No one should be surprised that Concealed Weapon Laws Make Security Practitioners Worried. I’ll bet there were lots of “security practitioners” that were “worried” about blacks being released from slavery too. Reading the study they cite I found certain items particularly interesting.
The title of the study is “Preventing Gun Violence in the Workplace” (emphasis mine). It’s not about preventing violence in general it’s about preventing gun violence.
They claim “Research suggests that workplaces that prohibit weapons are significantly less likely to experience a worker homicide than workplaces that allow guns.” But they apparently include the police–“the risk of becoming a victim of a violent crime on the job is highest for workers in law enforcement occupations, who experienced more than 125 violent incidents per 1,000 employed persons.” One can only guess that the author, Dana Loomis, PhD, is of the opinion that the police would be safer if they were prohibited from having weapons. But then Loomis says, “Carrying a weapon is part of the function of some workers whose jobs involve the protection of people or property such as police officers, security guards, corrections officers, game wardens, and park rangers. Possession of weapons by such personnel is generally intended to prevent violence and is not regarded as a public health and safety concern.”
The most disturbing item I found in the report was the suggestion that OSHA should get involved:
The general duty clause of the 1970 Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) Act (Section 5(a) (1)) requires employers to provide “employment and a place of employment which are free from recognized hazards.” An interpretation of the general duty clause written by OSHA’s solicitor in 1992 acknowledged that an employer could be found in violation of the Act for failing to take “feasible steps” to protect employees from violence and injury when the risks are “significant enough to be recognized hazards.
To date, OSHA, for example, has chosen not to regulate weapons in the workplace, but this position could change. It is conceivable that employers who fail to take feasible and effective action to protect workers from known risks of violent crime could be found in violation of the OSH Act, if OSHA were to take a more aggressive approach to workplace violence.
Can anyone guess who Loomis cites for data on concealed carry laws? That right, the Brady Center to Prevent Violence website. No mention of the NRA or other pro-gun organization as a source except for a brief mention which uses the type of language you might expect from such a bigot (emphasis added):
A critique posted on the National Rifle Association’s Web site alleges that the authors failed to consider whether workplaces at high risk of crime were also more likely to allow guns and that they ignored information about workplaces’ experience with crime (National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action, 2005).
With an attitude like what I read here it’s no wonder Doomis is worried. He’s worried the good guys will win.