Thank God for Homeland Security! What would we do without them!? Yep, putting your hard earned tax dollars to work, the Department of Homeland Security has just released an “informative” video on your options if your office is attacked by a nutball with a gun.
- So what gems is wisdom do the Obama administration “experts” have to offer?
- Run
- Hide under your desk [it's the last place nutball shooters look]
- Hide behind something large [as opposed to something small]
- Remain quite while hiding [as opposed to screaming out "Is the killer looking for me gone yet!" repeatedly]
- Silence your cell phone [as opposed to beep, beep, beep... texting your BFFs on the drama unfolding]
- Lock your door [if your management and have an office... if you’re a peon try to get to your managers office before he does.]
- Fight back [with scissors] [Which I guess is a bit better than (as the East Texas saying goes) "standing around with your %$@* in your hand"; but not by much.]
Wow! I mean wow! Thank God we have Uncle Obama and his boys looking after us! We need to watch and re-watch this video until we have those options clearly memorized.
The video is called “A Few Things You Might Want to Do to Kill (We Mean Pass) the Time Before You Kiss Your Ass Goodbye Since We Neutered and Disarmed You in the Face of Mortal Danger”.
Noooo… just kidding… that would be way to informative. I mean, if that were the title, it alone would contain more useful information that the dumbass video.
I don’t know what’s more insulting. The fact that this video probably took thousands of bureaucratic man hours and millions of dollars to produce OR that these morons at Homeland Security THINK we’re even dumber than they are!
The geniuses at Homeland Security could have offered one more Option for killing (I mean passing) the time… “Reconsider your leftist stance on gun control; because it seems the nutballs and criminals aren’t obeying the law your leftist politicians passed with such good appearances and intentions. Think about how nice it would be if the government, and/or your employer, and/or building management allowed a licensed owner of a gun to legally carry it RIGHT HERE & RIGHT NOW. Think about how that person would have had a chance (I mean a much better chance than attacking the shooter holding scissors or private parts) of saving his or her life and by extension your dumb ass. Just think about that.”
OR Better yet… think about that BEFORE you find yourself under a desk kissing your behind (or that of your cube-mate because he/she is crouched under there with you) goodbye.
Hyopthetical question: How would a supervisor carry out corrective action or termination of armed employees?
I really don’t even understand the question. Most corporations I’ve ever worked for were the equivalent of irrational heartless bastards who’d sell you out for a nickel. They never needed logic or reason to fire your ass if they just felt like it. (I once told a coworker that and they replied that I was greatly overestimating the value for which the company would pull the trigger on profiting from my misfortune.)
You might as well ask the hypothetical question: What’s to stop a shark from eating your ass as you flounder around in its environment a hundred miles from shore?
Anyway… I digress.
First, I assume you mean a licensed and legally armed employees carrying a concealed weapon.
About the only thing guaranteed to prevent punitive action from several people (usually employers) and organizations that would like to nail you butt to the wall IS making sure nobody knows. Other than that; you’re screwed.
Most companies have legal wording in their employee handbook that states that carrying a concealed weapon is against company policy and the punishment may (actually will) be termination. This is how it is done most often. With you working for a big corporation, I’d bet a $100 it’s in your company’s handbook/regulations.
Next, a very large percentage of office buildings have a “policy” of no concealed guns. You’ve probably noticed those little signs at entrances. The same goes for most restaurants, etc…
An interesting note (at least in Texas) is that very few buildings follow the law regarding those signs and thus haven’t given proper legal notice that you can’t carry.
For a sign to prohibit licensed concealed handguns (in Texas) it must meet the following criteria:- There is specific legal wording that must be used.
- Must be in both English and Spanish (usually not there)
- Lettering must be at least one inch in height (it’s usually much smaller)
- Lettering must be in contrasting colors (like black/white)
- Displayed in a conspicuous manner
Texas Legal Code on No Gun Signs:
http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/PE/htm/PE.30.htm#30.06
Of course direct verbal or written warning from a building employee or owner requires you to leave immediately. It’s the law. And, being a property rights advocate I’m OK with that. Of course I also believe that if a business makes that decision they are taking ABSOLUTE responsibility for your safety. I think the legal (even criminal) and economic consequences for not then doing that should keep those who make that decision up at night. Instead it’s reversed.
Personal Story:
In an office building I worked at in Houston we actually had an incident involving an armed employee. This was a gentleman that worked for another company in our office building. He was discovered to be legally carrying a licensed handgun and was promptly fired by his employer.
He sued. And I’m not sure if they couldn’t prove he had received their “policy” as described in their handbook; or if it just wasn’t there; but they had no legal grounds to fire him.
