Workplace Violence

A recent Rasmussen Poll has indicated that over one in four (26%) employed adults say they have seriously thought that someone in their workplace was capable of mass violence.

Since you have to register to read the rest of the article, here are the rest of the specifics…

-One-in-three men (33%) say they have held that thought before, compared to only 17% of women.

-Forty-three percent (43%) of government workers say they have felt a fellow employee was capable of mass violence, more than double the number among those who work for private companies.

-Most working adults (64%), however, say they have not seriously thought a co-worker would be capable of such violence. Another 11% are undecided.

 

Some of the more high recent profile workplace violence incidents include…

Shooting at a liquor distributor in Conneticut

 

Faculty member shooting fellow professors at the University of Alabama

New Mexico man reacts violently regarding a custody dispute

 

It seems that workplace shootings have been getting more attention from the news recently. While they are not common, they do seem to be high profile when they do occur, and for good reason. For obvious reasons, a workplace should have an element of security. While conflicts do arise in the workplace, a quality employer should have a way to swiftly deal with the impending trouble. A company psychiatrist is one of those possible outlets.

At this time, a poll dealing with a psychiatrist’s performance in the workplace is not available. However, that can lead to a possible assumption that there are no problems. On the other side, are people aware that they can utilize a psychiatrist? Further, would employees really want to speak about their thoughts to someone who can turn around and convey those same thoughts to their boss? It is a mixed bag, and hopefully sooner than later some light can be shed on it. And while I’m going on and on about company psychiatrists, I do realize that they might not be the answer to every problem, I’m just trying to find a possible solution.

 

Another alarming statistic to come out of this poll is that almost half (43%) of government employees say they have felt a fellow employee was capable of mass violence. While no place is a good place for workplace violence, you certainly do not want it interfering with the government. This number may be high due to the fact that the current trend is to work for the government.

 

This may add additional workers to the government, and possibly skew the results. Either way, it is still alarming.

 

An additional statistic that I came across that was not included in this Rasmussen report was that between 1993 & 1999, the health care industry was involved in 45% of the two million reported incidents of workplace violence.

  

That percentage is alarmingly high, and could even lead someone to forget about that industry all together while choosing a career path. Also, it is not only the 90’s that are affected by this trend. A quick Google news search of “Workplace violence” has nurses, hospitals, or the health care industry pop up in a high number of articles. It is troubling, and hopefully people become more aware of this phenomenon.

 

While it may not seem like something you think about every day, workplace violence is out there. While it can be portrayed as humorous on television, the fact of the matter is that even the thought of it can be enough to make someone uncomfortable. Hopefully further studies are conducted on why these incidents occur in order to produce a safer workplace. 26% may not seem high, but if you really thought that out of four co-workers, one could be capable of a violent incident at any given time, calling in sick suddenly seems like a good choice. 

Chicago Handgun Ban

One of the more high profile court decisions as of late (at least locally) has been the reversal of the handgun ban in Chicago. I touched on it a little in my introductory post, but I’ll reiterate. Chicago’s handgun ban had been in place since 1982. You could not purchase a gun inside the city limits. You could own one; however it had to be purchased before ’82.

Growing up in the suburbs, I always heard a lot of debate about this law on the news. On one hand, this would lower the total number of guns in Chicago, leading to less usage of guns. However, on the other hand, Chicago residents would have a significantly lowered sense of security if one was to threaten their home. Obviously it was a heated debate, and those who argued it stood their ground.

Personally, for a long time, I thought it was a good thing. I just figured that if they were banned, the overall number of guns would keep going down and down until they're all gone, and then all the violence would be gone.

Unfortunately, I was ten years old, so I didn't really think outside the box. It ultimately comes down to the fact that if you really needed a gun, you could get one. And that's what people- primarily criminals- did. Whether it was one way or the other, guns were acquired. Obviously those who passed the law meant well, I'm just not sure back in 1982, they could picture the violence that is seen these days in Chicago.

Some quick examples

Ever since 1982, criminals would be able to get their hands on guns without it being on their conscience, and residents had no solid way to defend them selves...and if they did have a gun purchased after 1982, they too would become a criminal.

However this past June, after a three month debate in the Supreme Court, the law was struck down. To make a long opinion short, it was ruled unconstitutional, in violation of the second amendment. 

A few days after this law was repealed, a Rasmussen Poll was conducted. Its results showed that 67% of those surveyed said cities do not have the right to ban handguns. Not only had Chicago had its ban overturned, Washington DC also had their ban overturned two years prior. It seems as if people are becoming more accepting towards guns.

One of the reasons may be increased crime in metropolitan areas. Could it be due to the economy? A Rasmussen poll also shows that 80% of Americans think so. Personally I'd agree. It seems when the economy plunges into a recession, the "average" person has to resort to things they never thought they'd do to get by. I think it's safe to assume that crime is another unfortunate result of the rough economic times of the past few years.

