bs_bs_banner
Business and Society Review 119:1 1–36
An Ethical Analysis of the
Second Amendment: The
Right to Pack Heat at Work
WILLIAM M. MARTIN, HELEN LAVAN, YVETTE P. LOPEZ,
CHARLES E. NAQUIN, AND MARSHA KATZ
ABSTRACT
We examine the issues concerning the legality and ethicality of the Second Amendment right to bear arms balanced by the employer’s duty to provide a safe workplace
for its employees. Two court rulings highlight this balancing act: McDonald et al. v. City of Chicago et al. and
District of Columbia v. Heller. “Stand Your Ground” and
“Castle Doctrine” laws in the recent Trayvon Martin
shooting on February 26, 2012 are also applicable.
Various ethical frameworks examine the firearms debate
by viewing the Second Amendment from three perspectives. These include a pro-gun perspective drawing upon
libertarianism and fundamental rights; a moderate gun
perspective drawing upon consequentialism and stakeholder theory; and finally, an anti-gun perspective
drawing upon a Public Health Ethics and peace ethics
approach. We explore the issue of gun control from a
business perspective as employers face ethical decisions
William M. Martin is an Associate Professor of Management, DePaul University, Chicago, IL.
E-mail: martym@depaul.edu. Helen LaVan is a Professor of Management, DePaul University,
Chicago, IL. E-mail: hlavan@depaul.edu. Yvette P. Lopez is an Assistant Professor of Management, DePaul University, Chicago, IL. E-mail: ylopez9@depaul.edu. Charles E. Naquin is an
Associate Professor of Management, DePaul University, Chicago, IL. E-mail: cnaquin
@depaul.edu. Marsha Katz is a Professor Emeritus of Management, Governors State University, University Park, IL. E-mail: marshakatz@ameritech.net
© 2014 Center for Business Ethics at Bentley University. Published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc.,
350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA, and 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK.
2
BUSINESS AND SOCIETY REVIEW
in responding to legislation that allows guns in the workplace and/or in employer parking lots while still being
responsible to provide a safe workplace for their employees. We make recommendations regarding how companies should manage by proactively avoiding legal
challenges to employees’ rights to own and carry guns
into the workplace. This includes emphasis on enhanced
security, Human Resource policies and monitoring
rapidly changing laws.
INTRODUCTION
T
he purpose of this article is to provide an ethical analysis
of the Second Amendment right to bear arms balanced by
the employer’s duty to provide a safe workplace for its
employees. Following the tragic shooting of 20 elementary school
children and 6 teachers at Sandy Hook Elementary School in
Newtown, Connecticut, the reaction as to how to prevent and
address such future mass shootings ranged from calls to enforce
current gun control legislation to arming teachers with guns in
the state of Texas.
To place Sandy Hook Elementary School within a larger
context, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, between
1997 and 2010, there were a total of 8,666 occupational homicides, of which 1,512 involved a work associate killing a coworker
or former coworker (n = 894), or a customer or client (n = 618),
followed by relatives (n = 311), and lastly other personal acquaintances (n = 323). With respect to gun use, of the 8,666 homicides,
6,850 were shot, including 639 who were shot by a work associate, 389 shot by a customer/client, 250 shot by a relative, and
266 shot by a personal acquaintance. Hence, a vast majority of all
homicides involved gun use.
Our article contributes to the literature by viewing the ethicality
of gun control from a business perspective, and doing so from
a variety of popular ethical frameworks (as opposed to taking
a position on one in particular): Libertarianism, Fundamental
Rights, Consequentialism, Stakeholder, Public Health, and
Peace. Exploring the Second Amendment using these various
frameworks allows us to view the debate from (1) Pro-Gun,
MARTIN ET AL.
3
(2) Moderate-Gun, and (3) Anti-Gun perspectives. We believe that
understanding the debate from these various perspectives will
allow for a better understanding of the nuances of the ethical
debate facing the business world regarding gun control. In the
end, we shall put forth our position among the three frameworks.
