when i predicted that the new let's-all-bring-weapons-to-work bill would lead to an increase in workplace shootings, even i didn't think it would start happening quite so soon... the governor hasn't even signed the bill into law yet!

PORTAGE, Ind. -- Police say an Indiana Department of Workforce Development auditor who had just received a poor job review shot at co-workers at the agency's office in Portage.

No one was hurt.

Police in Portage, about 10 miles east of Gary, aren't identifying the worker until formal charges are filed.

Sgt. Keith Hughes says the 60-year-old man became upset during his job review and told his supervisor he needed to go to his car. After he retrieved a shotgun, a manager locked the front door and ordered the other 15 employees to the rear of the office.

Police say the man fired one shot at the front door and another inside the office as his co-workers fled. They say he surrendered at gunpoint to officers while trying to reload.

now if you'll excuse me, i'm going to rush off to vegas while i'm on a roll...¶

So now you have proof that the law doesn't work as it stands anyway, which is my point?

We better keep it against the law so this can keep happening despite that! ¶

and making it legal to bring guns to work will help who exactly?

other than people who want to shoot their co-workers, i mean. ¶

You still have yet to produce any evidence that it would make any actual difference.

You're actually not prescient at all. ¶

and you have no sense of humor at all. ¶

Oh, now you were just joking. Sure. See how well that translates in text?

But hey, at least the company still has a good reason to fire the guy, he had a gun in his car on company property! ¶

I'm very disappointed in this new law. Privately owned businesses should be able to regulate their own property. Home owners can declare their property a gun free zone, the same should apply to businesses and organizations as well.

Instead, only a handful of exceptions were given out, along with businesses that are covered by federal laws.

Gun owners should take a page from other adovcacy groups. If you want a business or organization to allow you to carry your firearm onto their property, then you should lobby them and explain your side and let the chips fall where they may. And leave the government out of this. ¶

The 2nd amendment is already in this, you can't leave the government out of it, really.

In any case, a person's right to defend and protect themselves > Stallio's fears and desire to create the illusion of safety.

If you want to make it so people have their right to protect themselves taken away on their way to and from work, at least be brave enough to admit that. ¶

sorry, but you don't have the right to bring a weapon onto my private property if i don't want you to. it's just that simple.

anyway, it's not about my fears. the business community is overwhelmingly against this, because they know that having a bunch of unsecured weapons in their parking lots is a recipe for disaster. ¶

And you have no right to take away my right to defend myself going to and from work, AND you have no right to tell me what I can and can't keep in my car.

And even more importantly, you have no right to search my car since you're a private business. So how can you even enforce no weapons in cars?

And if I park down the street... you have even less than zero ability to do anything about it, don't you?

My right to do what I reasonably can to keep myself alive overrules your doomed-to-fail attempt to create a "gun-free zone." "Gun-free zone" is still just another way to say "soft-target-rich environment."

"anyway, it's not just about my fears."

There, fixed that for you.

But hey, as long as you're choosing to be defenseless, at least make yourself useful and try to be as bullet-absorbent as possible. You can at least be of some benefit to the people who choose to defend themselves and give them time to get to cover or get out... and the police are going to need time to get there as well. When seconds count, they're only minutes away! ;D ¶

whether you're armed when you're not on my property is frankly none of my concern. but if you want to come on my property (particularly as my employee), including my parking lot, then you have to play by my rules.

if you keep your weapon out of sight then no, i don't technically have the right to search your vehicle, but that just means i can't catch you. it doesn't mean you aren't violating my property rights.

if you simply must keep your gun in your car then fine, park down the street if you can, but don't come crying to me when it gets broken into and your gun gets stolen. ¶

Right to self-protection > Property rights. ¶

i don't know how many ways i can say this.

your rights don't eclipse mine just because you have a gun. might does not make right.

also, my right to protect myself and my employees from you allows me to ban weapons on my property if i choose. (unless this bill becomes law, in which case my property rights are effectively meaningless.) ¶

Protect yourself from me? Oh, bullshit.

If I'm not breaking the law, you've got nothing to be protected from.

"your rights don't eclipse mine just because you have a gun. might does not make right."