The company then said; “Well, we fired you because you broke the building policy.” That didn’t work because the building didn’t follow the law on the size (and Spanish version) of their signs. The guy ended up getting full back pay with damages and forced them to rehire him. I remember a lot of us were rooting for him.
I also remember the day after the lawsuit was settled, the no gun signs put up by the office building increased to the legal size and specifications. Plus within a few days everyone in the building was handed a notice that they had to sign and return to HR.
>I really don’t even understand the question.
How would a supervisor carry out corrective action or termination of an armed employee — not *because* he’s armed, but for some normal, criticize-or-fire-the-guy reason?
Let’s imagine everyone in a typical American corporate office has a valid CCL and a pistol. Let’s say you’re a supervisor, and you have to fire one of these always-armed employees because he’s incompetent. How could that be done? You ask him to come see you. You ask him to check his weapon. He says no. Then what?
On most military bases, as I understand it, only MPs can go around with a sidearm (most of the time) for this very reason. It’s hard to discipline people if they’re packing.
I was simply imagining the practical ramifications of a setting where all (or most) employees were armed — which would indeed change the office mass-murder scenario of the video you mentioned, but would also open up other dangers, and procedures few of us have had to deal with.
>> How would a supervisor carry out corrective action or termination of an armed employee — not *because* he’s armed, but for some normal, criticize-or-fire-the-guy reason?
Hmmm… Let’s see… maybe he could follow the law of the state he’s in; and maybe the policies of the company he works for. I don’t really see the problem UNLESS said supervisor assumes a person who has a legal right to carry a gun is irrational or dangerous (even in that situation)… in which case the supervisor is a damned idiot and then there’s no telling what he’ll do; but that would make him the problem and not the employee with the legal weapon.
>> Let’s imagine everyone in a typical American corporate office has a valid CCL and a pistol. Let’s say you’re a supervisor, and you have to fire one of these always-armed employees because he’s incompetent. How could that be done? You ask him to come see you. You ask him to check his weapon. He says no. Then what?
The same way it’s done today…
“Hey Bill… sorry but we’re going to have to let you go… Sure, you’re entitled to the reason… You’re work here has unfortunately not met our expectations and we just believe you’re not going to be able to bring your skills up to the level we require right now. It’s nothing personal and I’m sure you’ll be successful when you find the position that’s right for you. You’re welcome. I like to be straight forward with whomever I deal with. Sure, here’s a box for your stuff… I really wish the best for you… Why yes, you’re welcome for not assuming you’d be irrational or violent just because you as a law abiding citizen took advantage of the law and our company’s policies, got training and a CCL and made this a safer workplace because of it.”
Obviously… First… don’t assume you have a right to the employee’s weapon if his CCL is in order and obviously your company’s policies allow for him to have it.
IF he breaks some law, or some clearly stated company policy (like you must check you weapon when asked), then you call security (or the police if the situation warrants it) and let them do their job of escorting the employee from the premises. Personally, I don’t see that happening very often because I don’t make irrational assumptions about his behavior.
I’m still back to… unless you (liberally) stereotype the CCL holder, there’s no problem here.
>> On most military bases, as I understand it, only MPs can go around with a sidearm (most of the time) for this very reason. It’s hard to discipline people if they’re packing.
OK… maybe they should reconsider and expand that a bit… Everybody? Maybe Not. But More? Why not?
It also seems pretty hard to stop a “workplace violence” (as Obama has labeled it) episode on a military base where the nut just happens to be Muslim and just happens to yell “Allah Akbar” before killing 13 and wounding 32.
Just imagine how hard it would be to stop an actual terrorist attack on an army base… if that were ever to occur.
>> I was simply imagining the practical ramifications of a setting where all (or most) employees were armed
And liberally stereotyping and assuming that those with the legal guns would be irrational and violent. The solution is don’t do that.
>> Which would indeed change the office mass-murder scenario of the video you mentioned
Exactly… much safer.
>> but would also open up other dangers, and procedures few of us have had to deal with.
Well, it was an interesting exercise, but the everyone is armed scenario is not going to happen. Personally, I’d feel much safer if a company I worked for promoted gun training and CCLs for its employees; but doubt that even a small percentage of the employees would take advantage of it. Even in Texas.
On that note, I would also feel a lot better about the safety of my kids if their school did the same (training and CCLs) for its employees (teachers, administrators, and janitors); and even better if I knew the teacher standing in front of them was one of the employees that took advantage of the program.
Lastly, if I, or someone I love, ever find ourselves in the vicinity of a crazed killer on the lose; I pray to God there are as many CCL carriers around me as possible (and ever better if I’m one of them). Anyone who doesn’t is a FOOL.
