington was standing a stones throw away from us, my wife noticed the risqué skirt on the chilly night. John Paul Jones Arena’s no entry policy was what left that girl locked out of the arena, a policy they continue to this day. Businesses need to examine how their policies have contributed to a death, instead of just looking to more restrictions that don’t solve the problem.
Security was like that when I went to a Mariners game a couple of years back. I set off the metal detector even though I carried no keys, no change, no metal belt buckle, no pen, no nail clippers — not a thing on me was made of metal except the screws in the corners of my glasses. Our pastor, a longtime friend, and a friend who’d gone with me when I got my hips replaced vouched for me having metal in my legs, but that didn’t get me through, it just got a supervisor with a more sensitive wand to come and verify that yes, the only metal in me was in the hip replacements… and two gold tooth crowns.
Working in the defense industry as I do, my big corporate employer has the usual no gun son the property rule. Not even locked in your vehicle, out of sight. The CEO a year or so back sent out a reminder email about violence prevention and it included the rules, we may not have a gun in a personal vehicle on company property.
To which a number of us workers sent the CEO a copy of the state law that says we sure the hell can have a gun in our car and that the employer may not prohibit that.
The CEO has been silent on the topic ever since.
.
The CEO musta figured that “castle doctrine” meant that the workplace was HIS castle and he was lord and master.
Good for y’all for standing up to the bully and providing he and his some much needed education.
Of course everyone that signed the letter has a mark in their unofficial personnel file.
AND, he and the board will no doubt contribute more $$ to get castle doctrine walked back or done away with altogether.
The OP has a point; and it’s not going to turn out well for the less-well-off precincts.
The politics of urban areas are driving cops to retire or quit. The work is too dangerous. If the criminals don’t get you, your employer will. Get your 10 years for LEOSA and “retire” to a job in the private sector.
Businesses don’t get to be successful and big by failing to figure out what they need to do. With an ample supply of trained cops retiring/quitting the private sector will hire these cops. Now that they’ve covered their assets, they have contained their problem.
Who will be left behind in the public sector? I imagine two layers. At the top will be those few who managed to get promoted off-the-beat into middle and upper ranks. Yes, they have considerable experience; but, it’s aging out. They are mostly committed to hanging onto their managerial jobs in an increasingly untenable position. The Lieutenant or Captain isn’t going to loose his job over a street incident; he will throw the street cop under the bus to save his own job.
Another subtle factor could affect government response. Government pension portfolios are under-funded. There is always looming pressure to fix under-funded pensions. Here is the opportunity. Preserve the pension portfolio for the upper and middle management. Get cops to quit in their 8th or 9th year of service so they get no pension. Keep churning the low ranks and the pension problem is largely solved.
Everyone on the street will have less-than-10 years of experience; still with high turn-over. Recruitment will be increasingly difficult; standards will drop. Those on the street will figure out what they have to do to survive; and, that will be to not make the aggressive decisions that save lives.
While all the foregoing is occurring, the prison gates are being opened and deportations are being curtailed. So, the population of violent criminals at large is growing and they know that they are unlikely to be caught, prosecuted or imprisoned.
We WILL have SOME form of policing. The most primitive was hue & cry. Then came the para-professional armed bands of the local ‘baron’, whether land-baron, mine-baron or industrial-baron. Followed by a general militia; then regular “troops” and finally a professional public police force.
How might we be retracing this path? Looks like the professional public police will cover government and politicians’ property. Armed bands will be employed to cover businesses and elite neighborhoods. Guardsmen will be called to put-down riots, but not patrol. Governments will refuse to organize anything like a militia. Eventually, people will do what they are able to do for themselves, and that probably means something like hue & cry. If the citizenry do not fill the void it will be filled by gangs staking out “plazas” to provide “protection” service.
What alternative scenario could we envision? Is it possible, at this point, for the Progressive wing of the Democrat party to retreat from demoralizing and defunding the police? If that were possible then we ought to be able to point out where the Progressives have retreated from some other plank in their platform. Can we think of any such case?
Excellent comment. Seems to be where we are headed.