Landmark Case Decisions
As of late, the Second Amendment right to possess and use
firearms has been a focus of attention within our legal system and
popular culture. The legality and ethicality of this issue have
come to the forefront recently with respect to a 2008 Supreme
Court ruling in the District of Columbia v. Heller and a related case
at the appellate court level of McDonald et al. v. City of Chicago
et al.—both of which we shall elaborate upon later. Currently, the
right to bear arms is under even more scrutiny because of the
“Stand Your Ground”1 and “Castle Doctrine”2 delineated in various
state and municipal laws and ordinances.
In McDonald v. Chicago (2010), the appellate court ruled that the
Second Amendment only protects a right to possess a firearm in
the home for lawful uses such as self-defense. It stressed that some
firearm regulation is constitutionally permissible. In addition, the
Second Amendment right to possess firearms is not unlimited. It
does not guarantee a right to possess any firearm, anywhere, and
for any purpose. This is what the “Stand Your Ground” laws
attempt to address.3
“Stand Your Ground” and “Castle Doctrine”
Duty to retreat laws require first that an individual in imminent
threat of personal harm must retreat from the threat as much as
possible before responding with force in self-defense. “Stand Your
Ground” laws, which are enacted in more than 30 states, are
essentially a revocation of the duty to retreat. In many states with
“Stand Your Ground” laws, a claim of self-defense under a “Stand
Your Ground” law offers immunity from prosecution (Stand Your
Ground laws n.d.).
Even in states that require people to retreat from the threat of
imminent harm before defending themselves, a person can often
use deadly force against someone who unlawfully enters their
4
BUSINESS AND SOCIETY REVIEW
home; this is known as the “Castle Doctrine”. This rule allows
people to defend their homes, property, and possessions against
intruders through lethal force (Stand Your Ground 2012). “But it
is ambiguous, when given examples of citizens’ use of deadly force
in defense of their home, vehicle, or places of business, how the
criminal justice system will interpret scenarios that fall within the
gray or less defined areas of acceptable behavior” (Boots et al.
2009, p. 530).
“Stand Your Ground” and Duty to Retreat recently came into
public view in the Trayvon Martin versus George Zimmerman
case. George Zimmerman’s legal behavior under the Second
Amendment and the State of Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” law
(i.e., in an oversimplified synopsis, Zimmerman felt threatened by
Martin and subsequently shot him, Martin was unarmed) led to
Zimmerman’s arrest for the death of Martin. While this case is
prominent in part because of its racial connotations and scrutiny
by the popular press, there are numerous other instances of
“Stand Your Ground” confrontations in 18 states that have similar
laws. Relatedly, 25 states have “Castle Doctrine” laws. The right to
possess firearms is dependent on interpretations of a combination
of the Second Amendment and the enforcement of various states
“Stand Your Ground” laws and “Castle Doctrines”.
Why This Is a Business Issue
The Second Amendment is a business issue because the employer
has a duty to provide a safe work environment, but this may be
constrained by an individual’s Second Amendment right to bear
firearms (General Duty Clause of OSHA). There could be a conflict
because the Fifth Amendment limits employer’s right to control its
property—the plant facility, and limits the individual’s right to
control his or her property—the firearm. Businesses must find a
way to balance the duty of providing a safe workplace within our
legislative structure.
Take, for example, corporate support for the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), which has as its motto “Limited
Government · Free Markets · Federalism.” This organization is
funded by corporate support from many Fortune 500 companies.
The ALEC formerly supported “Stand Your Ground” self-defense
laws but has recently withdrawn its support of this legislation
MARTIN ET AL.
5
after numerous of its business supporters withdrew their financial
support of the ALEC’s “Stand Your Ground” activities (Ingram
2012). The corporate supporters who have withdrawn their
support of the ALEC include Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, McDonald’s,
Kraft Foods, Wendy’s, and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.
Other companies remain supportive such as AT&T, Johnson
& Johnson, Pfizer, Diageo, Wal-Mart, and the industry trade
group Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America
(Hamburger 2012).
When a company has a policy regarding guns in the workplace,
it can generate input from both perspectives. Take the case of
Starbucks for example. Starbucks has taken the perspective that
company units will adhere to applicable state and local laws
regarding open carry of guns. It also has its own safety measures
in place for its stores. However, it has been boycotted by gun
victims’ advocacy groups, regarding Starbucks allowing guns in
stores.
The National Gun Victim’s Action Council (NGVAC) believes that
Starbucks should follow the lead of other retail chains, like IKEA
and California Pizza Kitchen, and enforce a ban within its stores.
