Tribune Star on Parking Lots

[jdmack79]

Editorial in paper today:

Terre Haute News, Terre Haute, Indiana- TribStar.com - TRIBUNE-STAR EDITORIAL: Please — a little common sense on workplace safety

TERRE HAUTE — Unless you work for yourself in a one-person operation, part of your employment is dealing with the personalities, habits, quirks and occasional emotional problems of other people.

How do you feel about all of them being free to keep a loaded gun in their car in the company parking lot?

This so-called right is the latest hot cause of the gun lobby and its many pro-gun friends in the state General Assembly. Not enough that Indiana is one of the loosest, least prohibitive places in the nation to buy, sell, carry, conceal, use and keep forever firearms; Senate Bill 25, and House Bill 1065 aim to move all that freedom closer to the front door of our workplaces.

Frequent flyers of late in the Assembly, bills such as these also have passed in several states and are under consideration in about 10 others. (An Indiana Senate version passed 42-8 last year, but the House did not deliver.) Supporters say the laws are all about personal safety and uniform fairness: Why should a law-abiding gun owner have to take his or her shotgun, rifle or handgun out of a vehicle just to drive to work?

Maybe if Indiana had a few more safeguards in place regarding legal gun ownership, the fairness argument would resonate. But the state does not.

Rifles and shotguns? No permit, registration, license or permit to carry is required to own one — or dozens. Handguns? The only permit required of Hoosiers is a permit to carry.

Background checks for guns purchased from non-licensed dealers at flea markets, gun shows, via classified ads or private sales? You must be thinking of some other state.

Little wonder Indiana is known among pro- and anti-gun folk alike as one of the top “source states” for legal guns that end up being used illegally in other states.

Last week, the Indiana Chamber of Commerce came out, forcefully, against these needless, dangerous changes to existing gun law. Nobody’s idea of an anti-Constitutional bunch of liberals, the 5,000-member Chamber issued a news release stating its position:

“Proponents of these bills emphasize an individual’s right to bear arms, but property owners certainly have the right — and obligation — to provide a safe workplace for their employees. The consequences can become violent, often deadly, when guns and the workplace mix.”

The Chamber cited several studies that show employee safety decreases in workplaces that do not prohibit guns on the premises. The organization then asked: “So, knowing all of this, why in the world are Indiana legislators advocating for guns in the workplace?”

The sorry answer: Because easy access to guns in this state is a political priority that often outranks safety and common sense. It’s way past time for Hoosier legislators to listen to groups like the Chamber of Commerce and change their ways.

 

[SSGSAD]

Who wants to take the responsibility for my safety, to and from work, like someone on this sight says, I can't carry a cop..... I can get carjacked, road rage, or any thing else, can happen.....I am a responsible gun owner, I do not need to stand in the middle of the p/l and "flash" any of my guns, you want to see them ask, and come over, and I will show at home..

 

[jblomenberg16]

What a complete bunch of garbage. Would be interesting to see the relative number of gun related crime in Indiana vs other states.

Also would be interesting to see even one source for the claim that legal gun purchases in Indiana result in illegal use in other states.

We're all entitled to our own opinions, and for a second it sounded like this person might have been somewhat rational - based on the title claiming "common sense." However like many folks on both sides of the arguement, this story appears to be based on very little fact (or if it is, the sources are not well cited), and purely on emotion.

 

[jdmack79]

The Chamber cited several studies that show employee safety decreases in workplaces that do not prohibit guns on the premises.

Am I reading this correctly?

 

[jblomenberg16]

Who wants to take the responsibility for my safety, to and from work, like someone on this sight says, I can't carry a cop..... I can get carjacked, road rage, or any thing else, can happen.....I am a responsible gun owner, I do not need to stand in the middle of the p/l and "flash" any of my guns, you want to see them ask, and come over, and I will show at home..

That's the part of the discussion that those against the bill don't want to acknowledge. I don't want to have a gun locked in my car just in case I get mad at someone at work. I want one in my vehicle so that I can excersise my rights on my commute to and from work.