“Is it possible, at this point, for the Progressive wing of the Democrat party to retreat from demoralizing and defunding the police?”
Heh. 🙂
That will be a combination tap-dance and two-step performance of all time.
I’m sure they would like nothing more than to step away from the AOC Leftists in their rank, but how to do it without enraging them?
The best we can do is to hang that albatross around their necks at election time. Their centerists may not speak out publicly, but they well could just not show up to vote in the upcoming mid-terms out of disgust with the flamboyant ones like AOC.
Either way, I’m pleased as punch they have this problem staring them in the face. If we manage to wrest control of the Senate in the mid-terms, we can seriously cramp their style further by simply refusing to confirm any federal-SCOTUS judges that may open up. Then we will see the gnashing of teeth and insane shrieking they try and hide…
“What alternative scenario could we envision?”
Local police controlled by the permanent majority party in DC. You’ll never know the names of officers who kill people with opposing political views.
That’s the scary scenario. And, I’ve recently thought a lot about it.
Everyone will, no doubt, recall that the 3A forbids “quartering troops”. Some will recall that the Constitution forbids states (without permission from Congress) from maintaining “troops” in time of peace. And, of course, the 10A. How do these tie together? What does the word “troops” mean? These are fascinating questions. And, I think I have an inkling into the ANSWER:
Remember the Boston Massacre? Why did it happen? The King garrisoned 2,000 troops in Boston, a village of 16,000. A soldier for every 3 adult males. That was the opposite of community policing – and on steroids; far worse than Blacks complain about today. And, how did that all work-out for everyone? (A: Boston Massacre; Independence.)
The founders knew there WOULD BE regular troops; the fewer the better. A militia should be able to handle OCCASIONAL emergencies. There would be GUARDS at court houses and the like. But who – and how – would day to day “policing” occur?
The 10A came to be known as the “police power” to regulate “public health, safety and morals”. Drinking (to excess), driving on the wrong side of the road, disturbing the peace. THESE things were reserved to “the states, or to the People”. THESE things were NOT to be dealt with by Federal troops, or Marshals etc.
NOR were they to be dealt with by state “troops”; not in times of peace without leave of Congress. So, why do we have “state troopers”? Sheriff’s departments with lots of deputies? Municipal police departments with career officers? To what extent do these “cops” (as we call them today) resemble the “troops” the founders had in mind?
I suggest a way to think about it. The Eric Garner incident was founded – inflamed if you will – in the fact that he had been selling “loosies” in Staten Island. Just how far was Staten Island from City Hall? Just how far was Garner’s “hood” from Michael Bloomberg’s apartment? Was it the case that the City’s zeal to promote the public health, safety and morals of the residents of the neighborhood, and collect exorbitant cigarette taxes, was a goal far removed from those of the “community”? Did this situation set-up the circumstances for an outburst of rage disproportionate to the goals of promoting public health, safety and morals?
If we struggle to distinguish the discontent we see today from that leading up to the Boston Massacre, then, we just might be discovering what the founders meant by “troops” and the 10A.
Dunno about “hue and cry”, think we may well gravitate toward “shoot, shovel, and shut up”, wherein people eventually notice that the most obnoxious among us tend to disappear after a while, or sometimes to wake up one morning dead. I have not yet understood how the gang-banger neighborhoods have not gone there, the good folks will not speak to the cops, but they also do not DO anything while their children are being raped and killed. They know who the bad boys are, why not simply whack them? Chicago apparently clears around 2% of their homicides, should be pretty easy to lean out the door, shoot the asshole a few times, then forget all about it.
One history of colonial America I read referenced the job of a constable as “to raise a hue and cry and summon the well-armed citizenry”. Apparently people back then recognized the obligation to act for the benefit of all. Later the system changed to abandon that obligation by setting up police forces onto whom the responsibility was shifted.
A gun free zone sign should give your store full responsibility for the safety of the customers. They get killed? Full liability, million dollar lawsuit for every victim.
