Research: Guns in the Workplace Do Not Make You Safer

Given the conversations that I've put myself through on pro-gun rights sites, you'd think that all research led to the conclusion that everyone was safer with a gun in tow.

In fact, some research shows that this is not the case, and that, in the case of a workplace, policies that allow guns increase the probability of homicides, as opposed to those that forbid bearing firearms.

This article was published in the American Journal of Public Health in 2005.  The authors concluded that the risk of homicide was 7 times greater in workplaces that permitted firearms, than in those that prohibited all bearing of weapons. 

So let's be clear here: according to this study, the risk of being killed is higher where guns are allowed than in workplaces where they are not.  In other words, being allowed to bring guns to work does not make you safer, but in fact makes you less safe.

Now, for the partisans of doubt (i.e. guns rights advocates), the study examined only North Carolina and what's more, nearly 10 years ago (probably longer, considering that the research is usually done long before publication).

Thus, for the sake of guns rights advocates, I say, let's do more research! And for sane people, I say, I'm not terribly surprised, and I'm disappointed that state legislatures (like South Carolina) have ignored these kinds of studies.

Provisos: there are lots of things this type of research does not take into account.  First, people in NC are crazy.  Just kidding.  I'd say they are the highest IQ state of the South (although that's not saying a lot) (more seriously, I'd point out that Nascar, which is based in states like NC and Tennessee, has the fans with the highest IQs, of the fans of different sports, on average).

Second, this doesn't explain if the workplaces that permit firearms require licenses, or what kinds of businesses they are, etc.  And lots of other things that I simply am not going to take the time to think about right now.

Third, things can change a lot in 10 years time.  This is one of the reasons why research needs to continue.  The anti-scientism of some of my interlocutors will certain express itself as, don't spend my taxpayer dime for this (when instead you can defund the VA and let vets come back, without a support network, and kill themselves ...) and all scientists lie, yadda yadda yadda.

Imminent Public Threat: Open Carry Versus Public Safety, Part 1

Apparently as many as 45 states have now passed open carry legislation, which is remarkable.  That means that more states approve of individuals openly carrying weapons made for killing than there are that approve of same sex persons getting married (only 19 states).  Alas, the ridiculousness of open carry does not need comparison to be made apparent.

Why should Open Carry (or OC, as its apologists like to put it) be promoted? What are the reasons for it?

1) The Second Amendment protects the rights to keep and bear arms. This is the elephant in the room.  Not only does the 2ndA allow for this, but there is considerable state legislation protecting these rights.

So just to be clear, this is a pretty considerable argument for the gun promoters. 

But that does not mean it is a clear and unquestionable amendment. In fact, it is apparently so questionable that numerous states have had to pass legislation to clarify and specify this amendment. And more to the point, 45 states have deemed it necessary to specifically protect OC rights, as I said above.  

Just to be clear then, there is nothing in the 2ndA as legislation that specifically protects OC, such that further legislation was not necessary.

So that is considerable legislative basis, but how does it fare in the court of reason?  By this what I mean is that we need to separate different kinds of reasons.  The former is a reason based on conventional law.  But those things change continually and really only reflect the powers of legislative forces.  They do not reflect simple rational reflection.

2) Carrying a weapon openly allows one to protect oneself in public places.  

But why must she carry openly to protect herself.  In fact, her advantage in carrying openly is frightening potential criminals away, right?

Perhaps, imagining that all criminals carefully select the most vulnerable unarmed individuals.  But that right comes at the cost of the right to security of others who also occupy public spaces.  It is not merely that someone is carrying at home, but OC specifically protects someone's right to carry in a public place.  

So what we have here then is a case in which the right of one individual needs to be weighed against the rights of other individuals. 

If I met this asshole on the street in Florida, I'd have
to run, because he can get away with murder (if I
was black and wearing a hoodie). 

Both the OCer and the NCer (non-carrier) are protected by the police from criminals, some fictional third party that is somehow excluded from these categories.  But the NCer also needs to be protected from the OCer as well.  The reason for this is that the OCer is carrying a weapon that has no purpose but to kill, and the NCer has no way to know that the OCer has been trained and licensed (no one has to show their carry license to anyone other than a police officer).

Thus, just as an NCer doesn't walk in a highway, for the sake of safety, no NCer should remain in a space where there is an OCer (which might well be called the George Zimmerman rule).  

Conclusion: the OCer has perhaps made herself safer (or merely given herself the false sense of security, since there are numerous examples of "good guys with guns" not able to protect themselves from "bad guys with guns"), but she has forced any reasonable NCer to leave and insodoing, restricted the First Amendment rights of NCers and even other OCers. 

In fact, one could see the OCer as an example of the violation of prior restraint (this connection brought to you by responsible gun celebrist Walter Sobjchek).