The scenario is simple. Lets say that I return home from work to find someone in the process of breaking into my home, or that is already in the home. Should I tell them to wait, while I retrieve my firearm from inside the house?

If allowed to safely keep the gun locked in my vehicle, I could legally carry it to and from the workplace, while complying with company policy that clearly prohibits firearms inside the premisis.

The argument that guns in the parking lot will increase violience is yet again what appears to be an overly emotional response void of factual thinking.

If a person is upset and planning on shooting the place up, wouldn't they either ignore the law and bring a gun anyway, and most likely bring it right into the workplace with them?

For example, does anyone have any facts from the ABB shooting last week? Did the guy keep the gun in his car, only to go back and get it? Or did he walk right in immediately with the gun on his person?


My of course, and I'm open to meaningful debate.

 

[SSGSAD]

Yes, jdmack79, you are...Indy's murder rate, dropped to 99 for the year, ending Dec. 31 2009, probably a record low.....Hancock Co. has 3 murders in 15 years... that I know of.....

 

[jdmack79]

Sounds like the Chamber's argument isn't making a lot of sense.

 

[SSGSAD]

Sounds like the Chamber's argument isn't making a lot of sense.

Amen to that !!!!!

 

[jblomenberg16]

Am I reading this correctly?

A tricky use of multiple negatives in the same sentence.

Employee safety decreases = Greater chance of injuries or harm

in locations where firearms are not prohibited = where firearms are allowed.


SO it could have been worded to say: Employees are at greater risk of personal injuries in workplaces where firearms are allowed to be on the premises.

 

[SSGSAD]

A tricky use of multiple negatives in the same sentence.

Employee safety decreases = Greater chance of injuries or harm

in locations where firearms are not prohibited = where firearms are allowed.


SO it could have been worded to say: Employees are at greater risk of personal injuries in workplaces where firearms are allowed to be on the premises.

Yes, I think ?????

 

[jdmack79]

Got it now, still strange wording.

 

[VERT]

Wow, just Wow! Not sure what to say or add to this one. I understand that companies own the parking lots, but where are our rights? In some states an automobile is private property and considered an extension or your home. Wait a minute don't we pay an excise tax on personal property such as cars in IN?

 

[MTC]

TERRE HAUTE — Unless you work for yourself in a one-person operation, part of your employment is dealing with the personalities, habits, quirks and occasional emotional problems of other people.

How do you feel about all of them being free to keep a loaded gun in their car in the company parking lot? I don't "feel", since it's none of my affair, or yours, what "all of them" keep in their cars. They have committed no crime.

This so-called right so-called?is the latest hot cause of the gun lobby and its many pro-gun friends in the state General Assembly.Yeah, it's not the people, it's always the biiiig, baaaad gun lobby Not enough that Indiana is one of the loosest, least prohibitive places in the nation to buy, sell, carry, conceal, use and keep forever firearms; Senate Bill 25, and House Bill 1065 aim to move all that freedom closer to the front door of our workplaces. "All that freedom." We can't have that now, can we? Closer to the front door. OMG!

Frequent flyers of late in the Assembly, bills such as these also have passed in several states and are under consideration in about 10 others. (An Indiana Senate version passed 42-8 last year, but the House did not deliver.) Supporters say the laws are all about personal safety and uniform fairness: Why should a law-abiding gun owner have to take his or her shotgun, rifle or handgun out of a vehicle just to drive to work? That's just it. They shouldn't have to.

Maybe if Indiana had a few more safeguards in place regarding legal gun ownership, the fairness argument would resonate. But the state does not.
"Safeguards". You mean more restrictions. More infringements. Why don't you just admit your contempt for, and fear of gunowners, and guns in general.

Rifles and shotguns? No permit, registration, license or permit to carry is required to own one — or dozens.OMG! Dozens! Handguns? The only permit required of Hoosiers is a permit to carry. Unconstitutional - Article I section 32 - but we're stuck with it for now.

