31 Responses to “Packin’ heat on the job: Debate escalates”

1. T M Says:
   May 8th, 2008 at 5:04 pm

   Law abiding citizens with CCW permits are not the ones committing the crimes. I am not aware of any incident where a person with a CCW permit has been involved in a workplace shooting. All citizens licensed to carry a concealed weapon have had an extensive criminal history check. Personal protection is an individual decision. All evidence shows that a police department, no matter how large, is not able to protect its citizens. If the police were able to protect every one there would be no rapes, homicides, or armed robberies. Decisions like these are made not on what is best for the citizen/employee but what we can do to limit our liability. It is good to see the the legislators are beginning to take a common sense approach to some of these core issues.

2. Harry Schell Says:
   May 9th, 2008 at 12:18 pm

   I have a CCW and have been stalked, with death threats and incendiary devices included, so I understand the limits of police protection more than some.

   It isn’t the law-abiding citizens who are assaulting people, but criminals, many of who are already banned from carrying guns due to their prior records. Obviously, criminals rarely care about the ban.

   To disarm law-abiding citizens is to make the criminal’s life and business safer. This is morally wrong.

   Employers have a moral obligation to their employees to allow them, when necessary, to effectively defend themselves. This is the core of the 2nd Amendment, not gun ownership per se, but the human right to effective self-defense.

   Business can help their employees by pressuring the political class to establish “castle doctrine” law that precludes civil suits against employers and citiznes who use force legitimately in self-defense situations. Another area where business can help is to lobby for “shall issue” laws in the few states that don’t have them, so that a program of education and licensing can be established to help ensure people who do feel it necessary to go armed can be properly trained and licensed.

   Two decades of “shall issue” demonstrates it reduces crime across the board, and this benefits employers and employees. Gun bans, on the other hand, promote crime, as proven time and again in the uS and abroad. How can any sane business manager desire to promote crime in his city?

3. LadyBird Says:
   May 9th, 2008 at 12:53 pm

   Tell that to the many people who have been victims of gun crimes. I don’t care if they have a license or not, the fact that even at work you are not safe is a problem. I believe in the constitution, but when you are on someone else’s property then they should have the right to tell you what you can and can not bring onto that property within reason. If the property own is liable then they should without a doubt have a say. A CCW permit is not a fail safe that will ensure that a person won’t do something illegal.

4. JA Says:
   May 9th, 2008 at 1:22 pm

   I once hired the best administrative assistant ever! She was truly incredible in every way. After having that position be a “revolving door” for two years we were thrilled. Until….one day she came into my office to tell me she was going in back to file and asked if I would keep an eye on her desk. Thinking she wanted me to cover the phones and clients I said I would do so from my office. She said no, that her purse was under her desk and she wanted me to watch it. I told her to put it into her desk drawer but she said it wouldn’t fit. I could tell she was concerned and she insisted I watch it. When I asked why she said “I have a gun in it”. You can imagine my horror and shock! Her story was her husband was out of town and she saw two suspicious men on her way home the night before. She wanted to be prepared that evening if she encountered them again. Wow! I explained that we could not have a gun in the office (let alone a loaded one) and she needed to go lock it in her truck. She refused stating she was scared someone would steal it and it was her husbands. Even after a long discussion, she refused to remove the gun from the premises plus she would not guarantee she would not bring it in again. We had no choice but to let her go. Which was very frightening considering she had a loaded gun. Just goes to show you that no matter the type of worker someone is, you never know…….

5. Brenda Says:
   May 9th, 2008 at 1:27 pm

   I am an HR person, and I am licensed to carry concealed.

   I have been threatened by employees post-termination.
   I have been followed and propositioned at lunch and on the way home from work.

   It’s a shame that the only person with a weapon at Columbine, had bad intent.
   It’s a shame that the only person with a weapon at Pearl High School, had bad intent.
   It’s a shame that the only person with a weapon at VA Tech, had bad intent.

   How many of these do we need to list for people to understand that there is no statement more true than “When guns are outlawed, only outlaws have guns”?

   I believe that those who take the time to get licensed, overall understand the responsibility and will act in a responsible and defensive manner. I also believe that we should be allowed the choice to do so.

   I do not want to be in a situation where the only person with a weapon, has bad intent!

