Texas gun laws updates

I thought the question I asked would be answered with either a "Yes" or "No".

Whether laughed at or not, violating a company's Code of Conduct can be basis for dismissal. In my many years with my company, I knew of 3 incidents in which employees were fired (not downsized). In each case it was a violation of conduct that was spelled out in the Code of Conduct as being grounds for dismissal. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Then my answer would be "Yes". People are willing to violate codes of conduct.

Your response here even cements that. In all your years, 3 whole incidents of code of Conduct violations.

The discussion was revolving around you "feeling" safer because of these "codes of conduct". I said they are about as effective as the pretty little "gun free zone" signs.

That you have personal examples of violations shows that you have experience with at least more cases of violations of them than I'm guessing you have from mass shooters.

A thought - with some trepidation at interjecting my opinion in the middle of an argument
Gun free zones - apply and are observed only by law abiding individuals.
No mass shooter will pay any attention to such signs or regulations.



Some employees may feel safer in an employer gun free zone - knowing it unlikely other employees are carrying inside their workplace. That is fine


That "Safe Feeling " cannot be generalized to safety from an outside Shooter - it only disarms the victims in the extremely unlikely event of a deranged shooter attacking a gun free workplace.



the short version - IMHO.
Thank you, Gentlemen.

Then my answer would be "Yes". People are willing to violate codes of conduct.

Your response here even cements that. In all your years, 3 whole incidents of code of Conduct violations.

The discussion was revolving around you "feeling" safer because of these "codes of conduct". I said they are about as effective as the pretty little "gun free zone" signs.

That you have personal examples of violations shows that you have experience with at least more cases of violations of them than I'm guessing you have from mass shooters. Originally Posted by eccielover

3 is how many I knew about, not how many there actually were. What it means is that people did NOT risk their jobs by violating rules.

There is absolutely no way to determine who is correct. I don't think employees would risk their high-paying jobs by carrying a gun into a building in which the probability of needing it is as close to zero as possible. You do.

A thought - with some trepidation at interjecting my opinion in the middle of an argument
Gun free zones - apply and are observed only by law abiding individuals.
No mass shooter will pay any attention to such signs or regulations.



Some employees may feel safer in an employer gun free zone - knowing it unlikely other employees are carrying inside their workplace. That is fine

That "Safe Feeling " cannot be generalized to safety from an outside Shooter - it only disarms the victims in the extremely unlikely event of a deranged shooter attacking a gun free workplace.

the short version - IMHO.
Thank you, Gentlemen. Originally Posted by oeb11

Thanks for the input. No argument. Difference of opinion.

You are correct in that the possibility exists that an armed employee could stop a shooter if such a case arose. Management is responsible for the safety of its employees while on the work site. I believe my management team has made the right decision to ban guns. So far the policy has worked perfectly. What we don't know is if any lives have been saved because of the policy.

3 is how many I knew about, not how many there actually were. What it means is that people did NOT risk their jobs by violating rules.

There is absolutely no way to determine who is correct. I don't think employees would risk their high-paying jobs by carrying a gun into a building in which the probability of needing it is as close to zero as possible. You do. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

I think I already pretty much said that.

You take solace in "believing" that people are following them and the "gun free zone" signs. I take solace in "knowing" that they are nothing more than scraps of paper in most cases and have a certain amount of violation taking place.

I feel safer "knowing" some are defensive carrying, while you feel safer "thinking" there are no guns.

For those wanting to break the law, neither the codes of conduct nor the gun free zone signs mean anything without actual enforcement of it.

It's as simple as that.

I think I already pretty much said that.

You take solace in "believing" that people are following them and the "gun free zone" signs. I take solace in "knowing" that they are nothing more than scraps of paper in most cases and have a certain amount of violation taking place.

I feel safer "knowing" some are defensive carrying, while you feel safer "thinking" there are no guns.

For those wanting to break the law, neither the codes of conduct nor the gun free zone signs mean anything without actual enforcement of it.

