Gun Ownership and Work Safety
Going by words of Kleck (2003), guns, like most firearms, could be dangerous if not well taken care of. The gadgets are a constant threat to lives as well as security. In the recent times, many people are opting to possess firearms, precisely guns for that case, to beef up personal safety and that of friends and families. However, it is pretty vital to take into account the possible threats gun ownership poses to the involved parties (Storey, 2004). The initiative is inclusive of the safety of the other persons around the personalities who own guns and other firearms.
Firearms and safety
For the case of employees, possessing a weapon will raise concern as it affects the other employees who do not own guns as well as the employer as well as the entire staff of the affected firm or company. Apparently, from past incidences, disagreements at work often happen and fights may arise (Storey, 2004). The scenario raises concern, for instance, if the controversy involved a person with a gun and who is also hot tempered. Such an occasion will have a significant probability of a loss of life. Consequently, to curb the occurrence, a couple of rules and regulations should be put in place to effect the necessary changes to contain such happenings. (Kleck, 2003).
Most people only consider gun ownership as the legal right, without regard to the moral or social aspect of such doings. Much as most states permit citizens to own firearms. They only do so to enable the people involved to defend themselves in the case of an attack or an insecure occasion (Storey, 2004). The aspect the persons forget about is the ethical value of owning a gun. The individuals do not consider how socially upright it is to allow gun ownership. However, gun ownership under proper regulations could help solve this puzzle (Kleck, 2003).
I opine that employees should not be allowed to carry guns to workplaces because of the dangers they expose workmates to. As May, Gilson and Harter (2004) state, the security concern of the firm or business organization should be left entirely to the employers. The management should take the responsibility to make sure that the business enterprise is secure and conducive for the employees to work in. Considerably, as most laws state, it is the role of the employer to ensure that the venue of work is secure.
Besides, the employees only have the duty to take care of personal safety and security concerns and the workmates. Also, the workers are prohibited from engaging in improper practices that may endanger their workmates (May, Gilson & Harter, 2004). Having a gun at work is one of such practices. The employees also have a responsibility to report any security threats to the employer. The undertaking includes matters that pose a danger to the workers’ health and safety.
Moreover, most laws call for proper security measures in any job scenario. However, the undertaking is solely the employer’s duty. The manager achieves the endeavor by preventing any behavior that puts the safety and security of the employees at peril. Storey (2004) postulates the to implement the initiative, the company must finalize by appointing or employing a competent person to take care of the safety and security concerns of the whole organization, and by extension, the employees (May et al., 2004).
If the employees should be allowed to carry guns to the places of work, the workers must not take the rifles to working desks. Probably, the staff should have the weapon kept in cars or find any suitable place to keep them (Kleck & Patterson, 2003). By so doing, the responsibility of firm protection will be wholly left to the employer and the state at large.
Besides, the security concerns of the other workers will be well taken care of, as none is exposed to the dangers of getting shot or probably getting hurt in case of fights or fracas at the venue of work. The employees may carry their guns comfortably when they leave the places of work. Consequently, the workers may use the guns along the way home in case of an occurrence that calls for the utilization of a gun in self-protection. Such a scenario will not involve the other employees (May et al., 2004).
Definitely, gun ownership is a general state matter. The issue affects not only the work venues but also the entire country. It is also the government’s responsibility to make sure that all employees in the nation work under the right conditions (Kleck & Patterson, 2003). Due to the undertaking, I personally support the involvement of the legislative guidelines of the state in the determination of proper gun handling techniques at the workplace.
The state should put forward the necessary, proper rules and regulations to contain gun handling. There should also be stringent measures to ensure adequate conduction of gun ownership. Besides, the government should draft directions indicating the repercussions of improper gun handling by those who are entitled to own them (Kleck & Patterson, 2003). There should be strict and severe punishment or charges against those that recklessly use their weapons.
The system also needs to outline clearly situations and locations where people may use their guns as a way of defending themselves. It is important to note that in the event of an injury or death resulting from improper gun handling, or the use of a weapon in absurd situations and locations, the government will take the blame from various nongovernmental organizations (May et al., 2004). I suggest that whether inside or outside the company, the legislative system must play an active role in ensuring proper gun handling.
Storey (2004) explain that to this effect, the system must check to make sure that all the workers that legally possess firearms do not violate the rules of gun handling, for their safety and that of their friends, families and workmates. Also to note, loss of life in the company may affect not only the company but also the whole nation. Such an event illustrates the country’s failure to protect her citizens. Storey (2004) asserts that to ensure proper protection and security for her citizens, the government needs to draft legislative measures to guide and instruct on where and when to use a gun for defending oneself.
Just like any other organization or institution, a firm is entitled to privacy. As most states allow, certain pieces of information are only revealed to particular groups or individual people within an agency. There is not much difference when it comes to companies. Storey (2004) affirms that most firms have the right to conceal some information about their working. Such pieces of information include the ones that the company considers so dear.
Consequently, it is possible that a company may choose to allow firearms into the business premises and never let anyone know of the undertaking. However, what beats logic is how noble such an undertaking is. Note all that right is ethical, as we are all aware (Storey, 2004). So, the decision of a company to allow guns in the work venues is relatively right, but somehow unethical. Much as doing so might be advantageous in some way; it is risky all through (Storey, 2004).
To sum up, the concept of gun ownership is a good idea given that people need to defend themselves at times. However, carrying the guns to the places of work or where they are more likely to cause harm is not advisable. It is solely the firm’s role to keep the business premises secure.
Storey, D. J. (2004). Understanding the small business sector. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign’s Academy for Entrepreneurial Leadership Historical Research Reference in Entrepreneurship. N.p.
Kleck, G., & Patterson, E. B. (2003). The impact of gun control and gun ownership levels on violence rates. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 9(3), 249-287. N.p.
May, D. R., Gilson, R. L., & Harter, L. M. (2004). The psychological conditions of meaningfulness, safety and availability and the engagement of the human spirit at work. Journal of occupational and organizational psychology, 77(1), 11-37. N.p.