Background checks for guns purchased from non-licensed dealers at flea markets, gun shows, via classified ads or private sales? You must be thinking of some other state. If they're not licensed, then they're not dealers. Stop lying. Stop misleading.

Little wonder Indiana is known among pro- and anti-gun folk alike as one of the top “source states” for legal guns that end up being used illegally in other states. If it's used illegally that means a crime has been committed. That is the fault of the criminal. Not you. Not me. Not anyone else. Not the gun. Not the state in which it was purchased.

Last week, the Indiana Chamber of Commerce came out, forcefully, forcefully, mind you against these needless, dangerous changes to existing gun law. Nobody’s idea of an anti-Constitutional bunch of liberals, the 5,000-member Chamber issued a news release stating its position:

“Proponents of these bills emphasize an individual’s right to bear arms, but property owners certainly have the right — and obligation — to provide a safe workplace for their employees. The consequences can become violent, often deadly, when guns and the workplace mix.” So it's the gun's fault. We're not even talking about in the workplace, but what people might choose to keep in their vehicles.

The Chamber cited several studies that show employee safety decreases in workplaces that do not prohibit guns on the premises. The organization then asked: “So, knowing all of this, why in the world are Indiana legislators advocating for guns in the workplace?” My rights are not contingent upon the results of your "studies" and again, they're not "advocating" for guns in the workplace. Stop lying. Stop misleading.

The sorry answer: Because easy access to guns in this state is a political priority that often outranks safety and common sense. It’s way past time for Hoosier legislators to listen to groups like the Chamber of Commerce and change their ways. It's way past time for journalists to stop lying and misleading readers by repeating Brady/VPC talking points.

 

[inav8r]

I keep wanting to remind all of these "concerned" property and business owners that in most situations* as a paying customer of theirs not only can I lock my firearm in my vehicle while it's in their parking lot, but I can also carry right into their place of business.

*Where not prohibited by law, of course.

 

[lashicoN]

TERRE HAUTE — Unless you work for yourself in a one-person operation, part of your employment is dealing with the personalities, habits, quirks and occasional emotional problems of other people.

How do you feel about all of them being free to keep a loaded gun in their car in the company parking lot?

That sums up this idiot's entire article for me. This bill doesn't give all Indiana residents the right to keep a loaded gun in their car. It gives LTCH holders the right to keep a firearm in their car. There is a big difference in the wording there. What happened to fact checking? I think it should be a misdemeanor for the media to lie, and a felony for repeat offenders.

 

[TopDog]

The tone of the article is as old as the hills. The liberal view that all are criminals regardless of not having committed a crime. I don't here anything in the article that supports taking action against those that commit actual crimes. The ones with the illegal guns. Just action against those that legally own guns for self protection. Head up the @SS bellowing of the sheep.

 

[in625shooter]

I find it funny that the writer "suggests" if you legally carry/have a gun in your car you won't have self control the first time you run into a jack *** at work. Most people that carry try to remove themself from that and should know when they can and can't use force. And know an argument/disagreement isn't one of them.

 

[rambone]

I challenge that bozo to find one case of a mass-murder averted by a law or sign.

 

[Tallenn]

While I hope this law passes, I think they went about it the wrong way.

What they should have gone for is a law that prohibits employers from compelling their employees to submit to searches of their privately-owned vehicles, simply because they are parked on company property.

 

[Joe Williams]

Perhaps, instead of trying to force business and government to recognize the private property rights of employees, there should simply be a law passed that employees are presumed negligent if they prohibt LTCH holders to carry on their property and said holder is injured or killed as a result of being unable to protect themselves. There is an abundance of evidence that shows places that prohibit armed citizens are attractive targets for criminals and nutjobs, and that armed citizens can stop active shooters. While business owners have the right to exercise control over their property, they should not be given a free pass when such control involves deliberate negligence. The Chamber of Commerce's stance that keeping guns out of the work place enhances safety is a knowing, deliberate lie, but if they really believe that disarming intended victims is the safer course of action, they should have no problem with their member businesses being held accountable for that decision.