Back to my initial topic- I think that it was a correct move to overturn the gun ban. I'd figure, with crime so bad in Chicago that the governor is considering bringing in the National Guard, some type of move must occur to quell this seemingly increasing trend. While it is still too early to see if the reversal of the ban has saved lives, only time will tell.

Concealed Carry

One area of gun control which has many different approaches to is concealed carry. According to a recent Rasmussen report, 47% of adults oppose "open carry" laws. While it may seem like a straightforward "Yes or No" issue, there are many in-betweens. First of all, there are four different jurisdictions which dictate concealed carry.

Unrestricted- No permit required to carry

Shall Issue- Permit shall be issued if certain requirements are met

May Issue- A permit can be issued, but only by local authorities, and if requirements are met

No Issue- Illegal to publicly carry a firearm.

As of September 5th, 36 states are shall issue. 10 (Including California & New York) are may issue. Arizona, Alaska, and Vermont are unrestricted, and only the District of Columbia, Wisconsin, and Illinois are no issue.

My opinion on it is this: I'm comfortable with Illinois' status, most likely because I have lived here my whole life and I'm used to it. I think that, hypothetically, if two people were in a heated dispute (or even not heated; it could just be a stupid argument) and guns were involved, things would get messy pretty quick. Just thinking about my experiences here on campus- I see people doing stupid things (including myself sometimes), and if a gun were injected some of these situations, they would most likely end poorly. Especially with alcohol present. If two people were in such a heated argument that they actually did want to shoot each other, the fact that they would have to go all the way home to get their gun is probably enough time for them to calm down about things.

I can see the other side of the argument though. I'm sure that one would be less likely to rob any public place due to the fact that somebody could have a gun on them. Also, think about all of the "Crime Alerts" that have gone out in these first few weeks. If people were able to carry guns on them, I'm sure all these criminals wouldn't be jumping people anymore.

I guess it just comes down to if one is intelligent enough to carry a gun in public...well, not just that. Obviously many factors go into each individual owner, and while reviewing every single gun owner on a case by case basis would be a good thing, it certainly is not going to happen. I'm sure I could take a look at some research done on these factors to come to a more accurate conclusion...maybe tomorrow!






Some other topics I will eventually go over

-Application process for a FOID
-Gun Shows
-2010 Senate / Gubernatorial Candidates & Guns
-International views on guns
-I'll try to eventually (reluctantly) incorporate some quantitative reasoning into some gun-related topic
-Firearm training process
-Firearm crime in Chicago

A More Gun Friendly Society?

It seems as if guns are becoming more immersed with the American culture. It is hard to pinpoint exactly triggered (bad pun) it, however I'm sure we'll be able to figure it out.

I do remember around the '08 election, people thought that if Barack Obama would get elected, guns would be banned. Why they thought that, I do not know, but this Gallup poll from October 2009 illustrates those concerns. A whopping 55% of Americans with a gun, and 41% overall, held that belief. While it appears that Obama is in favor of stepping up gun laws, the outright banning of guns has not yet happened. That would obviously be unconstitutional, and I don't think a first term president would put re-election on the line with an issue like that.

In a Gallup Poll from October of 2009, a record low amount of Americans, 44%, stated that they wanted stricter gun laws. This was only 1 percentage point higher than those who thought that there should be no change at all. This was also a drop of 34% over only 19 years, something that very notable. It seems as if support for stricter control has just been steadily dropping ever since 1990, with a few hiccups. You can almost pinpoint exactly where the Columbine events occurred. There are a few quick rises and falls in the year 1999, obviously related to the high school tragedy. Around 2004, people want tighter laws, but other than those times, it seems that people are becoming more comfortable with guns around.

This post is just skimming the surface, hopefully in the near future I'll be able to figure out why this is occurring. Maybe they're just becoming more a part of our culture? That could be. Only time will tell.

Introduction

Hello, my name is Mike McLaughlin and I'm a senior Political Science major at Illinois State University. I think that a hot topic in this election year is the debate on the second amendment, which is the right to bear arms. I'm originally from the suburbs of Chicago, where this has been a very active topic as of late. In 1982, the city of Chicago passed an ordinance banning hand guns in order to curb violence. However, this past July, the Supreme Court declared the law unconstitional.  For the first time in 28 years, you could own a hand gun if you lived in the Chicago city limits. This decision coincides with one of the most violent periods in the city's rich history. It seems as if inner city kids are getting gunned down every single day. While many measures have been utilized to stop the killing, it seems as if nothing will work. Will citizens finally (legally) having guns to defend themselves make a difference? Only time will tell. As I said, this is a hot topic this election year. I worked on a major political campaign over the summer, and many calls we received from voters pertained to guns. This topic usually divides people, but hopefully I can illustrate both sides of the issue and we can have some intelligent conversations.