Atlanta Journal-Constitution's columnist Jay Booker writes "that argument does not stand up to scrutiny." An Insurance Information Institute vice president told Jay that insurance companies typically charge higher premiums for companies that use armed security guards. They do not base this on anti-gun ideology but on the cold hard facts of risk assessments. What their data tell them is that "an armed guard is more likely to be a danger than a protection."
In addition, Jay cites results of "peer-reviewed research" that "homicides are five to seven times more likely in workplaces that allow personal firearms."
Jay concludes his column by observing that FedEx is an excellently run company with 300,000 employees, and they have obviously decided that risks far outweigh benefits of allowing employees to be armed. And he leaves us with this thought:
"The fact that some are even debating whether to strip them of that authority [to decide to have a gun-free workplace] tells you how far off the deep end we've gone on this topic."I completely agree. Understand what the Gun Owners are asking for: they want to make it illegal for a company like FedEx not to have their security guards armed.
What an irony that Kennesaw, GA -- where the FedEx shooting took place -- gained notoriety in 1982 when it passed an ordinance that requires every home to have at least one handgun. Conservatives tout this as the reason that Kennesaw has a very low rate of crime; others point out there wasn't much crime there before 1982 either. Add in the fact that the law really isn't enforced, and it's hard to gauge what effect it might have had.
Ralph
No comments:
Post a Comment