Once again, bullshit. You're framing it in a false light. Possession of a gun doesn't eclipse any other right, though you seem to choose to see it that way.

The fact is, you'll get over your supposed right to keep me from defending myself - if you ever even find out about it.

I won't get over being dead if I allow you to determine whether or not I can defend myself and I get killed because of it.

Your feelings aren't more important than me being alive. Deal with it. ¶

whatever, dude. it must be sad to live in constant fear of being killed. ¶

And now all you've got is a personal insult. Awesome.

Being prepared isn't living in fear, though. Think about that when you're not and wish you had been. :D ¶

you made it personal first. i'm just tired of repeating myself, so i'm not going to bother anymore.

property rights have no meaning if property owners can't control something so basic as whether their own employees bring weapons onto their property.

if you need to bring a gun to work, find an employer who will let you. ¶

Oh, did I? I merely responded to what you wrote; you chose to be personally insulting.

"i'm just tired of repeating myself, so i'm not going to bother anymore."

You say just before you repeat yourself.

"property rights have no meaning if property owners can't control something so basic as whether their own employees bring weapons onto their property."

Hyperbole much? Not being able to deny someone else one right does not preclude property rights entirely, it doesn't mean all other rights disappear instantly.

Your property rights are not absolute. Just because someone's on your property doesn't mean you get to take away any of their rights you want to.

Like I said a couple of posts ago, it's a compromise. That's how society works. ¶

where exactly is the compromise? you keep insisting that your right to be armed trumps my property rights. that doesn't sound like a compromise to me; it sounds like you expect me to capitulate fully.

your right to be armed is not absolute. ¶

"you keep insisting that your right to be armed trumps my property rights."

You still have plenty of other rights with your property (including telling someone to get off it, for instance.)

Did you not read my response or are you just intentionally being obtuse?

"your right to be armed is not absolute."

Awesome. Never said that, though. If I had said anything like that, we'd be talking about carrying concealed everywhere on your property, not just keeping it locked and secured in the car for the trip to and from.

There's that compromise part you didn't seem to get, btw. ¶

You still have plenty of other rights with your property (including telling someone to get off it, for instance.)

and the right to tell you to look for another job!

as for a gun being "secured" in your car, it's only as secure as a sheet of safety glass. i've never witnessed a murder, but i've seen a lot of broken-into cars in my day. ¶

"and the right to tell you to look for another job!"

Did you at some point forget we're an at-will employment state?

You can let someone go for no reason at all, regardless of this debate.

When were you going to clue into that? You got this far and this never occurred to you?

"as for a gun being "secured" in your car, it's only as secure as a sheet of safety glass."

If your lot is so insecure that someone has time to break in and toss the entire car for a weapon they don't know is there and isn't visible, there's bigger problems here. ¶

read the bill:

Authorizes a person harmed by a violation to bring a civil action for damages, costs, attorney's fees, and injunctive relief to remedy a violation. ¶

So basically:

Don't make a rule that says no guns in your vehicle in the company lot

Don't be stupid and say you're firing someone because they have a gun in their vehicle in the company lot (never mind how you somehow magically found this out)

Have half a brain and let them go for some other reason... of course if they're a good worker, there's no economic reason and you're not a jerk I'm not really sure why you're firing them in the first place...

Really, you can't think your way around this? ¶

then what the hell is the point of the bill? weren't you railing against unenforceable rules just a minute ago? ¶

Apparently a good portion of the point of the bill is to get people like you to wail on about how many people are going to get killed because of it and about your property rights being "totally taken away" without thinking the practical effects of the bill through.

Then there's contract/union employees, but yes, the bill basically makes it so you can't make an unenforceable rule and use that as a basis for firing someone... especially if you're not a good enough manager to come up with another decent reason. Took you long enough to get here. :D ¶

so you think the bill you've been spending all day and all last night defending is utterly pointless?

thanks for wasting my time. ¶

Oh, I don't really care all that much about the bill. It just reinforces the status quo, really.

Your original posts though, decrying the bill and your worries about an increased body count before thinking the actual practicalities through, those were the original wastes of time.

But why let such nonsense go unchallenged? ¶