It believes that by allowing guns in Starbucks, it is putting all
customers at risk. Elliot Fineman, CEO of the NGVAC states that
“Open and conceal carry laws are among the reasons there are
12,000 gun homicides each year in the U.S.” (Gordon 2012).
Adams (2006) suggested that an employer might be found liable
for negligence by failing to protect its employees and customers.
Clearly, finding the optimal path for businesses in this arena has
not reached a consensus—hence, this article attempts to aid in
the analysis of the matter by providing an ethical analysis of the
issue.
Why This Is an Ethical Issue for Businesses
The right to bear arms is fundamentally defined by the Second
Amendment, but its use has far-reaching ethical consequences.
There are literally life and death consequences, health and welfare
consequences, and consequences for society as a whole. The
employer, as a social entity, has particular obligations, which
extend beyond the employer’s domain.
6
BUSINESS AND SOCIETY REVIEW
But do employers have any responsibility of what happens to
employees, customers/clients, or innocent bystanders beyond the
physical boundaries of their workplace? Some would assert that
employers have a duty to protect employees and others, even away
from company premises, as was the case on August 25, 2012 when
nine bystanders were wounded and a current employee of Hazan
Import Co. was fatally shot by a former Hazan Import Co. employee
who was terminated. A similar event transpired in Connecticut,
where five bystanders were killed (Hayes 2010).
THE DUEL BETWEEN TWO COMPETING PERSPECTIVES
ON RIGHTS
The Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution is unclear with
regard to the proper interpretation of the literal words and the
corresponding meaning of the text: A well-regulated Militia being
necessary to the security of a Free State, the right of the people to
keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed. On one side of the
duel are those that support the “individual perspective” thesis.
On the other side of the duel are those that advocate the
“collective perspective” thesis, which is associated with states’
rights. Busch (2003) argues that at times, this right is regarded as
an individual right and at other times as a collective right. Of
course, the U.S. Supreme Court is the official interpreter of the
Constitution.
Our focus will be on the ethical issues surrounding these two
competing rights with regard to bringing guns to work, which is
particularly relevant given the previously mentioned two recent
U.S. Supreme Court decisions and several “Parking Lot” gun laws
enacted in states like Florida. “Parking Lot” gun laws allow
workers to keep firearms within their vehicles (such as when
parked outside their workplace).
The concern with these gun laws is that such legislation challenges employers to comply with the General Duty Clause of The
Occupational Safety and Health Act and maintain a safe work
environment. Glazer-Esh (2010) postulates the effects upon
employers with the passage of such laws:
Employers fear that the presence of firearms on company
property could increase incidents of workplace violence. . . .
MARTIN ET AL.
7
It is far easier for workplace violence to occur at the hands of
a disgruntled employee who only has to step outside and
walk a short distance to retrieve his stored gun from his car
than at the hands of the same disgruntled employee who has
to go home to retrieve that same weapon. (pp. 668)
The legal debate regarding guns at work remains unsettled but it
seems that state legislatures and courts are moving in the direction of allowing access to guns at work. The Society for Human
Resources Management (SHRM), the official professional association of human resources management professionals in the United
States, adopted in November of 2007 a public policy statement on
this issue entitled “Public Policy Statement on Weapons in the
Workplace.” The issue as framed by SHRM in this public policy
was written as follows:
The ability of employers to assess the safety needs of their
organizations and establish appropriate policies—be it to
prohibit, limit, monitor or permit weapons in the workplace—
is paramount to the overall success and sustainability of
their workforces. SHRM believes that decisions regarding
weapons in the workplace should be left to each individual
employer. (Society for Human Resources Management 2007,
p. 1)
SHRM states that the proposed position of this public policy is
“to support employer’s freedom to decide how to best create a
secure and safe workplace” (2007, p. 1). In 2012, SHRM clearly
outlined its position on weapons in the workplace promulgating
the following:
SHRM opposes any restrictions on the right of employers to
determine their own worksite policies regarding weapons on
company property (including parking lots). SHRM’s position
in no way involves the broader issues of gun control or gun
ownership. (p. 15)
This public policy position arose based upon statutes in 16 states
to bar an employer from enforcing a no-weapons policy on
company property (Society for Human Resources Management
2012). With regard to possessing firearms at work, the employer
can develop and implement a policy to forbid firearm possession
on workplace premises including parking lots, and an employee
8
BUSINESS AND SOCIETY REVIEW
can argue that this company policy violates their privacy and
liberty rights. However, a separate argument can be made by the
employer that by not allowing firearms on work premises the
promotion of well-being is being advanced. It is these complexities, which shall be examined in this article.
