i don't often agree with chambers of commerce, be they US, indiana, or wherever. seeing as how their primary purpose is to support big business over the interests of the little guy, i generally find them to be horribly, even selfishly wrong on most issues. in fact, you could even say that on a typical day, i'd probably be pleased to hear that the state legislature was willing to openly defy the indiana chamber.

but dear god, why would they pick this issue?

Most Hoosiers could take a gun to work as long as the weapon is stored out of sight in a locked vehicle, under legislation enacted Thursday to the delight of gun-rights advocates and the alarm of Indiana businesses.

At least 12 other states, including Kentucky, have passed similar legislation.

House Bill 1065, which passed the House 74-20 and the Senate 41-9, now goes to Gov. Mitch Daniels for his signature.

the business community unanimously and vigorously opposed this bill because like me, they know it will only be a matter of time before someone gets killed, and they don't want their asses to get shot up. i don't want them to get their asses shot up either, which makes this a rare issue we agree on.

workplace shootings happen. just three weeks ago, a university of alabama professor killed three of her colleagues after being denied tenure. two months ago, an employee at a st louis power plant went on a shooting spree, killing three and wounding five before turning his guns on himself. in 2008, a man in henderson kentucky (just miles from the indiana state line) killed himself and five others after an argument with his boss. but rather than pass a bill that might protect hoosiers from being slaughtered at work, the legislature has passed a bill that will make going on a murderous rampage easier. how could they think this is a good idea?

there's still a chance the governor could veto the bill, but don't hold your breath on that one. so it looks like our only hope to stop the madness is the inevitable court challenge by local businesses that don't want to get shot by their employees. it's sad that it has to come to this, but at least it's better than the alternative. ¶

Once again, you're being ridiculous.

How, might I specifically ask, would outlawing guns in cars have prevented your University of Alabama shooting? Aren't firearms already prohibited on campus?

"Meanwhile, Anderson told The Associated Press that he and Bishop went to a shooting range just weeks before the killing, but said the family did not own a gun."

Ah, looks like there was practice beforehand.

Then...

"A man who killed five people and himself at a western Kentucky plastics plant called his girlfriend two hours before the rampage to warn her that he was going to kill his boss, police said Wednesday."

Clearly, a crime of passion and not the least bit pre-meditated.

"Police said Wesley N. Higdon, 25, had an argument with his supervisor about wearing safety goggles and using his cell phone while he was at his press machine Tuesday."

And not bright enough to avoid using a mechanical press of some sort without eye protection or while distracted on a cell phone. Something tells me that someone not capable of following rules that keep his limbs intact wasn't going to be bothered by a law against having a gun in his car.

And...

"Sack said Timothy Hendron, 51, had four guns during the rampage that sent 40 to 50 workers inside scurrying to the rooftop, broom closets and boiler rooms to seek safety. Police previously had said there were three guns. Sack said Hendron had an assault rifle, shotgun and two handguns."

Oh no, he didn't have plans well before he came to work that day. I'm sure a law barring him from having weapons in his car would have been the thing to stop him.

...

You do realize at this point that each of your examples actually works against you, right? ¶

here's the thing:

under the new indiana law, even if security noticed that someone like hendron had a bunch of guns in his car, they wouldn't be able to do anything about it until he got them out of his car.

the gun-in-your-car law makes it impossible for businesses to protect themselves from crazed shooters. ¶

"...under the new indiana law, even if security noticed that someone like hendron had a bunch of guns in his car..."

Seriously? This was even possible in how many of your examples, and would have actually made a difference?

"the gun-in-your-car law makes it impossible for businesses to protect themselves from crazed shooters."

Are you implying it wasn't absolutely impossible to protect themselves from these particular things in the first place?

Are you neglecting to remember the entire point was that all of your examples were people that planned ahead and brought weapons with the intent of murder which is illegal already? ¶

of course it's not "absolutely impossible". difficult perhaps, but not impossible. and certainly, when they're not the only ones bringing weapons to work, spotting the crazies becomes much more difficult.

also,
Nevels said family members told detectives that Higdon kept a .45-caliber pistol in his car almost all the time, which is permissible in Kentucky. ¶

And ALSO, AGAIN:


"A man who killed five people and himself at a western Kentucky plastics plant called his girlfriend two hours before the rampage to warn her that he was going to kill his boss, police said Wednesday."

Pre-meditated. None of those incidents are the "heat of the moment" that you fear.

Changing the law in no significant way changes the practical realities of the situation.

Of course, if you want to go with the "If we legalize this, terrible things will happen!" hysteria argument, you're going to have to accept other arguments, like:

"If we legalize gay marriage, bad things will happen!"

Sucks that way, doesn't it? ¶

see my latest post. ¶

How does this make your argument of

"legalizing bringing your gun to work will make people who didn't bring guns to work before bring guns to work and kill people more!"

correct, much less any substantially different from

"legalizing gay marriage will make straight people turn gay and get gay married!"

which is equally stupid? ¶

you misunderstand my argument, which is that more guns at the workplace == more opportunities for violence == increased likelihood of people getting shot.

the gay marriage argument is not at all similar. ¶

Except your position is just your theory with no real data to back it up... just like the gay marriage argument. ¶

I won't even leave my car stereo in my car. Why the frak would I want to leave a firearm in it?

Seriously, I believe wholeheartedly in the 2nd amendment, because I don't believe the government should be more well-armed than its people.

Since I don't have an F-16 with bunker busting bombs, that has become increasingly irrelevant, but regardless, the 2nd amendment isn't about every yabbo on the planet having a gun in his/her car.

The NRA wants a win for its political scorecards. Don't kid yourself that this has anything to do with rights. This has everything to do with political power, and the gun lobby making sure it's money is well spent. ¶