Was this article written by a minion at the Obama Administration? Not one word about Terrorist Acts committed by Islamic Terrorists. How cute! The best way to deal with shootings is put a sign on the door. We are prepared to lock and load to prevent shootings on our premises. How about – We are protected by Smith and Wesson.
Wait a minute. I suspect IJ made a mistake here. They meant to actually address terrorism as terrorism and to keep “workplace violence” out of the actual discussion, right? Because they’re like, you know, two entirely different things with different means of action/defense?
OH, that’s right. They didn’t, because they view it as one in the same, and JUST like the Hussein Administration are downplaying the fact that San Bernardino WAS A TERRORIST ATTACK PERFORMED BY ISLAMIC EXTREMISTS WHO WERE AFFILIATED WITH ISIS.
Supreme, did you see the interview Obama did a few days ago? He said that he didn’t realize that Americans were so upset about Terrorism because he doesn’t watch much TV. Apparently, his advisors don’t either. When you have a President and administration married to an agenda for 7 long years, they really don’t know what they don’t know and could really care less. The most important duty of a President is to keep America safe. San Bernardino was not workplace violence nor was it just a bump in the road.
I find that gun control advocates are advocates as long as they believe that the law breaking citizens agree with gun control. Once the shooting starts, the reality hits that those that break laws also break the gun control laws, the gun control advocates prefer concealed carry.
These horrific acts have grown dramatically in the past 8 years and will continue until we decide to update the terrorist violence vidoes in the workplace by moving fight back (with guns) to the top of the list.
Total bullshit misrepresentation by presentation as as usual.
Violence and other injuries by persons or animals was 16%.
Note of this 16%
7% was from shooting by another person
1% was from stabbing cutting or slashing, piercing
6% was self inflicted injury no cause listed
40% Transportation related
15% contact with objects and equipment
14% Falls
8% Exposure to harmful substances etc
7% shooting by another person
I’ve seen the run, hide fight video mentioned here. A decent video. But it’s more of the nature of protecting YOU than the group. Reminds me of the story where two men are running away from a bear and one stops to change out of his hiking boots and into his ruing shoes. The other guy says to him, “You think that’s gonna help you outrun that bear?” To which the guy answers, “I don’t have to outrun the bear, I just have to outrun you.”
That video teaches you how NOT to be a victim amongst many other expected victims. We need ideas for safety leaving behind one or no victims. That means being prepared or armed for such assaults. Or a better to take out such perps or prevent them in the first place.
I don’t understand all the vitriol aimed at this article.
First of all, considering the first line of the article was “The terror attack at a social services facility in California…”the argument that there was no mention of San Bernadino being a terrorist attack really doesn’t hold water.
Secondly, I don’t know why a shooter’s possible motives should matter when employers are reviewing their safety and emergency plans. Regardless of the motive – whether it’s a warehouse worker that flips out and shoots his boss and co-workers, or a husband and wife terrorist duo that shoot up a work conference room – the results are going to be the same. People are still going to be injured or killed. The article is not saying that one is better or worse than the other, just that employers want to keep their employees safe from violence in the workplace, and are reviewing their plans to do that.
How is that a bad thing?
Personally, if someone came into my office and started shooting, I’d care less about why they were doing it, and more about doing whatever I could to avoid getting shot. Having an emergency plan in place gives employees a better chance of being around to ask “why,” once the shooting is over.
It’s because these yahoos only read the title of the article, not the article itself. Either that, or they are displaying a lack of reading comprehension.
BS, perhaps a good plan would be to hire some ex military employees with a Conceal & Carry permits to provide security for the business against shooters whether it is criminals or extremists. I think the employees might have a better chance of survival with that scenario vs just hiding under a desk waiting for the shooter to get around to them or waiting for the cops to show up after the 911 call for help.
Perhaps a few employees with conceal and carry permits could help. However, I don’t think it’s fair to rely solely on those types of employees to keep an office safe. Even if he has a conceal and carry permit, if Jim in accounting is completely wrapped up in balancing month-end numbers, he might not notice a shooter until it’s too late to do anything.
I think a better option would be to have a guard or two, whose sole job is to protect the employees. That way, Jim can focus on closing out the month, without the added responsibility of keeping everyone safe at all times.
Not to mention… God forbid Jim manages to kill the shooter just as the police show up, and because he’s in khakis and a polo instead of a uniform, they mistake him for the bad guy and kill him too. :(
Most trained guys know to put their weapon down when the Police show up. They can then tell the Police what came down and how he dealt with them. They often become a hero for saving lives and telling the media what happened.
December 22, 2015 at 3:27 pm
confused says:
Like or Dislike:
12
3
thank god the police don’t have a history of shooting unarmed citizens. end sarcasm
December 22, 2015 at 3:52 pm
BS says:
Like or Dislike:
3
0
Unfortunately, all it takes is one officer that’s just a little too quick on the trigger, and it can turn even uglier than it already was.