All alluded to earlier, the aims of this article are to advance the
existing body of knowledge regarding the ethics of guns in the
workplace and to contribute to the managerial understanding of
the extant literature through an ethical analysis of the Second
Amendment given the passage of the two recent U.S. Supreme
Court cases. Furthermore, this article briefly describes six ethical
theories. Two ethical theories (Libertarianism and Fundamental
Rights) strongly favor guns at work (pro-gun framework). Two
ethical theories (Stakeholder and Consequentialism) moderately
favor guns at work (moderate-gun framework). Two ethical theories (Public Health and Peace) oppose guns at work (anti-gun
framework). Then, two scenarios are presented and analyzed
using the six ethical theories. Fundamentally, this article is a
survey of ethical perspectives in relation to the Second Amendment. Any ethical theory can be used to frame political arguments. To this point, Beauchamp and Bowie (2004) comment that
“political theory is also an ethical theory” (p. 29).
The selection of six ethical theories is intentional and fits with
the observations of Petrick et al. (2012) who assert that current
research in ethics advocates the use of more than a single,
ethical theory. This view referred to as ethical pluralism is also
put forth by Greenwood (2012) with regard to the ethical analysis of human resources management with a particular focus
upon the sociopolitical aspects. Given our decision to view this
issue from multiple ethical lenses, our analysis is still quite
focused.
The emphasis here is on the application of ethical theory and
the formulation of specific recommendations based upon the
observation by Greenwood (2012) that a normative perspective
is warranted in an ethical analysis of human resources management. Furthermore, this normative perspective should be
sociopolitically embedded (Greenwood 2012), which is clearly the
case in this analysis of the Second Amendment. As such, recommendations are provided to employers about how to proceed from
an ethical perspective.
MARTIN ET AL.
9
TYPOLOGY OF PRO-GUN, MODERATE-GUN, AND
ANTI-GUN ETHICAL FRAMEWORKS
The reader’s attention is directed to the Typology of Gun Frameworks (Figure 1).
FIGURE 1
Typology of Pro-Gun, Moderate-Gun and Anti-Gun
Ethical Frameworks.
Pro-Gun Framework
Libertarianism
Libertarianism was selected as a pro-gun ethical argument, since
it is supportive of the government’s enforcement of the Second
Amendment’s right to bear arms, which comes into conflict with
the employee’s right to use private property in the Fifth Amendment. Libertarian philosophy is complex, and an exhaustive
analysis is beyond the scope of this article, except as it applies to
the Second Amendment. The core of the Libertarianism doctrine is
the recognition that people have certain rights, natural and legal,
and that deprivation of these rights is immoral. Among these
rights are the right to personal autonomy and property rights,
and the right to utilize that property (http://legal-dictionary
.thefreedictionary.com/Right+libertarian).
The overall argument that guns result in violent crime deaths
is countered by the experience in venues where crime and gunrelated deaths have diminished after state and local municipalities passed ordinances permitting carrying of weapons. The
10
BUSINESS AND SOCIETY REVIEW
contention is that criminals will more carefully think about
committing crimes if they know that potential victims might be
armed. John Lott (2000), in “More Guns, Less Crime,” explains
that crime fell by 10 percent in Texas in the year after the
laws were passed. A reason for the drop in crime may have
been that criminals suddenly worried that their next victim might
be armed. Indeed, criminals in states with high civilian gun
ownership were the most worried about encountering armed
victims.
Libertarians point to the diversity of state laws and how they
vary with respect to what is required to possess a gun; Vermont
and Alaska have the most libertarian approach: no permit needed.
In Canada and Britain, both with tough gun-control laws, almost
half of all burglaries occur when residents are home. However, in
the United States, where many households contain guns, only 13
percent of burglaries happen when someone is at home (Leenaars
and Lester 1997).