>I’m still back to… unless you (liberally) stereotype the CCL holder, there’s no problem here.
I don’t. The hypothetical was just that — a question about how we’d deal with a major change if it happened. I think Wayne LaPierre is a jackass, but that doesn’t mean he’s 100% wrong. The only thing that stops a bad man with a gun is indeed a good man with a gun. But, just as it’s foolish to paint all CCL carriers as unstable, it’s foolish to imagine all of them as “good.”
>OK… maybe they should reconsider and expand that a bit… Everybody? Maybe Not. But More? Why not?
Exactly! That’s my question. I think you’re assuming I’m coming at this from an anti-gun angle. I’m not. But, at the same time, the idea of (for example) arming all public school teachers is not appealing to me. Having cops on campus makes more sense — and that’s what they have at both my kids’ schools, and always have.
Teachers need to teach — not be trained in handgun use and defensive tactics. Especially considering how small a classroom is, I think it’s reasonably likely that as a 60 year old, out of shape history teacher tried to get out a gun, a determined 17 year old student could take it from her and kill her with it.
>And liberally stereotyping and assuming that those with the legal guns would be irrational and violent. The solution is don’t do that.
Unplug the Breitbart intravenous drip. I didn’t stereotype anyone. You lept to conclusions, repeatedly, and ranted. Imagine that — you, Mr Bullet Point, being a bit irrational!
>Personally, I’d feel much safer if a company I worked for promoted gun training and CCLs for its employees
So now employers need to provide/promote health care, retirement plans, and weapons training? I’d rather they just focus on employing people.
>Lastly, if I, or someone I love, ever find ourselves in the vicinity of a crazed killer on the lose; I pray to God there are as many CCL carriers around me as possible (and ever better if I’m one of them). Anyone who doesn’t is a FOOL.
OK, let’s imagine that exciting scenario, today, 2 PM, at a client site. Are you armed? No? Why not? What are you waiting for? Things to get worse?
Personally, I’d prefer open carry. What’s the point in hiding it? A better deterrent would be making it *obvious* to the bad guy that he’s about to try to rob a bar full of cops.
[...] See my posting on the subject at: Killing Time When the Nutball’s A Comin’ [...]
>> But, at the same time, the idea of (for example) arming all public school teachers.
Uggg… what is it with the left and the solution always having to be massive, expensive, government forced and led programs…
As usual the real solution isn’t massive or expensive… and really comes down to government just getting the $%#$@ out of the way.
To solve the problem you don’t have to arm “all” public school teachers. The solution is twofold… Arm a very small percentage of them on a volunteer basis and let it be widely known that this former pool of innocents is no longer in a gun free (thus easily exploited) zone. I would bet the training and CCLs could easily be done with private funds. (I know I’d donate.)
The fact that the nutball now knows he doesn’t have an unarmed and easy target will be a deterrent. Kill a couple of these assholes and you’ll really have done something in the area of deterrence,
The same principle applies to restaurants and movie theaters…
>> Having cops on campus makes more sense — and that’s what they have at both my kids’ schools, and always have.
That’s fine and great if the situation warrants it; and the school system can afford it. I just say that in addition to that, teachers who wish to be armed should be allowed to be and that it would work. Right now the law prevents that.
>> Teachers need to teach — not be trained in handgun use and defensive tactics.
That’s like saying a teacher trained to use a defibrillator can’t teach her subject anymore because in the back of her mind she now knows how to use that devise that may eventually be used in the event of an emergency. It’s not a valid argument.
>> I think it’s reasonably likely that as a 60 year old, out of shape history teacher tried to get out a gun, a determined 17 year old student could take it from her and kill her with it.
Again… like the left always assumes…
You immediately think the solution has to be a massive, all-encompassing, government program. The individual you just described doesn’t have to or even need to participate if they don’t want to. If as few as 10% of teachers, or administrators, or janitors decide to participate you have achieved your goal.
>> a determined 17 year old student could take it from her and kill her with it.
Even with three gaping holes in his torso spurting blood?
>> I didn’t stereotype anyone.
The basic scenario of your “hypothetical question” assumed that there was a major crisis because someone refused to give up his firearm.
>> So now employers need to provide/promote health care, retirement plans, and weapons training?
Again… bam… the liberal mindset immediately thinks “We’ve got to FORCE all the companies to do this that or the other…”
Noooo… like health care, retirement, and a host of other government bullshit; companies should not be forced to provide anything. They should be allowed to provide whatever they deem best for their stockholders, and employees.