It's as simple as that. Originally Posted by eccielover

Somewhat incorrect. I don't feel safer in a gun free zone. I don't think about it. When I enter an establishment, I don't care if it is a gun free zone or not. I don't check. The probability of me dying in an automobile accident are much, much, much greater than being the victim of a random homicide.

I fully support one's right to own and carry a gun. I choose not to do so. And I feel just as safe as those who carry.

Somewhat incorrect. I don't feel safer in a gun free zone. I don't think about it. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Hmm...You certainly seemed to allude that was something you certainly thought about while working. What's changed?

Before I retired I worked in an office building that was a gun free zone. I felt much safer than had guns been allowed in the building. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

3 is how many I knew about, not how many there actually were. What it means is that people did NOT risk their jobs by violating rules.

There is absolutely no way to determine who is correct. I don't think employees would risk their high-paying jobs by carrying a gun into a building in which the probability of needing it is as close to zero as possible. You do. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Do you have insurance...what's the probability of you needing it??
My crystal ball in the shop...I'll stop carrying when I get it back!!

Only Law abiding people will pay attention to well LAWS , Criminals well by Nature DO NOT
Look to the news today CALI , state cop shot dead, by felon on probation with rifle , how many laws violated ? Cali one of the most gun un-friendly states how could it be,,,,,,

Hmm...You certainly seemed to allude that was something you certainly thought about while working. What's changed? Originally Posted by eccielover

Quote:
Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX View Post
Somewhat incorrect. I don't feel safer in a gun free zone. I don't think about it.
Hmm...You certainly seemed to allude that was something you certainly thought about while working. What's changed?

Quote:
Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX View Post
Before I retired I worked in an office building that was a gun free zone. I felt much safer than had guns been allowed in the building.


Don't trip SPEED up...he doesn't like that

I fully support one's right to own and carry a gun. I choose not to do so. And I feel just as safe as those who carry. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Just tell the perps...I'm a liberal, I mean no harm!!

Thanks for the civil, constructive discourse, SR and all participants.
An addendum to my thoughts IMHO
I do have a CHL - and do not carry on my person. Personal choice. The privilege and responsibility of access to deadly force is a responsibility of great weight and import.

I have seen -many times over- what gun shot wounds do to people. many more than most any cop.

The short CHL training program of 8 hours is completely inadequate to provide education about the Law regarding carry, and regarding situations and how to respond, and physical training.

I feel CHL training should mirror that of a Police Officer - demanding but for the safety of the public and the carrier.

My person opinion

Hmm...You certainly seemed to allude that was something you certainly thought about while working. What's changed? Originally Posted by eccielover

I never thought about it until I started participating on forums such as this and got input from others such as yourself. And that was after I stopped working in a company building and was working from home.

Thanks for the civil, constructive discourse, SR and all participants.
An addendum to my thoughts IMHO
I do have a CHL - and do not carry on my person. Personal choice. The privilege and responsibility of access to deadly force is a responsibility of great weight and import.

I have seen -many times over- what gun shot wounds do to people. many more than most any cop.

The short CHL training program of 8 hours is completely inadequate to provide education about the Law regarding carry, and regarding situations and how to respond, and physical training.

I feel CHL training should mirror that of a Police Officer - demanding but for the safety of the public and the carrier.

My person opinion Originally Posted by oeb11

Regarding the training to obtain a CHL -- I agree but the training received is certainly better than nothing. Better than in those states that have Constitutional Carry.

And my understanding is that from participation in forums such as this is that many who receive their CHLs do take follow-on courses in order to become better skilled.

SR - True - but not all people with CHL's get additional training.

And I think only a very few with CHL's have the poor self-discipline to behave irresponsibly with deadly force.

Still - I have extra training also - and disagree strenuously with Constitutional Carry..
and I would not require any training of others i would not cheerfully participate in myself.

I could be reasonably criticized for making an "Assumption" that additional training for CHL holders makes the holder and Public safer - - No - i do not have that Proof.
Still - i do not see additional training requirements as an unreasonable burden on an individual who chooses to carry deadly force on One's Person.


Thank You.