However, Hemenway (2011) concludes upon reviewing the scientific evidence that the health risks of possessing a firearm in the
home overshadow the benefits. To this point, Hemenway (2011)
argues, “The presence of a gun makes quarrels, disputes, assaults,
and robberies more deadly” (p. 4). Quarrels and disputes are
relatively common at work.
Additionally, there are many arguments against the more guns,
less crime perspective on gun ownership, including the (mis)interpretation of the available statistics (Ayres and Donohue 2009; Lott
2000; Ludwig 2005). Lott (2012) asserts that empirical evidence to
date is mixed with respect to the effects of right-to-carry laws on
crime. Lott (2012) further describes how pointing to evidence in
Washington, DC, and Chicago that crime did not rise after the
passage of the right-to-carry laws, but is the issue the number of
deaths or preventing a single death? A single death by homicide
using a gun can capture not only the attention of family and friends
but also the international media as in the case of Treyvon Martin,
which was not a workplace homicide or in the case of Kitty Genovese whose death led to the development of understanding the
bystander effect. In summary, libertarians argue about specific
limits to gun ownership but overall lean in the direction of allowing
individuals to own guns as an expression of both liberty and
private property.
MARTIN ET AL.
11
Fundamental Rights
Fundamental rights were also selected as a pro-gun ethical argument, since it is supportive of the right to defend oneself. During
the framing of the U.S. Constitution, self-defense was regarded as
an essential (i.e., fundamental) individual right and even viewed
as a natural law based upon the work of Thomas Hobbes (Powe
1997). This is in line with legal positivism. The ethical outcome of
not accepting Fundamental Rights is that individuals may be
unnecessarily killed or injured for not being permitted to defend
themselves with a gun against an attacker. Another outcome for
not accepting this ethical argument is that the U.S. Constitution
may be eroded in its application in the workplace.
Between proponents of gun control and advocates of the right
of individuals to bear arms is whether the right to bears arms
is still a fundamental right (Stark 2001). In the United States,
Fundamental Rights are often based upon the U.S. Constitution
and State Constitutions. Pollock (1983) asserts “the first ten
amendments to the United States Constitution set a minimum
level of fundamental liberty for the citizens of the United States”
(p. 709). The Second Amendment obviously is one of these 10
amendments.
At issue, both legally and ethically, is whether the Second
Amendment offers protection against the infringement of a fundamental right. According to Levy (2010), courts are more stringent in reviewing any statutes or policies, which infringe
fundamental rights as defined by interpretations of the U.S.
Constitution. Arkes (2010) establishes a historical perspective
about the nature of fundamental rights from a legal and ethical
perspective as described in the following:
The first generation of jurists in the Framing era had a
clearer sense of the connection between law and moral judgment, for they seemed to understand the moral groundwork
that stood beneath the provisions of the Constitution and the
statutes that were consistent with the Constitution. (pp.
496–497)
Upon further scrutiny, the question arises as to what is a fundamental right? The definition of a fundamental right then results in
12
BUSINESS AND SOCIETY REVIEW
the legal and ethical interpretation of a judicial decision. Even
workplace policies are framed within the context of statutory law
and judge-made law.
LaFollette (2000) regards fundamental rights as having boundaries. This viewpoint is similar to Levy’s (2010) observation of
Justice Scalia noting that the First and Second Amendment are
not absolute. The lens through which to evaluate fundamental
rights is both from the perspective of the individual and society
(LaFollette 2000). To protect a fundamental interest of selfdefense, it has been asserted that the right to bear arms is a
fundamental right (Wheeler 1997). Therefore, with regard to gun
control, the issue is centered on the rights of individuals and the
potential for government to infringe upon these fundamental
rights of individuals (LaFollette 2000). LaFollette (2000) therefore
claims that the primary issue then is the role of the government.
As such, this argument leans in the direction of gun ownership
being regarded as a legal or state right.
In brief, the U.S. Supreme Court and some State Legislatures
are regarding gun ownership as a fundamental right for individual citizens, which is to be protected by judicial decisions and
laws.
Moderate Gun Framework
Consequentialism
Consequentialism was chosen for a moderate ethical argument, in
that it seems to provide a balance. Both sides have a better
understanding of the other’s point of view by balancing the consequences of having guns with the consequences of not having
guns.