6. Ali Says:
   May 9th, 2008 at 1:27 pm

   As a CCW permit holder reciprocated in 31 states, and a certified law enforcement instructor (not in weapons), I have to agree with the previous comment - statistically, the incidents are not taking place at the hands of CCW permit holders. Prohibiting law abiding citizens from enacting their constitutional rights only gives a better chance for a larger body count for the monsters who perpetrate this evil on the rest of us. How many fewer victims would have been destroyed at Virginia Tech if credentialed weapons owners had been present with their weapons? When the school in Israel was attacked March 8th, the killing was cut short by an armed student who engaged the gunman. Schools ARE workplaces for many professionals. Armed security is a definite deterrent to armed intrusion in the workplace. If a monster has a choice of targets, they would rather choose one that will not have the opportunity to engage. The harder the target, the more likely they will pass it by. I believe I am not the only one who feels “I would rather die on my feet than live on my knees.” It is one of the priciples on which this country was founded.

7. Bob Says:
   May 9th, 2008 at 1:40 pm

   Where does the “right to bear arms” end? If states can order businesses to allow people with gun permits to bring the weapons onto their property, will I as a homeowner have to allow the exterminator to carry a pistol into my home while he works? And if this right is so sacrosanct, why are teachers, court workers and those in the defense industry not allowed to carry theirs? A right is only a right if it applies to all. The NRA has to make up its mind what it wants.

8. KRY Says:
   May 9th, 2008 at 1:56 pm

   Every state that has concealed carry laws has seen a significant drop in violent crimes of every type. However, criminals are aware that many businesses will not permit their employees to defend themselves at work. People who are working, especially uniformed workers are easy targets as a result. The average response time from the start of a crime until police arrive is in the neighborhood of 10 - 15 minutes. As a former police officer, I can tell you that a lot can happen in 10 - 15 minutes of a crime most of it not good.

9. Harold Says:
   May 9th, 2008 at 1:57 pm

   Having been in HR management for 30 years in automotive, meatpacking and other manufacturing industries, and in both rural and metropolitan areas the concern of legally owned and concealed weapons in the company parking lots has not unduly worried me. If one will thoroughly research the cases quoted by “anti gun experts”, rarely has workplace incidents been spur of the moment decisions by the employee turned criminal, but by employees that have had long term behavioral problems acted out at work, and managment did not take early action to get them out of the work force. An incidnet at Martin-Marietta in the south was a good example of a vocal racist the company and union tried to “mother” into working well with those he despised and harassed over a period of 10 years. These writers also quote surveys that twist the information in the surveys to fit their needs, as SHRM has done in articles published in their magazine and website. As a member of SHRM for some time, I respect many of their positions and views but disagree strongly on this issue.

   As the the NRA, most writers misstate their actual written opinions on the right to carry and conceal legal weapons in their personal autos.

   As the lady in the earlier statement was concerned with her safety to and from work, how do you deny her the right to carry a means to defend her self during this time. For sure, no company would assume the security once they leave the property.

   The same argument those opposing firearms in privately owned vehicles should then be applied to first amendment rights, which would then allow companies to force employees to remove any stickers, illustrations or signs the employee has applied to his auto. Go tell your Democratic supporter they could not have a certain candidates bumper sticker on their car - and wait for the lawsuits and cry about their 1st Amendment rights.

   I believe in all of our bill of rights and why they were developed and protected throughout our history. Always be careful when you wish to deprive others of their rights, for you may be next in line.

10. John Reilly Says:
    May 9th, 2008 at 2:20 pm

    Up until the time a person commits a crime, that person with the CCW permit is a law abiding citizen and then perhaps something sets them off while they are at work and they shoot their boss, perhaps a few co-workers amd maybe even a law enforcement official. This isn’t the wild west. You want to protect yourself to and from work, fine! You want to protect your home and family, fine! But when you cross through the doorway of an employer, that employer and the other law abiding citizens who work there have a right to feel safe and to tell you to check your firearms with the deputy on the outskirts of town. And as to the responders who say they know of no case where a licensed individual has shot someone at work, where have they done their research, where did the expression ‘going postal’ come from? Pick up the paper in any major city and you will read accounts of co-workers shooting other co-workers and up until then they were law abiding citizens. Tell that to the families of the deceased.