That points to the root of the problem: selfishness. Most of our society today refuses to acknowledge that being a citizen brings with it a number of mutual obligations, and that one is to take responsibility for those under your roof, whether home or business, especially if you have required them to be unable to exercise their own responsibility towards their own persons. So “Gun Free” is a selfish abdication of civic duty on three counts; first the immature move to insist that someone take care of one’s own safety, second the denial of someone else’s right and responsibility to provide for their own safety, and third the refusal to take responsibility for the situation you demand those others put themselves in.
“Binghui Huang” Such a traditional American name. Yet again we see the folly of allowing any immigration after the Census of 1790. All immigration has been bad for America and Americans.
It’s not immigrants, per se. It’s where they come from that matters.
“It’s where they come from that matters.”
It’s not even that really. All we have to do is only have legal immigration for people that will contribute instead of being a burden. It’s so simple, it’s absurd that we haven’t been doing that. We could even afford a welfare state if we did that. Both parties are to blame. Reagan had the leverage to fix it when he gave away citizenship to illegals. They didn’t want to fix it then, and they don’t want to fix it now.
Now we essentially have open borders. Puppet Joe’s handlers’ plan is to process everyone that can get here illegally.
Not quite: the primary requirement should be that anyone coming to live in the U.S. of A. be free of the belief that government exists to take care of them.
The big corporations love it, and these days, Democrats are in love with the big corporations. The feeling happens to be mutual.
Ayup, easy to see if you look through the filter of racial prejudice.
Chris Mallory,
“All immigration has been bad for America and Americans.”
Correction: BAD PEOPLE have been bad for the United States, regardless of where they they were born. And the corollary: GOOD PEOPLE have been and always will be good for the United States, regardless of where they were born.
In my lifetime I have met a lot of high-quality people who are an absolute asset to our nation. Many of them were born in the United States and many were not.
It has been my experience with Legal immigrants to our nation that they are more industrious, hard working and have abetter understanding of the Ideals of Freedom, Liberty and Personal Responsibility than most native born citizens. Simply because they came from places of hardship, poverty and repression. They realized that the United states is the land of Opportunity if one is willing to work hard and strive to attain your goals. Unlike many native born citizens who have been taught they have been held down by racism, morals and any number of perceived roadblocks. I have more faith in Legal Immigrants than I do in most anyone born here in the last 30 years.
“All immigration has been bad for America and Americans.”
You realize that includes you, right? 😉
As a whole, Asian-Americans have been some of the best immigrants for this country. They rarely live lives of crime, and nearly never pollute the welfare rolls…
Then there’s the fact that just about everything in this country west of the Mississippi owes its existence in large part to immigrants who would’ve missed Mallory’s arbitrary “pure American” cutoff date…and that the populace wasn’t as homogeneous as he seems to think even at that early date.
My mom’s side of the family goes back to when NYC was New Amsterdam; my dad’s grandparents immigrated in the early 1900s as Mormon converts from England. Are we going to exile just one half of me?
But no, wait…if ALL immigration has been bad for America, we’d better exile *all* of me — and also deport everyone who isn’t at least 50% American Indian, because literally everyone else is an immigrant. And it’s indisputable that immigration was a very bad thing for the American Indian tribes.
This Mallory guy is a fecking moron.
It was probably a troll comment to get the ball rolling on immigrant bashing from someone that voted for Puppet Joe and open borders.
Nah, he’s not that smart. Just a garden-variety moron. He’s been popping in here every now and again to say the same few stupid things for years now. Used to argue long and hard about how he was right, but now he just cropdusts because he knows he’ll get his ass handed to him if he sticks around.
“Such a traditional American name.“
Yes, what’s in a name?
“Origin of the name Mallory:
Transferred use of the English surname of French origin. It is derived from the Old French maloret, maloré (the unfortunate one, the unlucky one).”
Go back Back to your shithole country, Frenchy!
Employers like FedEx already post as gun-free zones. Could be that mass shooters are just too intent on their task to notice the signs. Likewise other employees are just too disarmed to make a difference. A Phalanx gun system placed at every entrance could be a deterrent.
Starting with a faulty premise typically leads to faulty conclusions. This tragedy shows the failure of several popular gun restrictions at the state level, but the author starts with the premise that failure to impose restrictions at the federal level is to blame.
