32 of 32 people found the following review helpful
Politically Incorrect, maybe, but quite Factually Correct.,
This review is from: Guns in the Workplace: A Manual for Private Sector Employers and Employees (Paperback)
There is a need for a book to advise the hundreds of thousands of concealed-carry licensees on how to deal with the workplace, and to advise the employer as well, as to options, and real risks vs. hyperbole. Gary Kleck, Don Kates, and many other serious criminologists have provided ample evidence that concealed carry makes workplaces more safe, not less, so that 'debate' need not be re-visited every time the topic comes up, yet employers and risk-management advisors tend to only consider one side of the issue, and this author provides an overview of the (more factually substantiated) other side.
I've worked in many pharmacies and emergency rooms where numerous professionals (pharmacists, physicians, and nurses - NOT just 'security guards') were carrying concealed firearms. Holdups and confrontations, which are inevitable in those environments, were always handled to minimize risk to all, with never a shot being fired, and only a few times did anyone even have to reveal the presense of their firearm (i.e. we'd let the robber have the drugs and money, as long as they didn't start hurting anyone). Thus, most of the 'bad guys' and NONE of the general public, ever suspected they were seeing armed pharmacists, physicians, or nurses. In some areas of the country (notably the safest), some one in ten adults has a carry permit, so like it or not, there are many armed employers and employees, often without guidance due to the private nature of carrying a firearm.
This author exposes this vast protection-oriented world to the public, including employers, and it is a world they need to see; too many people only see firearms on television, and only cops and robbers have them.
Having many patients who are female victims of rape and assault over the years, and who have learned the hard way why not having a firearm can be dangerous, only to see them stripped of that protection (or having to be deceptive and defy company rules), I have come to appreciate the dilemma many employees face, and many employers are sympathetic to, but have no source of information about.
I'd like to see more books on this topic!
Andrew Johnstone, RPh/MD
Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-4 of 4 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Apr 15, 2007 10:53:53 AM PDT
Joseph L. Arp says:
"why not having a firearm can be dangerous" is the important part.
Posted on Aug 24, 2007 10:10:53 AM PDT
T. Ogilvie says:
Think about your own safety people, if you are being attacked, can you afford to wait until 911 gets around to you? I sure can't. Be responsible for your own life, and for the lives of your loved ones. Being allowed to carry at work is simply a good idea.
Posted on Mar 11, 2008 9:33:15 AM PDT
Jamie J. Dyer says:
Sadly, if Dr. Johnstone lived one state north he and his colleagues would be violating the law by carrying in a hospital. I am from Michigan and I thought that hospitals were one of the "forbidden" carry areas. Our CPW cards have an abbreviated listing on them so I pulled it out and checked. I was right, it specifically states on the Michigan CPL that you cannot carry in hospitals. His comments regarding the dilema of defying company rules vs personal protection is right on the money. Of particular concern is the aftermath if you were forced to use the gun in self defense in a prohibited carry area. While you may have had every right under the law to use deadly force, I would be willing to bet that because you had the firearm where you were not supposed to would mean you would spend more time behind bars than the criminal.
In reply to an earlier post on Jul 8, 2008 11:16:42 PM PDT
Saalim Carter says:
This letter is in response to "Individuals had their rights before 14th Amendment" (July 9).
I am responding to a woeful misreading of my letter.
Mr. Arp encourages me to read "The Founders' View of the Right to Bear Arms" by David E. Young. Upon review of Young's credentials, it is clear that he is neither an acclaimed (or trained) historian nor a prominent constitutional law professor. I was only addressing the U.S. Constitution and not state constitutions. There is overwhelming historiographical evidence that the founders were concerned, especially with the federal Constitution, of checking the overreach of democracy. As such, the Bill of Rights did not grant individual rights but states protection against the federal government.
It should also be noted that the legislative history of the Fourteenth Amendment overwhelmingly substantiates my view, and the view of Yale constitutional law Professor Akhil Amar, that the Fourteenth Amendment was meant to incorporate the individual rights against the states, especially since Southern state governments were violating the individual rights of former slaves and poor whites.
I am reposting this just in case they don't publish my letter in the Daily Collegian
Saalim Abdul Carter
Department of History
The University of Chicago
‹ Previous 1 Next ›