11. JSK Says:
    May 9th, 2008 at 2:24 pm

    JA’s comment “Just goes to show you that no matter the type of worker someone is, you never know…….” What does that mean? I am an HR Manager with more years on the job than I want to brag about. I personally have a concealed weapons permit and I do carry when I want. But not on the job. I have been threatened and my employees have been threatened by irate employees. I’ve hired off duty Sheriff Deputies to be on duty in uniform/armed at my plant gates to protect the employees. The threats are real and the danger is real. At one location we always, a company policy, had an armed undercover police person present when we terminated an employee and had them escorted from the facility If you or your employees are threatened or are put in a threatening position it is your obligation to protect them. If a situation goes bad the local law enforcement will not be able to respond in time to prevent violence against your employees but only in time to do the paperwork. I believe armed law abiding citizens do prevent crime! If we ever allow our government to disarm the citizens then only the criminals will have guns. Protect your rights and protect your families. VOTE - that is your first and best weapon against crime!

12. Mike Says:
    May 9th, 2008 at 2:45 pm

    Great! Now when I have to terminate someone they will be within 2 minutes of a loaded gun since it’s right there in their car in the parking lot. A CCW permit holder can get just as angry about being discharged as one without and if in those few minutes following a very stressful situation a gun is avaialble, there will be a problem. But wait the solution is that I have my gun and when the disgruntled employee comes back into the building looking to take revenge on those he thinks wronged him we can have a gun battle in the midst of 20 innocent bystanders. Now this is a great solution. NOT! Guns and good business DO NOT MIX. Until getting a CCW permit includes a complete battery of psychological testing and the person’s employer has the right to see the results gins need to stay out of the workplace including the parking lots.

    I also believe in the Bill of Rights and do not wish to deprive the people of those rights simply control the use of those rights so that they do not infringe on the rights of others to be safe in their place of work. I want people thinking about their job not worrying that if they piss someone off one day that the person might go to their car pull out their gun and come in and shoot them. Somehow I don’t think would boost productivity or morale.

13. Mark Seigler Says:
    May 9th, 2008 at 3:46 pm

    Pizza Hut is asking it’s employee to pursue business transactions in unknown, obviously unsafe areas without any means of self defense. While one probably doesn’t need a firearm on an oil derrick in the middle of the ocean, the situation is different in the inner city at night.

    While I wouldn’t want everyone toting handguns around, we (as employers) have to provide the best degree of safety for our employees. When necessary, CCW’s are probably the best way to go about providing for their safety. States and federal agencies really need to allow for this. Proper training that the CCW course provides pays off. And, Mike, if an employee does come back 2 minutes, or 2 hours later with a handgun, do you still want to be unarmed? The issue is then, EVERYBODY in your organization will be at the mercy of a pissed off gunman and you will have absolutely no way to protect them.

14. John Herath Says:
    May 9th, 2008 at 3:52 pm

    Like so many other commenters, I am a long-time HR Director and a CCW holder. One of the points that I think has been presented, but perhaps not understood, and needs to be clearly re-stated is this: Someone who is willing to bring a firearm into the workplace (or any other place) with the intention of committing violent acts against helpless victims is not going to be deterred by the company’s policy against firearms in the workplace. In fact I would argue the employee-turned-criminal would be emboldened by the notion that they can be assured that they will be the only one with a firearm for as long as it takes the police to respond. (Which we now know is at least 10 minutes during which time many bad things will happen if this person is not stopped.)

    References have been made to feeling “safe” due to the absence of trained individuals lawfully and discreetly possessing firearms in the workplace. These comments are inevitably from individuals who do not posses a CCW permit and are ignorant to the training, background checks, and education that is required to attain this permit. I submit to you that I would feel much *safer* in a workplace where every individual had undergone the level of training, background checking and education that I have gone through and lawfully, discreetly possessed a firearm in the office for the sole purpose of self-defense and the defense of others who are in imminent danger of death or severe bodily injury.

    Another concern is liability. If your focus is on reducing your liability, you can find many other statistically more probable scenarios to spend your time reducing your potential liability concerns. One quick example: In order to reduce liability, none of your employees should be allowed to drive a company-owned vehicle or a personal vehicle on company time or company business. Employer liability relating to automobiles in general exceeds any firearm related liability by orders of magnitude.

    So the two main concerns are safety and liability. Safety: We have all seen the consequences of allowing only the violent criminal who has no regard for laws or rules to impose their will on victims made helpless by following those same laws and rules. Liability: Focus energy on where the money is being spent now.