I simply stated a company that chose to allow or “promoted” gun training and CCL would be a safer company to work for. That could be easily done as a matter of company policy.
>> I’d rather they just focus on employing people.
I’d rather they just focus on providing a reasonable return on investment. That after all is the purpose of a business. The employment of people is a means to an end that happens to benefit the company, the people, and society. It’s called capitalism.
If a company’s focus is to employee people, please let me know so I can keep my investment dollars as far away from them as possible.
>> OK, let’s imagine that exciting scenario, today, 2 PM, at a client site. Are you armed? No? Why not? What are you waiting for? Things to get worse?
Again with the assumptions… Who says I’m not.
>> Personally, I’d prefer open carry. What’s the point in hiding it? A better deterrent would be making it *obvious* to the bad guy that he’s about to try to rob a bar full of cops.
Personally, I’m pro-choice. Carry, Don’t, Conceal, Don’t… Everybody wins.
BUT all leftist that participate in any effort to restrict gun rights; should be required by law to post a sign at their home stating “This is a gun free home.”
>Uggg… what is it with the left and the solution always having to be massive, expensive, government forced and led programs…
That idea was from Wayne LaPierre, not the left. And I agree, it’s stupid. We have an armed cop at my kids’ schools. I think that’s fine.
>Again… like the left always assumes… You immediately think the solution has to be a massive, all-encompassing, government program.
WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? I never said anything abot starting a massive government program. Seriously! Do you read, or do you just start inserting conversative radio talking points off of key words?
>Again… bam… the liberal mindset immediately thinks “We’ve got to FORCE all the companies to do this that or the other…”
Again, bam, YOU’RE NOT LISTENING. I was posing a hypothetical, and wondering how it would play out in the real world. And yes, most companies standardize their policies. I’ve had to write many of those tedious employee training programs (usually called “compliance”). There’s a reason they’re all the same. They all want to avoid the same lawsuits. So, yes, de facto it would be the same everywhere, eventually. No HR department on Earth wants to do this stuff ad hoc.
>I’d rather they just focus on providing a reasonable return on investment. That after all is the purpose of a business.
Interesting quote from the president of IBM in the 1950s. Can’t find it now, but it’s in a book I’m reading at work. He said something like “When we focus on making new jobs, it all works out. I wonder if we should just keep running the business this way. As we employ more people, there are more supporting businesses to buy our products.” Just an interesting idea, not trying to defend it as perfect.
>Again with the assumptions… Who says I’m not.
Fair enough. Who says I’m not?
(I think we’d both need to lose some weight before we could ‘conceal’ anything.)
>> That idea was from Wayne LaPierre, not the left.
No… it was Wayne LaPierre’s idea as imagined and/or distorted by the left. He never said it had to be cops, he never said it had to be a government sponsored or mandated or expensive program. The KEY to the NRA plan (as espoused by LaPierre) is dissolve the “no gun zones” that the schools have become that invites attack. AND it is right on the money.
This is as opposed to the Democratic idea of doing nothing that will actually protect the schools/children and instead using the “crises” to attack the gun rights of the law abiding.
>> We have an armed cop at my kids’ schools. I think that’s fine.
Because you live in a well off urban school district… It’s not really feasible in the rural schools and urban slums.
>> WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? I never said anything about starting a massive government program.
Your (I guess hypothetical) examples assume the big government program in that you mentioned the little old lady having to have a gun and it easily being taken away from her by the 17 year old. I can only assume you thought all teachers would be have to be part of this program/solution… otherwise there was no reason to come up with such a silly example.
You wanted to paint the whole idea as ridiculous with the imagery. I simply pointed out the example was invalid because not everyone needs to be one of the CCL holders and because the solution shouldn’t be a mandatory, massive, or a government program… as implied in the example.
>> (I think we’d both need to lose some weight before we could ‘conceal’ anything.)
I’ve lost 25 lbs. since December! Which means I’m back to original still fat self that I was when I moved to East Texas.
My secret is to pay a doctor lots of money to poke holes in you and use various tools to permanently wrap a good portion of your stomach around your esophagus.
An added bonus is that I’ve become a new source of natural gas that rivals the wells on the Johnson Ranch.
I don’t recommend it for either purpose. But no heartburn.
I did not want to paint the whole idea as ridiculous, or to by default assume a large govt program. I just wanted to talk hypotheticals. I own guns, my daughters will get CCLs when they move out, I am not anti gun in any way. You’re assuming attacks where they are not intended.
As for a cop at every school, I say it’s worth it to put that in the budget. Same goes for border security or any other necessity. Even poor rural districts find ways to afford football programs. If it’s important, we can find a way.