Serpent_Vision,
You point out the classic and thoroughly worn-out modus-operandi of Progressives, Socialists, and Communists. Their guaranteed response to their guaranteed failures is always that Socialism/Communism will finally work this/next time if we just do more of it.
A private business can only control their physical buildings. They can’t control their parking lots. Unless they want to search every car that parks on their parking lot pavement???
Whoa, whoa, whoa! Hold on there partner! What compelling facts do we have which prove that gun control measures have stopped mass shootings from occurring so frequently in other countries?
And before anyone responds or forms an opinion on emotion, let us ask a simple question: do those “other countries” have the same population, demographics, and culture as the United States? The obvious answer is an emphatic no which means straight comparisons do not tell us anything meaningful.
More importantly, why do a tiny number of spree-killers justify banning self-defense firearms? If several thousand serial arsonists used feminine hygiene products to start tens of thousands of fires (killing untold thousands of people) every year, would that justify banning feminine hygiene products? Of course not. Neither should we ban firearms because a dozen or so people use firearms to murder several dozen people every year.
The link points to some article on Australia; all the proof this guy needs, apparently
I’m pretty sure that no other country has 300,000 gangbangers in 1 city like we do in Chicago.
Therein lies the problem. 300,000 insn’t a gang. It’s an army.
mot certainly and 300,000 is way way more than we have in our entire army in Commiestralia which only numbers around 10-15,000. I love the country here but I have hated since childhood the way it is run and the number of naive people who think giving more power to the govt is the way to solve problems.
Just put up more “Gun-free zone” signs.
If one sign wasn’t enough to stop them, it just means you need more signs!
If they only put up enough signs, it’ll keep all the mass shooters out, because criminals ALWAYS obey signs, rules, and laws. /sarc
By the same logic, if you make it illegal for sober people to drive, it will stop drunk driving deaths.
“It’s unclear what measures, if any, FedEx will take. In the aftermath of the tragedy, calls for more security were met with no answers from the company, which declined to share details about potential security failures or plans to re-evaluate security.”
The first thing they will have to do is Lawyer Up. I would have to assume that FEDEX does not let their employees carry, does not let their employees have firearms in their vehicles and therefore assumes responsibility for their safety. They failed miserably and will pay many millions of dollars for having their heads in the sand.
Here’s a novel idea. Let citizens carry at work. Train them if you want. If you bar the right to arms, then indeed you have taken on the responsibility to protect your employees and customers.
Legally, as to their employees, an employer’s liability is typically limited to workers’ compensation.Since the risk for the vast majority of businesses, the cost of insurance is substantially less than the cost of security.
Businesses are like anyone else. They can choose to protect themselves and employees by allowing them to be armed, or they can hire armed security. A gunman can still get the drop on one security guard, so they may need a couple of them. This is just like people buying a home in a gated community. The HOA may need to have some armed guards at the gate, or not to try to make covenants against gun ownership.
They need to be able to control the entry points, they need to be aware of threats. It is not only guns, it could be a person with a machete or a truck driving into a building. There are people unhinged enough to do these things, it is their fault, not the fault of the item that they were controlling when people got killed or maimed.
“. . . it could be a person with a machete or a truck driving into a building.”
Excellent point. Every “campus”-like enclave will of necessity have countless service providers entering the property. Landscapers, tradesmen, delivery vehicles. There is no way to screen every vehicle and every employee for guns, cutlery or clubs.
Nor is there any way for the employers of every service providing company to screen their respective employees to any effect.
The first World Trade Center bombing was with a rental truck; no screening whatsoever.
There are no guarantees; and it’s pointless to hope to find one. There are barriers we can present that make it increasingly difficult to surmount or bypass them. Here, the problem is rapidly diminishing returns. We remain unconvinced that all the money we spend on TSA provides the returns on safety that we imagine. It might have been cheaper to put an Air Marshal on every flight; but we never even considered the possibility.
Once a culture gets wedded to a customary way of doing things it’s mighty difficult to get it to break with that tradition. The Brits are accustomed to unarmed police; we Americans are accustomed to armed police. Neither culture is seriously interested in a “zero-based budgeting” approach to our entrenched customs. And so, TSA will probably be with us for centuries.
