Companies that ban guns put on defensive

yahoo.com ^ | Fri Dec 10,11:50 | Stephanie Armour

[TC Rider]

"Do you want your mail guy or delivery guy carrying a loaded gun when he comes to the door?" asks Patty Sullivan, a Pizza Hut spokeswoman. "What if he's not happy with his tip"

That's exactly why I keep a claymore on the front porch.

[I_dmc]

Its quite simple. If a company has a policy that allows employees to carry firearms, they would be open to lawsuits from "victims" (deep pockets syndrome). Like the guy that was shot 39 times by police...and lived...and sued. Pain and suffering, dontcha know. Lawsuit alleged that police imcompetence let him live, hence great pain. Sick, huh?

[William Terrell]

Large employers are more likely to have such policies.

Large employers are also more likely to be socialist pits of political correctness and liberal fantasies.

[Modok]

http://www.packing.org/

Good site for infromation on the topic

[ExSoldier]

Just like Schools cannot have guns onsite. Sitting ducks!

Quack Quack! I think it was the school shooting in Pearl Mississippi where the perp was stopped from going off campus to continue the ramapge by the Principal who sprinted to his own car and got his .45 and stood in the path of the car as it sped from the school grounds, aiming at the kid's head. The killer, being a coward, stopped. LOTS of teachers have guns at school. I'm not one of them, but then I don't feel a need to have one at my inner city school. But if I did feel like I needed to be armed or have access to a firearm, I'd keep it in my car, which is parked only thirty feet from the door to my portable classroom. Always better to be tried by twelve than carried by six!

[crushelits]

Employers are going to listen to their lawyers (and lawyers always advise that "no" is the safest thing to say). Another problem is that "yes" also involves having a detailed policy, which takes time, care and effort.

My motto is:

Its better to have a gun and not needing it, than not having a gun when you need it!

[crushelits]

If a company has a policy that allows employees to carry firearms, they would be open to lawsuits from "victims"

And the other side of the coin?

[Still Thinking]

it only takes two or three armed men in each business, or in public for that matter, to make the thugs queasy. Why the virtuecrats can't understand this is beyond me, and yes, I know that there is much nefarious doings going on behind closed doors.

Because the virtuecrats have the same reaction to guns as the other thugs. Duh.

[I_dmc]

There is no other side of the coin. This is the sole reason companies must have a policy against allowing firearms on their property. They have no choice.

[Mulder]

This is the sole reason companies must have a policy against allowing firearms on their property. They have no choice.

BS.

Having a "no guns" edict isn't going to protect them from lawsuits. If anything, it might hurt them, if the suing lawyer is competent and able to make the case that posting a $5 "no guns" sign was done in place of spending serious money for real security measures.

This is more of this urban legend crap, like the "don't use an AR-15 for home defense, or you'll go to jail, even if it's a good shoot", or "don't use handloads in your carry pistol", etc....

The truth is most korporate leaders (the lawyers, bureaurctats, and HR types) don't like the 2nd amendment. They don't like "average citizens" carrying guns. And they don't like their workers having any Rights at all.

And they will do everything in their power to infringe upon their workers' Rights, especially anything having to do with gun. Of course, this is only possible because of the massive support they get from an anti-RKBA federal gov't.

Americans need to grow some backbone, and stop believing all this "we have to do it because of insurance" BS.

[Shooter 2.5]

Until that local dem goes national, he'll pretend to be for the Second Amendment.

He's still a member of the gun banning, anti-freedom party.