Preventing Workplace Violence
Take a moment now, before you need it, to read Preventing Workplace Violence. It outlines what you need to do to reduce the chances of such an event at your workplace and tells you what to do if it happens.
On a related note, Survive the Unthinkable Through Crisis Planning addresses the need to prepare for business disasters other than workplace violence. It explains the difference between a crisis and a disaster and gives you the tools to deal with each. It also guides you through the process of setting up a Crisis Communications Plan, including how to deal with the media.
We all hope we won't ever need this training, but down deep we recognize that this could happen to us. It's better to be prepared than to regret it later.
Agree with me? Disagree? Use the comments link below to share your thoughts.
I am tired of hearing about yet another mass killing that occurred in a “gun-free zone”: schools, malls, churches, most businesses. The killer knows he won’t be stopped until he runs out of ammo, since the police are 15-20 mins away, and he knows that no law-abiding person on the premises (including security) has a concealed weapon to shorten his time of infamy.
In business shootings, it’s almost never an employee that is the killer, and many companies forbid even disassembled hunting rifles in the trunk of an empoyee’s car. My disaster plan contains no information on dodging bullets fired by some maniac bent on taking people with him before committing suicide. Banning guns and ammo is not the answer — look at the failures of Wash DC, Chicago, and others.
I have no answer to this senselessness. But I sure would like the opportunity to save my life if the situation necessitates, and that includes an event that occurs during normal business hours.
I see you noticed that these things happen in “gun free zones”. Do you really think that is a coincidence?
There is a place for guns. Allowing people to be armed acts as as deterrent. That is why when the police arrive the violence usually ends. It is not the lights or the uniform, it the threat of retaliation. Do you really think that making more places ban guns or “self defense items” we are safer?
When senseless killings like this happen, people turn to outlawing guns (or object used in killing). If someone had a legal firearm, they could have stopped this insane person a lot sooner. Why should I have to wait 20-30 minutes for the armed police to arrive? Why should I not be armed when I have met my states requirements to carry a firearm?
I am so tired of people looking to outlaw something when it is used in violence. Lets outlaw chemicals, alcohol, cars, pens, bats, knives and anything that can be used to kill.While we are at it, lets ban all items that are pointed, heavy or have a handle also. Sound silly?
Lets face the facts- we have laws against violence. lets just enforce the laws.
Media/lawyers are blaming everyone and everything but the person that committed the crime. It is time for people to take responsibility for themselves and stop blaming everything else.
John,
Your reply is a thoughtful and thought-provoking one. However, I strongly disagree. While you should not “have to wait 20-30 minutes for the armed police to arrive” to protect you, I can just picture the scene at NIU had there been several students in the hall who decided to start shooting at the killer. Most people are poor shots under the best of conditions. Under stress, like the situation we are discussing, they will be even less accurate. More people will be hurt, not fewer.
You say “we have laws against violence. lets just enforce the laws” and I agree. One of those laws bans firearms in that building. Permitting students to bring firearms into the classroom will not reduce the occurence of violence from nuts like the individual at NIU.
Finally, you correctly point out that some people “are blaming everyone and everything but the person that committed the crime. It is time for people to take responsibility for themselves and stop blaming everything else.” We certainly would be better off if everyone took responsibility for their own actions.
I agree with Larry and John, gun free zones are not the answer. I think that criminals would be a lot less likely to pull a gun if they knew there was a pretty good chance that some of their intended victims might shoot back at them. Might not prevent every instance, but I do believe it would stop some of them.
I have taken gun safety classes, spent many an hour practicing at the shooting range and I have a concealed weapons permit. None of this protects me if I am at the Mall and someone starts shooting at me because my gun is at home locked in a safe. Why? Because as a law abiding citizen, I cannot carry my gun to the Mall because it is a gun free zone. The playing ground is not equal and criminals know it.
JOHN:
Another sick event has happened, until our Federal and State Leaders decide to really take action and not to pay lip service to this problem, I am afraid we will be hearing tragic events like this to take place again and again.
We are not only losing our finest military on the war on terrorism but now our finest future generation here at home.
John we need leadership on this now but where is it going to come from ?,hopefully not from some appointed commission to “study” this problem, are we leaderless here at home ?
John R,
I feel If people were trained to handle firearm at an early age, through education and hands on training there would be minimum “collateral damage” as mentioned in your scenario. It will also quell those “curiosity killings” we read about, where a child stumbles upon a firearm, or seeks out the parents gun and hurts themselves. Usually this happens because they have no idea what they are doing, and their curiosity/ignorance winds up killing them.
I believe there is a need to have in place (at an early age) a gun safety and firearm instruction at the school. This will teach the respect required to operate and handle firearms correctly.
I feel It would be at best, a guess that as you state “more people will be hurt.” My thought is perhaps with a deterrent in place, they(the law breaker) would not try to initiate the violence in the first place.
You stated: “Permitting students to bring firearms into the classroom will not reduce the occurence of violence from nuts like the individual at NIU.” Is just an opinion. As is mine. we are entitled to it, and are obviously on different sides with it. However, let me further my opinion: By establishing gun free zones, we create and broadcast the security weakness and provide an easy target.
Don’t get me wrong, I do not want to see everyone carry a firearm. But if an individual decides they are competent enough to carry one, and has met the states requirements, then they should be able to carry the firearm without restriction.
I have my license to carry, and when I carry, I and am totally aware of the responsibility I have. Because of this at times I do make decisions not to carry, where the risk of accident is not worth the extra security.
I find the arguments listed here very interesting and thoughtful in many cases. Although, rather uninformed.
As a psychologist, I am familiar with empirical studies which have demonstrated that the mere presence of a firearm is associated with a heightened sense of aggression. This means that when people (in general, not every single person, as there are always exceptions to the rule) see a gun they are more likely to be aggressive and respond to ambiguous stimuli in a defensive and often violent way. I do not know of any scientific literature which has studied the effects of carrying a concealed firearm, but I would assume that the effects are similar or stronger for the carrier.
Further, in several research articles that I have read recently, the logical conclusion drawn is to prohibit guns in the workplace. Workplaces that allowed weapons on the premises were FIVE TIMES more likely to experience a workplace homicide! Unfortunately, the researchers were unable to distinguish between worker on worker and customer on worker homicide.
Finally, I agree that we should hold criminals accountable for their actions. However, I would much rather prevent such violent acts! If we know that there is empirical support which demonstrates a significant reduction in workplace violence (or other crimes), doesn’t it make sense to use it?