i know why the indy star wants to focus on the gun permit bill that passed the indiana house yesterday: because they can frame it as being all about the indy star. ("remember that awesome expose we did about people getting gun permits who didn't deserve them? the state legislature wants to make that data private!") but that's no excuse for effectively burying news about the other gun bill that passed—a bill that will surely end in people getting shot.

the bill, which has passed both houses, will make it illegal for employers (with a few exceptions) to ban employees from bringing their guns to work, as long as the guns stay locked in the trunk. it's hard to believe they'd pass something so foolish and short-sighted, but this is the indiana legislature we're talking about here.

the workplace is a place where tempers often become frayed. this is particularly true when someone is fired or laid off. i can recall more than one occasion when the police had to be called to escort a pissed-off now-ex-employee from the building. in the heat of such passions, people can act quite foolishly. yes, even violently. add guns to the mix, and it doesn't take nostradamus to predict the inevitable.

mark my words: people will be killed thanks to this law being passed. sooner or later, an angry employee is going to get that gun from their trunk and shoot someone (or more than one someone). it's only a matter of time. and when that happens, the indiana legislature will have blood on their hands.

to paraphrase an argument i've seen infinity times regarding smoking bans: if you want to work someplace where you can bring your gun, then find another job! don't change the law to force property owners to allow unwanted weapons on their property. you do not have the right to be armed at work if your employer doesn't want you to be. ¶

Were guns outlawed on Virginia Tech campus and at Columbine H.S.?

Did restrictions stop violence?

A gun law is not going to stop a psycho on a rampage. ¶

yes, but making it easier to bring your gun to work sure isn't going to help anything either! ¶

People will get killed when someone's so dead-set on shooting people that they go get a gun and start shooting people. Whether they had to go out to the car to get it or all the way home isn't really relevant.

The law won't get anyone killed or save anyone, either. ¶

on the contrary, a lot of violent behavior stems from impulsive, emotional reactions. in the heat of passion, as they say.

it takes a lot more determination to go home, get a weapon, and return to work than it does to walk to your trunk and grab the thing. ¶

I don't buy it.

And because some people will abuse a right doesn't mean you take it away from everyone. To think this is really keeping any appreciable number of people safer (justifying the limit) is foolishness.

Besides, people have a right to a firearm for personal protection... except when they're going to and from work?

How do you know if anyone is violating the rule of some employers right now, anyway? If it's locked up in their car and no one knows about it, there's no reasonable grounds for a search to find it.

You've got a hypothetical situation at this point, nothing else. Historical facts, however, teach us that "gun free zones" are really just target-rich environments. ¶

what about the right of your employer to determine whether it wants to allow weapons on its property? ¶

It's a compromise.

People can have their firearm for protection to and from work, employer can say keep them locked in the vehicle and not in the building.

To say it has to be 100% one way or the other is a false dichotomy. ¶