About 18 years ago I was a manager working for IBM—one of the companies that forbids firearms on its premises—when an employee in an adjacent department decided that he no longer needed to take his meds for bipolar disorder. The guy really went bonkers, kicking holes in the wall of his office and threatening his fellow employees. One of his threats was that he was going to bring in an Uzi and blow away several co-workers with whom he had had disagreements. At that point his manager called security and he was hauled to the nearest hospital in a straight jacket and was not allowed to return until he agreed never to stop taking his meds. I often thought that, if the guy had acted rather than merely threatening, we would have been sitting, defenseless ducks thanks to the IBM policy.
Totally understood.
To think that there is only one viewpoint on this, however, is erroneous.
As I pointed out in previous posts, I’ve carried despite rules to the contrary and will do so again when I think I need to.
When developing rules for the workplace in general it becomes more difficult than what we or a few do individually. In that sense, guns are no different than any other policy one has to make for the general workplace and interpreting no firearms rules as being anti Bill of Rights as many do is also erroneous.
I don’t have an answer for the issue other than what I do individually. It is a lot easier for people to talk tough until they are responsible for the decision.
Face it, even gun shows don’t allow customers to carry loaded firearms!