(and this is not an indictment on the police – I can only imagine their response if they pulled up in time to see a man in khakis shoot someone)
December 29, 2015 at 4:10 pm
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
2
0
BS, If San Bernardino is anything like most Police Depts, the action is over long before the Black & White rolls up. If you recall the accounts, the shooting was long over and the Muslim perps were gone in a vehicle and had the shootout with Police a fair distance from the center where this massacre happened. Jim, the trained accountant could have taken care of business and the two perps laying on the floor and then there would have been no need for a chase endangering the public with a big shootout.
December 22, 2015 at 3:01 pm
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
6
0
Most small to medium sized businesses may not be able to afford a guard or two. If Jim is a trained guy, he will be able to hear gunshots in another part of the office and take some action which may very well save some lives including his own. He can close month later, assuming he still has a business to close books on.
Does that mean Jim could be sued if, let’s say, he was wearing headphones and didn’t hear the shootings on the other side of the building and dozens of people died?
December 22, 2015 at 3:47 pm
BS says:
Like or Dislike:
6
0
I’m not saying that Jim wouldn’t be an asset to the company in an active shooter situation. I’m sure he would be. But, (unless they’re paying him extra) I don’t think it’s fair to expect him to do his normal job and keep hyper-vigilant for a possible shooter. It’s not that I don’t think he’d be helpful in that situation, just that he shouldn’t be the company’s sole safety plan.
December 23, 2015 at 11:34 am
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
5
1
BS, some Safety Plan is better than no Safety Plan at all, don’t you agree? The shootings with the most carnage are the ones with no defense and in gun free zones for the most part. The ISIS affiliated guy who pulled off the San Bernardino shooting already knew how vulnerable that center was because he had been working there. Had he known that Jim, the accountant was ex military and had concealed carry with a Glock and not far away, he might have not done this terrible deed.
Oh, I definitely agree that some safety plan is better than none at all. I just don’t think a company relying solely on Jim as their safety plan would be the best option.
It’s true that in the case of the San Bernadino shooter, because he had been working at that office, he would know that Jim was ex military and might have had second thoughts about the attack. However, by the same token, because he worked the office, chances are he would have an idea of Jim’s schedule, and could plan the attack for when Jim was on vacation. If Jim was the only safety plan that the office had, they’d be just as defenseless as if there was no plan at all.
Once again, I’m not discounting the fact that Jim would be a good person to have around in an active shooter situation. Just saying that a company should try to have a better plan that just an armed accountant.
BS, we have 3 Jim’s in our office, myself and two other Partners. We all have the means to defend ourselves and to protect our employees from this kind of situation. Sounds like a good safety plan to me.
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Due to the current cost of ammo, please do not expect a warning shot. Thank you for your understanding.
Wait a minute. I suspect IJ made a mistake here. They meant to actually address terrorism as terrorism and to keep “workplace violence” out of the actual discussion, right? Because they’re like, you know, two entirely different things with different means of action/defense?
OH, that’s right. They didn’t, because they view it as one in the same, and JUST like the Hussein Administration are downplaying the fact that San Bernardino WAS A TERRORIST ATTACK PERFORMED BY ISLAMIC EXTREMISTS WHO WERE AFFILIATED WITH ISIS.
Supreme, did you see the interview Obama did a few days ago? He said that he didn’t realize that Americans were so upset about Terrorism because he doesn’t watch much TV. Apparently, his advisors don’t either. When you have a President and administration married to an agenda for 7 long years, they really don’t know what they don’t know and could really care less. The most important duty of a President is to keep America safe. San Bernardino was not workplace violence nor was it just a bump in the road.
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Total bullshit misrepresentation by presentation as as usual.
Violence and other injuries by persons or animals was 16%.
Note of this 16%
7% was from shooting by another person
1% was from stabbing cutting or slashing, piercing
6% was self inflicted injury no cause listed
40% Transportation related
15% contact with objects and equipment
14% Falls
8% Exposure to harmful substances etc
7% shooting by another person
Like “terror profiling” in the hiring process?
PM, the person who shot my husband didn’t have legal possession of the weapon he used, of course.
I’ve seen the run, hide fight video mentioned here. A decent video. But it’s more of the nature of protecting YOU than the group. Reminds me of the story where two men are running away from a bear and one stops to change out of his hiking boots and into his ruing shoes. The other guy says to him, “You think that’s gonna help you outrun that bear?” To which the guy answers, “I don’t have to outrun the bear, I just have to outrun you.”
That video teaches you how NOT to be a victim amongst many other expected victims. We need ideas for safety leaving behind one or no victims. That means being prepared or armed for such assaults. Or a better to take out such perps or prevent them in the first place.