This is only part 1.  I'll consider more in another post.

The Second Amendment is not colorblind, or, the NRA is not only a terrorist organization, it's racist

What if all of these white male gun owners advocated second amendment rights for African Americans as well?  But of course, when they say they need protection, it's because they think they need protection from blacks.

Of course, an amendment to the constitution which treats certain citizens differently from others, seems ... unconstitutional ... no?

If you're an apologist for the second Amendment, then you are an apologist for racism.

REPRINT: Have a Gun, But no Piece of Mind

REPUBLISHED From:

http://www.abqjournal.com/256717/news/buying-a-handgun-didnt-make-writer-feel-any-safer-after-all.html

Last Labor Day, I told you readers about my decision to buy a gun, a radical choice for someone who has spent much of her career writing about the evil and tragedy that occur at the end of one.

That column elicited more comments than any other I’ve written in the five years I’ve been contributing to UpFront.

An overwhelming number of you voiced your approval. I felt welcomed into a huge armed fraternity, a society of shooters only too happy to have converted another so-called liberal into the fold.

I felt so loved.

Many of you offered advice on what kind of firearm I should purchase. Many of you admonished me to take classes, get a concealed-carry permit (or at least take the training) and to practice, practice, practice.

I explained that my change of heart had come about because someone in my inner circle had finally broken away from a horrific relationship, throwing the rest of my family into a dangerous, potentially deadly drama. As the sole protector of my family, I felt compelled to find a better way to do that protecting than keeping a butter knife under my pillow or hoping a 911 call would bring help to my remote abode in time.

You readers told me to consider whether I was ready to shoot to kill, not just to maim or frighten. Take no prisoners, some of you said. Have fun with the gun when not picking off marauders, some of you said.

You’ll recall, though, that purchasing my first gun hit a snag when the FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System was not so instant and spit back, for reasons I still don’t know, a “DELAY” notification requiring an additional check.

Finally, after going through the entire process again (which is surprisingly easy) in October, I purchased a shiny new Ruger .22-caliber pistol, chosen because it fits best in my hand, has plenty of safety features, a good price and cheap-enough ammo to allow me to practice, practice, practice without breaking the pocketbook.

But now, I expect some of you will hate me again.

I still haven’t fired a single cartridge.

I haven’t taken a class, haven’t set foot in a shooting range. The gun sits locked and unloaded in a secure safe, as shiny as the day I bought it.

Maybe I’m chicken. Maybe I just haven’t had time. But maybe something visceral happened when I held that gun and those brassy bullets.

Maybe Sandy Hook.

Maybe George Zimmerman.

Maybe Tera Chavez.

Maybe Hadiya Pendleton.

Maybe Sunni Reza, the 8-year-old Albuquerque girl shot and killed in the crossfire of a gang-related shooting in May.

Maybe Nehemiah Griego, the 15-year-old boy accused of gunning down his parents and his three younger siblings in their South Valley home.

Maybe Antoinette Tuff, the Georgia bookkeeper who saved the lives of potentially hundreds of elementary school children and police officers when she neutralized a mentally disturbed gunman, not with a weapon but with compassionate words, calmness and love.

Maybe because I just don’t understand a society that flocks to gun stores to stock up on weapons and bullets every time weapons and bullets are used in yet another American tragedy.

Maybe because I don’t understand a country where, as former President Clinton noted last week, it can be harder to vote than to obtain an assault weapon.

Maybe because National Rifle Association Vice President Wayne LaPierre and his paranoid fear-mongering scare me, but not for the reasons he might expect.

Maybe because I have seen so few situations where a gun made things safer.

Maybe because I just don’t have the stomach to be in this kind of fraternity.

Mostly, there is this: My youngest, who is special needs, got angry at an older brother recently and threatened to get my gun and shoot him.

Not that he could. The gun safe requires my fingerprint to open. The magazine is out, the cartridges are removed.

Which also means that had that previous family drama that convinced me to purchase a gun in the first place escalated, my Ruger would have been of no use to me, unless I could have talked the intruder into waiting while I retrieved it from the safe, loaded it and figured out how to shoot it.

I bought the gun to feel safer. I don’t.

And what am I teaching my son? That a gun can resolve conflicts?

So there my shiny Ruger sits. I haven’t decided whether to sell it – that’s not an easy proposition, though I suppose it’s done quietly all the time.

Perhaps if I take it out to a shooting range, I’ll change my mind. Perhaps you all will change my mind. So go ahead, make my day.

For now, though, I’m leaning toward thinking it’s best to take my chances with the butter knife under the pillow. That, somehow, seems safer.

UpFront is a daily front-page news and opinion column. Comment directly to Joline at 823-3603,jkrueger@abqjournal.com or follow her on Twitter @jolinegkg. Go to ABQjournal.com/letters/new to submit a letter to the editor.