15. Bob Says:
    May 9th, 2008 at 3:53 pm

    Perhaps the saddest documentary I ever saw was the woman who had to set and watch her parents get shot and killed in a Texas restaurant shooting, knowing she had a loaded pistol in the glovebox of her truck that she was trained to use but not allowed to carry because of state law.
    I am greatful to live in a state that allows CCW. When the crackhead comes into the restaurant and opens up if I can save someones mother or children it will be worth far more than a false sense of security by banning handguns from law abiding citizens.

16. Paul N Benson SPHR Says:
    May 9th, 2008 at 4:17 pm

    I’ve been in HR 20 years, and in Management another 10. I’m also a CHL (concealed handgun licensee) and a State Certified Instructor, so obviously I believe in the Individual’s right to protection. And to me, that’s the basis for the best Corporate decision: Most courts are recognizing the Employee’s right to keep a gun in their car, becasue the have the Right to Protection (within various state laws limits) while at their Home, or Car, or Traveling to and from Work.

    If an Employer is willing to “provide guaranteed protection for Employees traveling to and from work”, they may have grounds for saying the Employee should not have a gun in the car on the workplace parking lot. However, most Employers cannot logically make that Guarantee (and neither can any law enforcement agency - hence the Right to Carry movement), so the Employee should have a right to protect themselves to and from work.

    Employers are responsible for safety WITHIN the job environment - logically the work building - where they can provide whatever form of Security they deem fit to protect the employees at their work station. And many do so with armed or unarmed security personnel.

    Fifteen years ago, when I was an HR executive in the hospital business, a group of HR leaders were talking about a policy to “deal with” the new Texas CHL law. The talk included metal detectors at the front and employee entrance. My comment was “don’t put one at the employee entrance– you don’t want to know what your night shift nurses have been carrying in their purses for the last 20 years”. I can promise you that many of those nurses, working night shifts in urban neighborhoods where employers cannot even provide “parking lot” protection for employees, much less “to and from work” have been “taking care of themselves” and carrying more than “bandage scissors” for a lot longer than this debate has been going on, and the problems with employee violence were nil.

17. Kevin Says:
    May 9th, 2008 at 4:52 pm

    As an HR person and a CCL holder i have strong views on both sides of the fence. If an employee has obtained a CCL I believe that that employee has the right to bear arms within the workplace as long as they follow the regulations of the CCL. On the otherhand no business owner or manager wants a work place full of weapon weilding employees. The relationship between employer and CCL holding employees should be a safety minded responsible one. I would like to see businesses start programs where employees who are interested in carrying their concealed weapons in the workplace are allowed to do so but with some type of documentation within their employee files. This would allow the employee to exercise their rights and still give employers the ability to monitor who would potentially be carrying a weapon in their place of business.

    As for the issue of weapons in vehicles when they are parked in businesses parking lots I think business owners should leave well enough alone. Unless you are prepared to pay my vehicle payment, property tax, insurance, and fuel bill I will transport my weapon in my vehicle at my leasure.

    A note to all persons exercising their “right to bear arms” although it is a “right” it is also a responsibility, so be responsible or you may not have the “right”.

18. Jerry Says:
    May 9th, 2008 at 4:59 pm

    Having a CCW permit is an indicator of the persons ability, background and intent. Usually States require a reason for CC permit before issuing a license. I have a permit for other reasons but have not and will not bring a pistol into the work environment.

    I am a Marine so my view may be tinted somewhat. I do not believe it is necessary to carry a gun onto company properity, unlees there is an immediate / serious / believable threat. I would work with local police first but at the end of the day companies are in fact responsible for the safety of their employees. Citizens are permitted to bring guns into a parking lot but must leave them in the confines of there vehicle, which is a meaningless gesture. In a crisis you need a gun at that moment and you probably wont have time to say “time out I have to go to the parking lot” therefore the fact that it is there serves no real purpose and should not be allowed / company policy.