I don’t understand all the vitriol aimed at this article.
First of all, considering the first line of the article was “The terror attack at a social services facility in California…”the argument that there was no mention of San Bernadino being a terrorist attack really doesn’t hold water.
Secondly, I don’t know why a shooter’s possible motives should matter when employers are reviewing their safety and emergency plans. Regardless of the motive – whether it’s a warehouse worker that flips out and shoots his boss and co-workers, or a husband and wife terrorist duo that shoot up a work conference room – the results are going to be the same. People are still going to be injured or killed. The article is not saying that one is better or worse than the other, just that employers want to keep their employees safe from violence in the workplace, and are reviewing their plans to do that.
How is that a bad thing?
Personally, if someone came into my office and started shooting, I’d care less about why they were doing it, and more about doing whatever I could to avoid getting shot. Having an emergency plan in place gives employees a better chance of being around to ask “why,” once the shooting is over.
BS,
It’s because these yahoos only read the title of the article, not the article itself. Either that, or they are displaying a lack of reading comprehension.
They can tell us which.
BS, perhaps a good plan would be to hire some ex military employees with a Conceal & Carry permits to provide security for the business against shooters whether it is criminals or extremists. I think the employees might have a better chance of survival with that scenario vs just hiding under a desk waiting for the shooter to get around to them or waiting for the cops to show up after the 911 call for help.
Perhaps a few employees with conceal and carry permits could help. However, I don’t think it’s fair to rely solely on those types of employees to keep an office safe. Even if he has a conceal and carry permit, if Jim in accounting is completely wrapped up in balancing month-end numbers, he might not notice a shooter until it’s too late to do anything.
I think a better option would be to have a guard or two, whose sole job is to protect the employees. That way, Jim can focus on closing out the month, without the added responsibility of keeping everyone safe at all times.
Not to mention… God forbid Jim manages to kill the shooter just as the police show up, and because he’s in khakis and a polo instead of a uniform, they mistake him for the bad guy and kill him too. :(
Most trained guys know to put their weapon down when the Police show up. They can then tell the Police what came down and how he dealt with them. They often become a hero for saving lives and telling the media what happened.
thank god the police don’t have a history of shooting unarmed citizens. end sarcasm
Unfortunately, all it takes is one officer that’s just a little too quick on the trigger, and it can turn even uglier than it already was.
(and this is not an indictment on the police – I can only imagine their response if they pulled up in time to see a man in khakis shoot someone)
BS, If San Bernardino is anything like most Police Depts, the action is over long before the Black & White rolls up. If you recall the accounts, the shooting was long over and the Muslim perps were gone in a vehicle and had the shootout with Police a fair distance from the center where this massacre happened. Jim, the trained accountant could have taken care of business and the two perps laying on the floor and then there would have been no need for a chase endangering the public with a big shootout.
Most small to medium sized businesses may not be able to afford a guard or two. If Jim is a trained guy, he will be able to hear gunshots in another part of the office and take some action which may very well save some lives including his own. He can close month later, assuming he still has a business to close books on.
Does that mean Jim could be sued if, let’s say, he was wearing headphones and didn’t hear the shootings on the other side of the building and dozens of people died?
I’m not saying that Jim wouldn’t be an asset to the company in an active shooter situation. I’m sure he would be. But, (unless they’re paying him extra) I don’t think it’s fair to expect him to do his normal job and keep hyper-vigilant for a possible shooter. It’s not that I don’t think he’d be helpful in that situation, just that he shouldn’t be the company’s sole safety plan.
BS, some Safety Plan is better than no Safety Plan at all, don’t you agree? The shootings with the most carnage are the ones with no defense and in gun free zones for the most part. The ISIS affiliated guy who pulled off the San Bernardino shooting already knew how vulnerable that center was because he had been working there. Had he known that Jim, the accountant was ex military and had concealed carry with a Glock and not far away, he might have not done this terrible deed.
or he would’ve shot Jim first
Oh, I definitely agree that some safety plan is better than none at all. I just don’t think a company relying solely on Jim as their safety plan would be the best option.
It’s true that in the case of the San Bernadino shooter, because he had been working at that office, he would know that Jim was ex military and might have had second thoughts about the attack. However, by the same token, because he worked the office, chances are he would have an idea of Jim’s schedule, and could plan the attack for when Jim was on vacation. If Jim was the only safety plan that the office had, they’d be just as defenseless as if there was no plan at all.
Once again, I’m not discounting the fact that Jim would be a good person to have around in an active shooter situation. Just saying that a company should try to have a better plan that just an armed accountant.
BS, we have 3 Jim’s in our office, myself and two other Partners. We all have the means to defend ourselves and to protect our employees from this kind of situation. Sounds like a good safety plan to me.