Tag: crime

Firearms in the workplace

Posted by Mostly Genius – November 23, 2008

receptionistLet us begin with a scenario:

The receptionist at the office has a stalker ex-boyfriend. The receptionist says that he has made threats against her life, and that he has a criminal record for violent offenses. She is afraid of him and has gotten a restraining order.

Now as the employer the practical, yet immoral (and possibly illegal) thing to do is to get rid of the receptionist. You certainly don’t want an incident at work and additional security is probably not in the budget. Another option for the employer is to simply ignore the problem. Hopefully there won’t be an incident, and if there is it will probably only involve the receptionist. Maybe the employer already has some kind of in-house security and they can be notified of this heightened threat. Beyond this there isn’t much that a typical employer can do. All of these options are little comfort if you happen to be the receptionist.

Firearms are not all-purpose self-defense tools. Less than lethal threats are not appropriately addressed with a firearm so other skills and tools are probably more applicable normal self-defense issues.

It is entirely too common for an employer to have a “no weapons” policy in the workplace. Their argument is that this makes the workplace safer for their employees or customers, but in reality it is simply a measure to reduce their liability. If fist fights between coworkers are rare then there is no reason to believe that permitting firearms would suddenly have employees shooting it out.

It is important to remember that a corporate policy prohibiting firearms is not a law. Assuming you have the legal ability to carry a firearm (such as a concealed carry permit), and your workplace is not a prohibited area (like a federal building) then you are not breaking any laws for carrying a firearm to work. Your employer may fire you on the spot and demand that you leave immediately should you be discovered.

Firearms are not all-purpose self-defense tools. Less than lethal threats are not appropriately addressed with a firearm so other skills and tools are probably more applicable normal self-defense issues. With that being said here is how you carry a firearm at work without the blessing of your employer:

Concealed means concealed. Nobody needs to see that you have a firearm. Nobody needs to be told. Carrying a firearm is not an exercise in ego, it is preparation for the possibility of a dangerous confrontation. Ensure that when carrying the gun it doesn’t print through clothing, or become exposed.

Secure means secure. You must restrict access to the firearm at all times so that it is only available to you. Generally the best method is to keep the gun on your person, but some circumstances might prevent you carrying the gun undetected. In these cases a locked briefcase or drawer are your only other options.

Consider the situation where the firearm will be used. If you work in an area that the general public doesn’t have access to it is probably not paramount that the firearm be instantly available. Should a disturbance occur you might well have a few seconds to access the firearm. If this is the case optimize for concealment and security. If this is not the case then the only solution is to conceal the firearm on your person.

Consider other options. A firearm will only help in the face of deadly threats. Pepper spray and combative skills are useful in dealing with less than lethal threats. Verbal deescalation skills may be sufficient in some circumstances.

Make use of all security precautions made available by your employer. Lock your office door, have security escort you to your vehicle, etc. Consider changing the hours or location that you work in if possible.

Make use of all legal and law enforcement precautions available. If you have a specific threat get the police involved. Get a restraining order against the person threatening you. Make sure that you are follow all of the laws regarding your firearm.

Who benefits from a high crime rate?

Posted by Mostly Genius – November 21, 2008

L.A. Bank RobberyThe politicians benefit. As the crime rate goes up the politicians get more of a mandate from the people to pass more laws, levy more taxes, and spend more money. The passage of a new law is equated as being “tough on crime” come election time, regardless of if a new has any effect on crime at all.

Here is a prime example:

…Democratic leaders said they will continue to build on a foundation of strong sex-crime policies, including involuntary civil commitments and tough criminal sentences.

…Lawmakers also pledged to put money behind their demands for increased police emphasis on sex offenders — something that hasn’t always been done in the past.

…The largest piece of sex-offender spending discussed Thursday is Gregoire’s request for a $5 million grant program to pay police to conduct in-person visits with sex offenders. Low-risk offenders would get annual checkups under the plan, with the highest-risk sex criminals being seen four times a year.

Instead of a jury trial for a crime, sex offenses can be reclassified as mental illness and the involentary civil commitment process can be used. Additionally I am not sure what an annual (or quarterly) police visit to a registered sex offenders home is going to do to prevent further offenses, but Washington state was considering spending $5 million on it.

If we look at the “war on drugs” we see a massive expansion of government control, imprisonment, asset forfeiture, and government spending. I do not know any other crimes where if convicted the government can seize your home, car, and financial assets and you are forced to sue to get them back.

The question is do any of these laws and policies make the citizens safer? No rational citizen wants sex offenders or drug dealers walking the streets, but if we allow the expansion of government control and continue to hand them a blank check to “do something” we rarely get what we were hoping for.

My prediction for the next round of gun control is that the crime rate will go up because of citizen disarmament and the cycle will continue. We know this is a failed policy. Look across the Atlantic you can see where this expansion of state power will ultimately lead.

Real Time Crime Reporting

Posted by Mostly Genius – November 20, 2008

Citizen-led crime-reporting initiatives

Interesting article about mapping the incidents of crime. There is no technical or economic reason why you can’t real-time map 911 Calls. If the getting the exact street address is an issue then just reduce the granularity. If the goal is to keep people from blundering into dangerous situations then alerting people to current incidents in a region rather than at a point is the way to go. If we consider the real time traffic maps, this should be an easier problem.

Gun Buy-Back Vote Deadlocks

Posted by Mostly Genius – November 20, 2008

STLtoday.com – 11/20/2008 – St. Louis police board nixes gun buyback program with tie vote

But board President Chris Goodson said he was against the idea because last year’s buyback didn’t prevent this year’s rising murder rate.

“I’m trying to understand what the benefit is,” he told Isom. “If it’s to reduce crime, it doesn’t seem to have an effect.”

Board member Vincent J. Bommarito agreed. “I think it’s a waste of money,” he said.

Thank you for your fiscal responsibility Mr. Bommarito. It is rare for a politician to get with the program.

The effectiveness of gun buyback programs is notoriously difficult to assess. Critics say they are expensive “feel-good” measures that do little to reduce violence.

The critics are correct. A gun buy-back is the best way of getting rid of a crime gun. Want to see the turn in rate drop even further? Collect information about the people turning the guns in.

“Imagine that instead of guns, police, for whatever strange reason, wanted to get shoes off the streets. Would a shoe buyback reduce the number of people with shoes? Of course not, people would sell their old, tired shoes to the police and new shoes would quickly replace sold shoes. Same thing with gun buybacks.”

That is a great analogy, and largely spot on. The only people who benefit from gun buybacks are criminals disposing of evidence and gun shops with a lot of broken guns.

Isom told Goodson it would be difficult to pinpoint how removing several hundred guns — or not doing it — would affect crime. Police Major Al Adkins argued it would simply be good for the community to have them gone.

It would be good for the community to have them gone even if it doesn’t do anything? At best it would be irrelevant for the community.