Should Food Delivery Workers be given a firearm on job?

[Ausr]

Should've seen some of the areas I had to deliver papers to at 3am at night. Closest I've come to shitting myself was when someone pulled a shotgun on me when they thought I was stealing their car.

[Maconi]

The person should be allowed to carry (in accordance with the laws of their respective state) but I don't think the employer should be obligated to provide the weapon.

Putting something like a camera somewhere on their person would go a long way in helping to both protect the workers and help bosses keep tabs on them (so no more alone time with the food in the car). Sadly that would be pretty expensive and no company would care enough to do so (for their or your sake).

[Orcbert]

Should've seen some of the areas I had to deliver papers to at 3am at night. Closest I've come to shitting myself was when someone pulled a shotgun on me when they thought I was stealing their car.

If you had a hand gun on you I think the odds of that turning into a shootout would have risen significantly.

[THE Bigzoman]

I don't think your standards for who is and isn't a safe gun owner/carrier are high enough.

I think you're blatantly overreacting at things that are insufficient to reasonably labeling someone as unsafe.

[v2prwsmb45yhuq3wj23vpjk]

I think you're blatantly overreacting at things that are insufficient to reasonably labeling someone as unsafe.

I think you lack the proper respect for guns.

[Wells]

what was the nature of the altercation? Was the shooting justified? These are all answers that law enforcement would pursue and find. Assuming the employee still works there following the event and the individual still has the legal right to own and carry a firearms, there isn't reasonable justification to believe that he would be unsafe.

you're intentionally missing the fucking point.

- - - Updated - - -

Giving companies flat immunity for liability is always awful because it shields them from when they're actually liable.

[THE Bigzoman]

you're intentionally missing the fucking point.

The point of what? Hypothetical situations that wouldn't be as black and white as you are painting them?

[Wells]

The point of what, hypothetical situations that wouldn't be as black and white as you are painting them?

No, that what you want, shielding companies from liability for the actions of their armed employees is awful because it will shield them from when they're actual liable for terrible decisions they make.

[Deleted]

If you had a hand gun on you I think the odds of that turning into a shootout would have risen significantly.

Maybe if you're stupid enough to pull out your gun when the guy probably yelled at him to get away from his car than just say that he's delivering something and not trying to steal his car..

[BananaHandsB]

Even if something as ridiculous like this was allowed, no business would do it. It's just terrible business (not to mention the liability). Sorry, I'll call the joint down the road that doesn't send a random person to my home with a deadly weapon. Honestly, not trying to be a dick, but this post is just plain dumb, you're thinking about the delivery driver, I see, but what about the dozens of homes, with families and children, that are now at risk when some delivery driver decides to go postal, or when some dumb teenage delivery driver gets trigger happy when he hears a dog bark. Thanks, I'll call someone else to deliver my shit who doesn't come armed. This would never. ever. work.

[THE Bigzoman]

No, that what you want, shielding companies from liability for the actions of their armed employees is awful because it will shield them from when they're actual liable for terrible decisions they make.

And like I've been trying to establish throughout the entirety of our exchange,the situations in which you believe terrible decisions could be made are pure shit.

This reduces your argument to the very few lawsuits that would actually carry merit in their accusations of faulty decisions making. Which I already said would be soinsignificant that a wide scale problem would be non-existent.

At that point, you went with "what-if" scenarios, which I entertained. But now that I followed your lead in the conversation I am missing the point? I'm sorry, but no. I addressed that part of the conversation earlier.

[Wells]

And like I've been trying to establish throughout the entirety of our exchange,the situations in which you believe terrible decisions could be made are pure shit.

This is hilarious. You totes like the idea of delivery people having guns to defend themselves from all the people out there trying to kill them but you can't concieve of a single instance in which a company could be legally liable for the actions of their armed employee. You're either being purposefully unimaginative or you don't understand liability as a legal concept.

[KarenBoulevard]

definitely a no no for me

[Barnabas]

Nope I'm not looking forward to the day my pizza driver shows up with a 44 magnum on his waist. Seems unnecessary.

[THE Bigzoman]

but you can't concieve of a single instance in which a company could be legally liable for the actions of their armed employee

I'm not sure how you are coming to this conclusion. Seeing that I stated that these situations would exist, but just be rare.


Addendum: Or just a straw-man attempt.

[BananaHandsB]

I'll call the pizza joint down the road that doesn't send random ppl to my house with guns, and so would every1 else, and that's why this is just stupid and would never work. Not even a question of ethics, just economics.

[xylophone]

The person you're delivering or might try to kill or rape you, or worse in the case of serial killers. This is not a far cry either.

Kind of a terrible idea for any would be criminal.

"Jimmy isn't back from that delivery. It's been like 2 hours, you think he's ok?"
"Maybe we should send the cops to this address that we sent him to."

[Wells]

I'm not sure how you are coming to this conclusion. Seeing that I stated that these situations would exist, but just be rare.

"Oh well I think it would be rare" is a terrible reason to give company's special legal protection for no good reason. All it does is shield them when they're liable.

[PBitt]

What the actual fuck? What if the customer has a tank, then what? Maybe we should give them all RPGs instead. They could even be stored in food warmer bags so they could be concealed on the delivery man's back. In short, this is an even more awful idea than your average awful idea, OP.

[THE Bigzoman]

"Oh well I think it would be rare" is a terrible reason to give company's special legal protection for no good reason. All it does is shield them when they're liable.

Which brought me to a point I made earlier. But I won't state it a third time.