Consequentialism is the doctrine that an action is right or
wrong according to whether its consequences are good or bad.
There are two major categories of Consequentialism: act and rule
consequentialism (Heinzelmann et al. 2012). Consequentialists
hold that everyone should know that they are morally required to
act to bring about the best consequences, even though no human
being can possibly know what act would result in the best overall
consequence (Singer 2010).
When one views Consequentialism as it relates to gun control,
two related questions emerge: what are the types of consequences
MARTIN ET AL.
13
and to whom are they relevant? The issue is that it is difficult to
discern consequences when the consequences could be prevalent
throughout society. The consequences of the act of owning a
firearm and the negative results may accrue to different parties.
Moreover, the perception of the consequences varies by demographic characteristics (Bassin 1997). Even given demographic
diversity, it is clear that different individuals view the consequences of guns differently.
The right to gun ownership is a pervasively felt right in the
United States. More than 200 million firearms are held by civilians,
at least one firearm can be found in 38 percent of all homes, and 16
percent of adults own a handgun (Vernick et al. 2007). It becomes
exceedingly difficult to evaluate the consequences of individuals
exercising their Second Amendment rights. There is no doubt that
there is a psychological feeling of well-being for those individuals
who carry a handgun for self-protection. However, it is well documented that a home in which there is a handgun is more likely
to experience a homicide in the household. Vernick et al. (2007)
note that
1. The presence of firearms is associated, on average, with a
greater incidence of homicide, suicide, and unintentional
firearm-related deaths in households and/or populations,
after controlling for other factors associated with these
outcomes
2. The burden of firearm-related death, crime, and injury in
the United States is not evenly distributed throughout the
population
3. Handguns are generally less prevalent in household settings
and on the streets in jurisdictions with more restrictive
licensing laws.
There are similar statistics for handguns in the workplace.
A study published by the American Journal of Public Health
concluded employers’ premises “where guns were specifically permitted were 5 to 7 times more likely to be the site of a worker
homicide relative to those where all weapons were prohibited”
(Loomis 2008).
Perceptions on the consequences of gun rights can be expected
to be moderated by cultural factors. Gun control opponents tend
14
BUSINESS AND SOCIETY REVIEW
to be rural, Southern or Western, Protestant, male and white.
Gun control proponents tend to be urban, Eastern, Catholic or
Jewish, female and African American (Kahan 2003).
In essence, consequentialist arguments can be made for both
sides of the debate on the Second Amendment. This may result in
a level of complexity that makes it challenging to acquire any level
of ethical clarity.
Stakeholder Ethics
Stakeholders rights was considered to be a moderate ethical
framework since it is a balanced framework taking into account a
broader range of individuals, both internal and external to the
organization. Since this ethical framework considers a wider range
of individuals, it can be expected that employees, stockholders,
and customers would be taken into account. A distinction
between Consequentialism and Stakeholder Theory is a matter of
the relative proximity of the stakeholder to the activity (consequence). Stakeholders in Stakeholder Theory are those impacted
by the activity.
There are numerous questions to explore in taking a stakeholder approach to the Second Amendment. These include identifying who are the stakeholders, what are the obligations of
different stakeholders, and determining if all the stakeholders are
equal with respect to the Second Amendment (Mahon and Wartick
2003). These are broad questions in regard to the Second
Amendment—but for the purposes of this article, we focus on the
workplace.
What are the obligations to stakeholders? Given private property rights, employers should be free to enact policies and procedures to protect these stakeholders from injury, harm, and even
death at work in the employment context. These employer obligations involve several considerations including the following:
What is the obligation of employers to nonemployees who may be
injured or killed in the workplace while the employer allows their
employees their Second Amendment rights? In addition, stakeholders may be differentially treated by state law variations,
including preemption of federal laws, or local restrictions.
The enactment and enforcement of laws at any level from the
federal to the municipal emphasize the role of the government as
a stakeholder. According to Verbeke and Tung (2012), the role of
MARTIN ET AL.
