Should Food Delivery Workers be given a firearm on job?

[Payday]

The Police should have a right to shoot you on the spot if you refuse to draw your weapon.

Choked on my beer laughing and picturing this

[Raptor With a Saber]

A gun won't make them get the customers food to them any faster. So no it's better if they fear for their lives and move faster.

[enragedgorilla]

How is delivering food exposing yourself to considerable danger?
More guns = more shooting, no?
Stop being so paranoid thinking everyone is out to get you.

point one, yeah it is a stretch. Your a target for robbery no matter where you are.

More guns = more shooting....another stretch . We all know the flaw here , more flies more poo , more spoons more fat people ...you get the idea.

Paranoid vs prepared . Having a tool to defend yourself is not paranoid . Having said firearm does not require you to use it.

If you can legally carry a firearm and wish to do so , you should .
Be aware of your local laws and where you are .

Train train train to use it .

[Nakura Chambers]

The safest way is to reduce the amount of guns in circulation, not increase it! This borderlines as dumb as the idea of giving teachers guns, so i'm sure some american states will say it's a brilliant idea, despite the obvious fact that more guns means more deaths.

Then why does all of the data on the subject show the exact opposite?

[Xeones]

Then why does all of the data on the subject show the exact opposite?

What what what???????

[DrStiglit]

This is largely in part due to the fact that most people who work these kinds of jobs are exposing themselves to considerable danger.

No more so than anyone who ever has any contact with any other person ever..

[Deleted]

Then why does all of the data on the subject show the exact opposite?

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/fi...uns-and-death/

1. Where there are more guns there is more homicide (literature review).

Our review of the academic literature found that a broad array of evidence indicates that gun availability is a risk factor for homicide, both in the United States and across high-income countries. Case-control studies, ecological time-series and cross-sectional studies indicate that in homes, cities, states and regions in the US, where there are more guns, both men and women are at higher risk for homicide, particularly firearm homicide.

Hepburn, Lisa; Hemenway, David. Firearm availability and homicide: A review of the literature. Aggression and Violent Behavior: A Review Journal. 2004; 9:417-40.

2. Across high-income nations, more guns = more homicide.

We analyzed the relationship between homicide and gun availability using data from 26 developed countries from the early 1990s. We found that across developed countries, where guns are more available, there are more homicides. These results often hold even when the United States is excluded.

Hemenway, David; Miller, Matthew. Firearm availability and homicide rates across 26 high income countries. Journal of Trauma. 2000; 49:985-88.

3. Across states, more guns = more homicide

Using a validated proxy for firearm ownership, we analyzed the relationship between firearm availability and homicide across 50 states over a ten year period (1988-1997).

After controlling for poverty and urbanization, for every age group, people in states with many guns have elevated rates of homicide, particularly firearm homicide.

4. Across states, more guns = more homicide (2)

Using survey data on rates of household gun ownership, we examined the association between gun availability and homicide across states, 2001-2003. We found that states with higher levels of household gun ownership had higher rates of firearm homicide and overall homicide. This relationship held for both genders and all age groups, after accounting for rates of aggravated assault, robbery, unemployment, urbanization, alcohol consumption, and resource deprivation (e.g., poverty). There was no association between gun prevalence and non-firearm homicide.

Miller, Matthew; Azrael, Deborah; Hemenway, David. State-level homicide victimization rates in the U.S. in relation to survey measures of household firearm ownership, 2001-2003. Social Science and Medicine. 2007; 64:656-64.

Mind posting that data? Since Harvard is saying one thing, you the other; i'm open to discussion but please link the data you have at hand that corroborates that statement.

[Wells]

Then why does all of the data on the subject show the exact opposite?

Maybe you have it confused with crime?

[Orcbert]

If he has the proper permits/certification, did not enter gun free zones, and it was not forbidden by his employer, then yes.

And there is the big one. Almost every single large company in America has policies put in place to forbid taking weapons to work. So even if you are permitted and know everything about the gun and the laws I can almost guarantee you will not be aloud to bring it with you.