19. John Says:
    May 9th, 2008 at 5:28 pm

    While I am a firm believer in open carry, I under stand a lot of people are uncomfortable around guns.
    Our company provides a gun safe for our employees for their rifles and shotguns and personal gun safe for hand weapons. If they leave their weapon in their vehicle our on premises policy states that any weapon that is brought unto company grounds must be secured and out of plain site in any public areas and safes are available for those who need them.
    This is because employees sometime have to leave their vehicle on premises for several days while on location. For the most part our employees don’t bring their weapons to work… except around hunting season

20. Wendy Weinbaum Says:
    May 12th, 2008 at 9:57 am

    One of the ways the US movie industry engangers the public is by showing unsafe gun handling practices. Ever notice how they always wave firearms around, crossing the plane of other people’s bodies (or their own!) with the barrel when picking up or unholstering a gun? Ever notice how everyone carries their hand gun or rifle with their finger on the trigger? BAD moves! Never point at ANYTHING you aren’t willing to see destroyed. Finger OFF the trigger until ready to SHOOT.

21. Dale Shantz Says:
    May 12th, 2008 at 12:00 pm

    The issues raised continue to dodge the point that the presence or absence of guns, or any other weapon, is not the core issue. It is the willingness and desire to cause harm that is critical, the means at hand is secondary. The band-aid of gun control, affecting only those who cause no harm, itself causes harm both by giving an illusion of doing something, while enabling those who would exercise violence. What is needed in the workplace is observant HR staff (replicating the nosy “old Aunt Ethel” of past small towns - hopefully with more professionalism!), competent counseling staff (substitute grandparents?), and firm but fair police action should an individual be seen as getting close to the edge. We may never revert to a time when high school students could bring their shotguns to school to hunt with the coach after track practice (my experience), but we do need to replicate similar social processes tossed out with our mobility and technologically isolated society. With such, the presence of firearms could be as irrelevant as in the past: without such, futile efforts at blaming an object while ducking the need to take affirmative steps to connect with those lost in our shifting society will just continue the litany of bloody outbursts.

22. Doug Bishoff Says:
    May 13th, 2008 at 3:05 pm

    I am a CCW carrier as are several other employees of our medical clinic. At one time we had a stalker after one or our more attractive receptionists. Our attorney informed us that in WV we were partially responsible for her welfare, even at the Food Lion parking lot, because he met her at our job site. I hired a security agency to train all employees in self defense and assisted any employees in purchasing handguns and getting CCW licenses. I now feel much better about the safety of our facility and for the many females we have that sometimes work late hours. I would never encourage an employer to even hint that there aren’t any guns allowed in a workplace. Only bad things can happen without a proper defense or at least the threat of a proper defense.

23. Steve Says:
    May 20th, 2008 at 9:59 am

    I am a plant manager. I have a CCW license in my state. Unfortunatley, our company policy prohibits carrying, possesing, etc ANY weapon. Even knives with blades >3″ are forbidden. Of course, these rules will only be followed by the honest and law abiding. Any thug or terrorist with “bad intent” could kill us all. What is needed is law to prevent liablity by the company for employee actions. Also, in this day and time when so many commute so far, I am strongly in favor of allowing employees to have weapons in the vehicles as there is great danger when traveling to and from work.

24. Paul Says:
    May 20th, 2008 at 10:51 am

    As a CCW holder and a safety director for 150 employee company, let me say this:
    It can not be better said than the law enforcement officer that was my class instructor, “When the law was first enacted in this state, I was some what leary of the out come. I figured I would be dealing with just that many more people with guns. After teaching a number of these (CCW) classes, I firmly believe, it is not you who take this class I worry about. In fact, I welcome you. IF I am in a gunfight, yes I want help. NO don’t pull your weapon to show me you have it, but yell and let me know.” The class chuckled at this, but it made since. A lot of responsible people have guns. Everywhere. It doesn’t matter where, what type or how many bullets it shoots. THEY are the one’s controlling the gun. A lot of people have guns that should not have them, felons, evil-doers, and irresponsible people. The same can be said about drinking and driving, driving at an irresponsible age, or too old, or legally blind…. You can make any case you want for any issue you wish to use.
    I personally, welcome concealed carry. If I don’t trust a drunk driver, I watch them. The same with anyone with a firearm. My company does not see it as such, yet I will abide by the rules, including the state law allowing me to lock it in my vehicle. That gun is not the one that worries me.

25. jEFF nOYES Says:
    May 20th, 2008 at 11:08 am

    If liability to employers is the issue, then not allowing guns at work, or in vehicles is a bad decision!
    The company I work for has such a policy, but does not have a secure facility. Anyone at anytime could come into our facility, and if the intent was retribution, or to do damage, would be able to do much. If employees are denied the right of self defense, the company assumes that duty (which would include travel time since weapons can not be in vehicles). If they fail, and a violence incident does occure, they would be liable at the very least of reckless endangerment! I would gladly join in such an action should that unfortunate scenario happens at my work place, or to me via a road rage incident etc. as I travel to or from work. The ones who seem the most afraid of the thought of firearms at work, are the ones who continue to rape and plunder their employees through low wage increases, changes in beneffits, “out sourcing” jobs and services etc., all while collecting record wages and bonuses themselves.