We will cling to feel-good GFZ signs; and, board TSA agents. Meanwhile, the search for the ever elusive White Suprematist continues unabated.
“measures that have stopped mass shootings from occurring so frequently in other countries”
Australia is often cited to support this proposition, but note the phrasing — “mass shootings” — not mass murders.
Australia has had at least 30 of the latter since it went full retard after Port Arthur. Some of the events were by firearms, some by fire, some by knife and at least one by car. In any case, the hits just keep on coming.
We have been fed the lie that Australia has had no mass shootings since Port Arthur. Nonsense. It’s also worth noting that Australia is one of the least populated nations on Earth (25 million occupying an entire Continent), with a high standard of living and a fairly homogeneous population. It doesn’t suffer from the anti-white racism and anti-male sexism that plagues the USA. Also, there are no Crips, no Bloods, no Latin Kings, no MS-13, no civil unrest, no BLM, no organized arson, no murderers released on their own recognizance. While there is crime in the cities, Australia is a “mostly safe” place.
There are plenty of gangs. Heck, even New Zealand has gangs. And none of them turned in their guns.
A shooting at my workplace would be unpossible. There are signs prohibiting firearms and everything. Out of staters can’t even get gun permits, and in state permits are expensive and hard to get, so there is no possible way they could do anything violent without disregarding lots of laws and signs. There was rioting in he area last year so we had to go home one day and stay home another day, just in case. But they didn’t hit us for some reason. They must have stopped, read the “no firearms” signs, and turned around. I feel totally safe.
If a private business wants to have TSA level security before entering their property? They certainly have the freedom to do so. However I’m not sure how many people are going to put up with, having to get undressed and take their shoes off. And then walk through some type of x-ray machine. And then put their clothes back on, tie their shoes and then go to work.
And will this Security check be on the clock or off the clock???
“Filtered down” to individuals?
The onus for self-defense has always been with individuals — it can be no other way, since individuals is all there are! All the laws in the world make no difference in the facts on the ground: that when someone intent on harm enters one’s personal scene, it’s bad guy vs. intended victim, period.
Pieces like the above always make me wonder if the writer ever took a real university-level philosophy class where logical thinking was taught along with the tools to examine reality, because thinking that somehow the existence of a law and one or more government bureaucracies will make the least difference when someone with mal-intent approaches a victim. “I think, therefore I am” is a truth that indicates that we are all self-responsible, like it or not; when it comes to dealing with people determined to do evil to others, we could extend Descarte’s insight to include, “I am armed; therefore I may endure”.
“. . . individuals is all there are!”
This isn’t really true. There are corporate entities who are “persons” in that they have rights or responsibilities, usually both.
There is an implied question here that troubles me.
We have a right to bear arms. Presumably, that includes at work. The proprietor, even as employer, has a right to control what goes on at his premises. If the employer doesn’t do “enough” to protect his employees he might be held liable. So far, so good.
Yet, the employment insurance law limits the employer’s liability; and, imposes on the insurance company monetary liability for on-the-job injury. Is this an altogether satisfactory resolution?
The law limits the employer’s liability to the employee for injury from an attack taking place on the employer’s premises. The employee is deprived of a constitutional right which MIGHT enable him to mitigate injury to himself. Something is troubling about this.
Suppose employees would like to further their own interests – over the objections of their employers – by supporting a political party. Suppose an employer discriminated against its employees for voting, fearing they might vote for the candidates of that party. Would we tolerate such a situation?
What if the interest at hand were an OSHA regulation? Could employers legitimately interfere with employees with industrial safety regulation?
When employers decide to “infringe”, abridge, undermine, discourage employees’ pursuit of Constitutionally-secured rights, don’t we have a principled objection?
No doubt that objection will have to be hammered out through the political process. And there may be no entirely satisfactory answer. Often the case in employment law and “public accommodation” law.
Miner49er for President 2024
Businesses have no legal requirement to stop mass shooters and so they won’t. As long as they can escape legally unscathed for having done nothing, this behavior will continue.
Comments are closed.