[Deleted]

Give them tasers. If you can't disable a demented customer with a taser I don't see what good a gun will do.

There are many things that can make a taser not work where a gun would.

It was actually frightening to see guns with some mall cops while I visited the states. My first thought was that how well they have been actually trained. People can panic in stressful situations and giving a little training how to use a gun won't prepare people to use a gun in actual situTation where you need to assess it fast and react accordingly.

It seems to me like there are many police departements that have training issues in the US. Like NYPD and them training like they're still using revolvers despite having pistols. They are required to have 12lbs trigger pulls (for every shot) on their guns, which (among other things) leads to bad accuracy, which in turn leads to bystanders getting hit. A standard glock trigger pull is about half that.

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/fi...uns-and-death/

Mind posting that data? Since Harvard is saying one thing, you the other; i'm open to discussion but please link the data you have at hand that corroborates that statement.

Those studies seem to not take into account A LOT of factors.

[Deleted]

Those studies seem to not take into account A LOT of factors.

Oh, mind explaining?

[Chrispotter]

Salandrin why do you continue to make stupid threads? I am really curious, what is the reason?

On topic: No, obviously they shouldnt.

[THE Bigzoman]

http://wcfcourier.com/news/local/piz...4d8ffc464.html

In some cases, that young delivery boy will deliver more then "good news"

That said, I wouldn't have a problem with gun permit owners carrying while on the job as long as the employer has no liabilities in the case of a misuse. if But anyone being issued them by their employers sounds like a terrible idea.

[Wells]

http://wcfcourier.com/news/local/piz...4d8ffc464.html

In some cases, that young delivery boy will deliver more then "good news"

That said, I wouldn't have a problem with gun permit owners carrying while on the job as long as the employer has no liabilities in the case of a misuse. if But anyone being issued them by their employers sounds like a terrible idea.

There's no good way to remove liability from the employer that doesn't just fuck over everyone else. Nor should they be immune from liability for the things their employees do in the course of their jobs.

[THE Bigzoman]

There's no good way to remove liability from the employer that doesn't just fuck over everyone else. Nor should they be immune from liability for the things their employees do in the course of their jobs.

Someone who is eager to sue following an event is "fucked over" because he has a shorter well to dig from. Whoopity doo.

[Wells]

Someone who is eager to sue following an event is "fucked over" because he has a shorter well to dig from. Whoopity doo.

Ok so you make it so the pizza company isn't liable for negligence if their employee shoots someone delivering a pizza.

Then a pizza place hires someone who they had every reason to believe to be unsafe with a firearm, and someone gets shot.

But whoops we made them immune to liability.

[THE Bigzoman]

Ok so you make it so the pizza company isn't liable for negligence if their employee shoots someone delivering a pizza.

Then a pizza place hires someone who they had every reason to believe to be unsafe with a firearm, and someone gets shot.

But whoops we made them immune to liability.

What reasons would an employer have to believe that someone would be unsafe with a firearm beyond the collection of background checks etc?

Chances are, (assuming this is the only legitimate way to assume someone would be unsafe) someone who gives off unsafe vibes based on the acquired information won't have the legal autonomy to own and carry a firearm in the first place.

[Wells]

What reasons would an employer have to believe that someone would be unsafe with a firearm beyond the collection of background checks etc?

Things they said during an interview? Things they said on the job since the interview? Prior disciplinary actions? There's a million reasons a company might be liable for the actions of their employees. There's zero excuse to flat remove the right of people to their day in court. Blanket protection from liability only serves to fuck over the wronged on behalf of business interests.

[Jomaty]

They should have the right to carry handgun on them if they want, but they shouldn't be required to by the company.

I agree with this 100%

[v2prwsmb45yhuq3wj23vpjk]

No.

This would drastically increase the danger delivery workers face, as criminals would KNOW they have a gun on them, which makes them a more valuable target. It makes a delivery worker go from a $20-50 mark to a $200+ mark.

I say $200 'cause I make room for my not knowing about some very cheap gun that would be used. Generally speaking I assume a black market weapon costs $1000+, but never having sought one, I wouldn't know.