26. Tim Says:
    May 20th, 2008 at 11:19 am

    If an employee goes so far over the edge that they make the decision to react violently, a gun in their car is not going to matter. A screw driver can be just as deadly as a gun, as can just about any other object should a person choose. In an age where everything that happens to a person is someone else fault, what would keep a company from being dragged into court when a licensed CCW person is injured because they were forced to keep their gun locked in their car. The point is, if there is a violent crime in your workplace, someone is getting sued. Crimminals don’t care about CCW licenses, because their actions have already cost them the right to get one. A CCC holder is much more likely to minimize or stop a shooting than start one.

27. Beaux Says:
    May 20th, 2008 at 12:57 pm

    As several has stated as we take away rights for a law abiding CCW holder to have a weapon in their locked personal car, it is a short slippery slope to stop law abiding citizens from having a weapon in their locked personal house. As others have stated, the person with the CCW is much more likely to stop a crime than to commit one and screwdrivers, utility knives and a good sharp punch can be just as deadly when someone has the wrong intent.

    I have been in the Safety and HR field for over 20 years in rural and urban environments and I have been felt much more threatened by the unstable employee with little or no support system than I have ever been by rifles, handguns or shotguns in the vehicles of law abiding hunters or CCW holders.

28. John cantrell Says:
    May 20th, 2008 at 3:03 pm

    Many citizens (male and female) commute long distances and many of these work late night shifts. When a corporation bans hand guns in workers’ cars because their car is in the company’s parking lot, they have effectively taken away the individual’s last line of strong self defense during the long commute to and from work. Picture your mother, sister, wife, daughter or girl friend in this situation. Scary, isn’t it! The business has not made its parking lot any safer, but has placed all who use the parking lot in harms way! Where in the Constitution is a corporation granted the right to curtail an individual’s constitutional rights? It’s “We the people”, not “We the Corporation”! Let common sense prevail!

29. James Says:
    May 20th, 2008 at 5:26 pm

    Employees with carry permits have undergone background checks far more extensive than most employees outside of those requiring a security clearance, have navigated a number of government mandated barriers to earn the permits, spent hours and days in training and completing forms and fingerprinting, paid considerable amounts of money for training, the permit and their firearms and all just to comply with the laws restricting where and when they may carry an inanimate object.

    As a safety professional I don’t worry about people who have proven repeatedly that they are law abiding members of the community. Criminals don’t obey the law. That’s probably why we call them …criminals.

30. Mark Says:
    May 21st, 2008 at 7:30 am

    Only law abiding citizens obey gun laws, the criminal never does. THEY DO NOT WORK. If you want to make a gun law, make a law that says you will spend life in prison if you use a gun in a violent act! Im for the restoration of our constitutional rights…

31. Harold Says:
    August 15th, 2008 at 1:57 pm

    There is no law or policy that will prevent “industrial homocide”. Even in China where personal ownership of firearms is forbidden a US citizen is stabbed to death. I have a brother who is a pharmacist with a leading pharmacy chain that was robbed at gun point in late July, and a fellow pharmacy was robbed by the same man a week later. After meeting with the corporate risk management requesting security, they gave fluff. The next week the same man with a gun robbed my brothers store again - same time of night/same MO. Now they have finally hired police to occasionally sit in the parking lot. Of course the store does not allow carry of firearms. After having a gun put to his back and told to lay down on the floor, you can imagine his anger.

    I would recommend those HR professionals who are just afraid of guns get past emotion, go to a CCW instructor at the local range and just based on facts, not on media bias and even SHRM bias. As a CCW permit holder, we know what legally happens if we use a gun incorrectly.

    I respect SHRM and have met many of their great staff, but they also work in a well secured office in Alexandria, VA and have not ventured into much of the work many of us work in every day. Their surveys they quote are misleading and the analysis faulty.

    Finally, if some of the responders above will read the laws they despise, none of those states allow guns on the premises, except in the parking lots properly secured.

Leave a Reply