Strength in numbers

[i_am_the_swammi]

But what is out in someone's car - who cares?

 

Maybe work cares...maybe I care.

 

If a conservative company wants to prevent any chance of, say, a "spur-of-the-moment" act of violence, and prohibits any weapon from being on their property, aren't they within their rights to do so?

 

I live an hour from where I work. I get into an altercation with a co-worker, or I get fired, and I leave the building. If there is a weapon in my car, and my mind races to the point of "I am going to light this place up"...I grab my weapon from my car in a moment of weakness/rage, and use it. Had my weapon been at home, and I had two hours (and hour each way) to reconsider my actions and come to my senses while my rage subsided, could it potentially prevent a terrible event on their property?

 

I guess my question/thougths revolve around this: if instilling the "no guns anywhere at work" policy prevents even just one rage-inspired murder (like I describe above), how can it not be worth it? While my scenario above may seem far-fetched, if it comes to fruition even once in a lifetime, it makes inconveniencing anyone worth it.

 

ETA: More to the point, I think the company has the right to make their employees as safe as possible...if enacting the policy makes the above "1 in a million" scenario "0 in a million" its worth it, IMO.

Edited March 26, 2009 by i_am_the_swammi

[detlef]

Aren't public school grounds by definition public property?

Not exactly. For example, if some unauthorized person is loitering around campus during school hours, I'm pretty sure they can be asked to leave. So, it's not like a town plaza or something.

[darin3]

Whose common sense? There are H8s in the world and skins(es) in the world. As I said I am not saying I agree or disagree with what folk are saying. Its seems pretty reasonable to me that somebody should be able to have a gun in their car if they are going shooting after work, but it might not seem reasonable to somebody else. The same thing applies with what weapons people are allowed to own. Some people believe its their right to own fully automatic weapons - for safety, for collections, etc - but why wouldn't the same logic apply to a chain gun or RPG? Again, its an issue of lines.

See response, above. I was trying to say that with some issues, you can draw a line in the sand and have it make sense to those with all kinds of sensibilities. It's issues like this, again... with such a polar opposite on each side.. that it's much, much more difficult to draw that line.

[i_am_the_swammi]

Aren't public school grounds by definition public property?

 

 

Yes, but the property/policy is governed by a set of rules enacted by a Board of Directors upon whom the public is able to vote.

 

I was just saying that it's difficult to, because of the polarizing of the issue, figure out an arbitrary line in the sand. The losing side is going to cry foul all of the time.

 

+1

[jetsfan]

I was an MP while in the USN for 3 of my 8 years of service. I can tell you that you are SORELY misled if you are to believe you can't get a DUI on a military base. A person who is admitted to a military base is subject to the same laws and regulations of the surrounding community, plus any additional regulations of the base. The MPs and DOD's are the law enforcement officers of the base, and have jurisdiction to investigate any crime occurring or suspected on the base. DUI cases occurring on military bases are usually brought to the US Attorney's office and prosecuted in the US Magistrate's court for that jurisdiction. Federal laws make it a federal crime to commit an act on Federal lands (such as national parks and military bases) that would be a crime in the State in which the federal land is located.

 

While that may be true of military installations, the NASA and other non-DoD sites that I have been to do not have such governance.

Edited March 26, 2009 by jetsfan