(1) Loomis, Marshall, and Ta.  Employer Policies Toward Guns and the Risk of Homicide in the Workplace.  American Journal of Public Health.  2005;95:830-832) 

First, is it at least possible to discuss this issue in the national space without it deteriorating into name-calling, i.e., "gun hater" versus "gun nut," etc., where one side resorts to calling the other's patriotism into question?  There are legitimate safety, human resources, and legal concerns, no matter what side you put yourself on.  I find myself torn on the issue.  On the one hand, I was a police sergeant, I own guns, and I feel strongly that this right is important.  On the other hand, I have written several books on both workplace violence prevention and police officer tactics and I feel just as strongly that allowing employees to bring their guns to work can lead to thefts, misunderstandings, accidental discharges, and hesitation at the moment of truth. 

Not every employee who brings his or her gun to work (and we know women own and carry guns too) will have had tactical or combat training, in any form.  Therefore, despite what some gun owners may tell their friends, families, or colleagues, they may lack the physical skills or the mental abilities to be able to take another human's life, even when their own lives are in danger.  We already know the police are screened, hired, trained, enculturated, and prepared mentally and physically to make that enormous and life-altering choice. 

"But I practice all the time at the range," says the gun owner, with his 9mm stored safety in his car's not-so-well-secured glove compartment.  John Morrison, senior contributing editor at American Handgunner, Guns Magazine, and American Cop Magazine, says it best: "Punching holes in paper targets at the range isn't the same as shooting bad people.  It takes a much different mindset and much different training to have the ability to kill an armed perpetrator bent on killing you." 

In other words, during an active shooter situation, do you want to put your chances of survival on the shoulders (and shaky hands) of Dave in the Accounting Office or a tactically-trained police officer, wearing ballistic armor, and moving toward the sound of the gunfire with a long gun at the ready?  I know cops miss what they shoot at sometimes, but they bring a mindset to the fight that says, "I will stop this threat no matter what it takes."  People who have not been trained to do this and who have not thought about the emotional consequences of having to legally kill an active shooter may hesitate.       

This guns at work movement now spanning across a growing number of states is a legislative reaction to shootings at malls, churches, schools and workplaces, but perhaps not without the necessary forethought.  Access to guns, like access to alcohol, doesn't always make every place safer.  Most active shooter incidents are over in mere minutes, not hours.  Perpetrators often engage in "targeted violence," meaning they seek to kill specific co-workers, supervisors, or their former spouses, before taking their own lives.  There is often not enough time for law enforcement to arrive, rapidly assess the scene, and enter to stop the threat.  Would employees, who would have to drop what they were doing, run out to their cars, grab their guns, locate the shooter, and fire accurately enough to stop him be any faster?

The availability of guns in an employee parking area makes the whole lot more susceptible to car burglaries.  If I'm a crook, how many cars will I have to break into in an average office complex or factory location (with 200 or 2000 cars in it) to get my hands on one or more $800 Glocks?

Guns in the background change the dynamics of HR responses.  Their presence could make discipline and termination meetings very exciting events.  If you are a supervisor preparing to give an angry employee a low job evaluation, a performance improvement plan, a demotion, a suspension, or a termination notice, does the fact that you now know that the employee has a gun in his vehicle 300 feet away give you any comfort?

Guns on the property put responding law enforcement officers at much more risk.  If the active shooter is a current or former employee, he already has a huge tactical advantage because he knows the layout of the facility better than the cops.  And who is who, good guy or bad guy, among multiple armed people running around at the site?  This is bound to create mistaken identities or deadly crossfire situations.  Could the shooter get access to even more guns than his own by getting into a nearby vehicle where he knew a gun was being stored by a co-worker?

What about when the specter of domestic violence is present in the organization?  Sometimes a man who believes, "If I can't have you, no one else can," shows up at his former wife or girlfriend's office intending to kill her, her new beau, and himself.  Sometimes these emotional situations are made more complex when both parties work for the same company and are going through a violent and emotional breakup.  Do the dynamics of domestic violence escalate when guns are readily available to both people, plus nearby colleagues?

The potential for legal liability is limited only by the creativity of the plaintiffs attorneys: wrongful death claims, an armed employee's failure to act, under or overreactions by armed employees, accidental discharges, "cleaning accidents," horseplay, no training requirements, and traumatic stress claims by surviving co-workers or wounded victims.  What about "course and scope of employment" issues?  When would an employee be liable for acting or not acting, when he or she had access to a firearm? 

In his 1942 novel Beyond This Horizon, Robert A. Heinlein said, "An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life."

Maybe.  But if we are to consider a 50-state application of a "Bring Your Gun to Work" law, some universal must-haves must exist, including the following bare minimum responses and policies: an employee registration program; a  locked storage room with limited access; armed security in the buildings and parking lots; a company-authorized firearms training and re-certification program; formal workplace violence prevention training for all supervisors and employees; and better law enforcement partnerships.

The best approaches to workplace violence prevention don't just involve guns.  They include supportive management, humane treatment of employees, benevolent HR practices, training employees to evacuate safely or go to "safe rooms" in an active shooter emergency, and responding to early-warning signs, threats, and behaviors using a team problem-solving approach.