[from occupied ga]

use improvised weapons and fight

A rational policy toward CC (non-existent in virtually all big corporations) would go a long way toward eliminating workplace shootings. I don't understand the thought processes that go on in the heads of corporate executives. It must be something like this:

"I'm worried about some employee bringing a gun to work and going postal killing a bunch of people. How do I take stepts to prevent this? I KNOW! I'll forbid the legitimate carrying of firearms in the office. Then when someone who is determined to murder a bunch of people, they'll look at the corporate policy and think - gosh I could get fired if I carry a gun to work. I can't kill all those people because of a corporate policy."

That's all I can come up with as to what goes through the minds of the morons who set these policies.

[Phlyer]

I'm worried about some employee bringing a gun to work and going postal killing a bunch of people. How do I take steps to . . .

. . . keep from getting bad press (first priority) and sued (second priority)?

I know, I'll do something that has no practical effect but looks good to the media. I'll ban personal self-defense weapons so that the body count is higher, but I can clearly show that I had done everything I could reasonably be expected to do.

Oh, and I'll make sure that the armed security guards are close to me at all times.

I find no credible evidence that the desire to 'prevent this' is more than lip service. It is a deliberate, ruthless decision to protect the company bottom line even if the body count is higher. After all, anyone at least two layers lower in the organization is an interchangeable unit anyway, and can be easily replaced.