Introduction
It has been established that more than three quarters homicides at the workplace are accomplished by use of guns. In regard to this about two-thirds of workplace homicides are associated to robbery and the remaining third is resulted from misunderstandings between the workers and the customers.
In the USA, more than thirty states have existing laws which liberalize the carrying of concealed weapons and five other states have taken extra steps to check property owners’ and employers’ capability to keep out weapons from their premises. These legislations put pressure on the employers’ ability to set up and enforce policies barring clients, visitors, and employees from moving firearms into workplaces.
The United States of America alone has very high rates of gun ownership and high rates of shooting compared to any other country in the world. Within the USA, those areas with higher rates of gun ownership also are the leading in incidences of homicide (Miller, p. 92).
Discussion
Individuals carrying guns to the workplace is not a commendable thing. To exemplify how serious the situation is we can only look at the period between the years nineteen eighty to the year two thousand and two where statistics show that there were 16,459 homicides as resulting from shooting in the workplace (Hendricks, p. 322). As a result, employers have formulated firm arms policies, prohibiting guns from the workplace and from vehicles employees drive to work.
Different state laws have also made it promising for employers to do this, serving as a welcomed barrier between guns and the workplace. Many employers have precise policies banning weapons such as guns in the workplace as an element of their violence prevention actions. Such policies habitually include the employer’s total premise, including the parking lot. But at least some states have laws that dominate such policies and insist an employee’s right to leave legal arms in their vehicles. Such legislations are in force in states such as Oklahoma, Minnesota, and Kentucky (Hendricks, p. 344).
Some of the laws formulated offer some protection to workers from liability in case guns are used in the workplace to commit a crime, but it is certainly not clear how some of these laws could protect the employers from employees payment claims, such as those that was the case from employees death and injuries at the Locker heed Martin. Worker’s compensation is not always done in case of haphazard violence.
Some studies have revealed that 3 to 8 Americans in a group of 100 people carry guns on a routine basis (Hemenway, p. 264). Even though the number of concealed weapons such as guns licenses issued has increased considerably since states have more permissive gun laws, it is not apparent whether the number of people in fact carrying guns has become bigger proportionately. Data also shows that this basis is inconclusive somewhat because a number of people carried guns unlawfully to the workplace before being given a license and some individuals continue to carry the guns without obtaining the license (Ludwig, p. 241).
Therefore, basing on the above details it can be deduced that the number of individuals in possession of guns at any one moment has increased gradually because of lack of precise laws supposed to control the carrying of guns. Many State laws have shown not to be having a potential of providing significant guarantee that people who are given the right to own guns do not have tendencies of being violent at one time nor do they offer any protection if gun permit holders use his or her gun to commit violence.
Then, if the above evidence show that the availability of guns in the workplace is a renowned danger, then it defiantly indicates that employers should be on the front path of adopting appropriate steps and interventions to mitigate this danger under the wide-ranging function clause of the Occupational health and safety Act of the year 1970.
All the businesses having more than ten employees opt to be held liable for not ensuring the safety of their workers and clients under the common law of negligence in case of guns being found to be causing a foreseeable danger. Negligence can apply to the hiring, supervision, and retention of an individual employee if a violent act by that person is foreseeable.
Conclusion
In conclusion, if the employers are unable to keep guns out of the workplace, then the situation can worsen having seen the trend and incidences of homicides at the workplace as a result of gun shootouts on the rise. Hence the state should take appropriate action and measures to bring a sustainable control of gun ownership at the workplace. Employers can then compliment the resulting legislation by also having their own workplace regulation for the control of guns at the workplace, such as, giving their workers bulletproof vests or flak jackets.
Work cited
Hemenway, D., & Miller, M. Gun Use in the United States of America. Injury prevention journal, 2000
Miller, M., Azrael, D., The Rates of household firearm ownership and homicide across U.S.A. regions and states. American journal of public health, 2002
Ludwig, J., Concealed Gun carrying Laws and Violent crime. International review of Law and Economics, 1998
Hendricks, S., Trends in Workplace Homicides in the U.S.A. American journal of industrial medicine, 2007.