15
the government is to improve the well-being of citizens. In addition, there are governmental prohibitions regarding who can
possess guns.4 There are also variations in where a gun may be
carried. This allows stakeholders to be protected differently in
different locations.5
Stakeholders are not equal with respect to the Second Amendment. One interesting part of the stakeholder debate about the
Second Amendment is whether gun ownership is truly a right or
a privilege and who can moderate this right or privilege. This is
because states do vary with respect to gun ownership and registration requirements. Some states are “shall issue” states in
which there is no local discretion about whether a permit is
issued. Some states are “may issue” states in which there is local
discretion. States also vary with respect to whether some individuals can be prevented from owning firearms in order to protect
other stakeholders. In addition, there are prohibitions regarding
who can possess guns.6 This allows stakeholders to be protected
differently in different locations.7
Stakeholders can act in a way that has an impact on the
bottom line, including supporting the firm’s stance to gun control.
For example, when Estee Lauder took a public stand for gun
control legislation, it was threatened by a boycott from the gun
lobby. Consumers in favor of gun control, however, made a conscious effort to buy even more from the firm in support of the
firm’s stance. Thus, the expected outcome of supportive behavior
on the part of stakeholders is improved financial performance
(Peloza and Papania 2008).
Additionally, how an issue is framed may affect the stakeholders’ view of the issue. For example, Mahon and Wartick (2003)
contend stakeholders would view gun control more favorably if it
were framed in terms of gun safety. The Second Amendment is
complex and takes into account the viewpoint from many different
perspectives, ranging from the employees and customers to governmental bodies due to the diversity of potential stakeholders.
Therefore, the perspective taken using this approach will vary
from employer to employer. Carroll and Buchholtz (2009) and
more recently Verbeke and Tung (2012) emphasize how stakeholders may shift from one group to another over time. For instance,
when an employee becomes promoted, they then belong to the
managerial stakeholder group. Hence, it is critical to remember
16
BUSINESS AND SOCIETY REVIEW
that stakeholders have a temporal aspect with regard to changing
their point of view and changing to which group they belong.
In summary, the decision to allow guns at work is based upon
how the employer identifies stakeholders, considers the interests
of stakeholders, balances the interest of diverse stakeholders, and
frames the issue for stakeholders. Moreover, employers may owe
different obligations to varying stakeholders.
Anti-Gun Framework
Public Health Ethics
Public Health Ethics was chosen for an anti-gun ethical argument. The pertinent ethical issue is the balancing of risks and
benefits and the promotion of the common welfare even under the
claim of self-defense. Those seeking to avoid harm, remove harm,
prevent harm, or promote well-being would adopt a Public Health
Ethics approach. The implication of not accepting Public Health
Ethics as an ethical framework is that known harms may not be
avoided resulting in avoidable death and injury.
It has been suggested that workplace policies allowing guns at
work increase the risk of homicide of employees at work (Loomis
et al. 2005). Specifically, “workplaces where guns were permitted
were about 5 times as likely to experience a homicide as those
where all weapons were prohibited” (Loomis et al. 2005).
As such, a Public Health ethical argument to promoting an
anti-gun organizational agenda rests on the assumption to avoid
harm and promote the general welfare. In making a decision to
allow or not to allow firearms on the premises of workplaces,
Loomis et al. (2005) indirectly draw upon a consequentialist
ethical approach as evidenced by the following:
These findings bear directly on policy for workplace safety. In
light of the evidence, it is reasonable to question the costs
and benefits of policies permitting firearms in the workplace.
(Loomis et al. 2005, p. 831)
National Rifle Association members and supporters assert the
following: “Guns do not kill, people do.” However, guns are associated with greater lethality than other weapons such as knives
and fists. According to Richardson and Windau (2003), approximately 75% of homicides at work result from injuries inflicted
MARTIN ET AL.
17
with firearms. Given the greater lethality of guns, then the precautionary principle of the Public Health Ethics framework should
be applied. According to Weber (2002), this principle places a
much higher burden on the responsibility to prevent and avoid
risks to Public Health. Therefore, if an employer has a policy
allowing employees to bring guns to work, it is safe to assert that
the risk of being a victim of workplace homicide is five times
greater than if the employer did not have such a policy based
upon the findings of the previously stated investigation (Loomis
et al. 2005).
In conclusion, the Public Health Ethics approach boils down to
the fact that the risks of potential harm especially in light of the
lethality of firearms outweigh the benefits of protecting oneself
and having the right of arming oneself at work.
Peace Ethics
Peace ethics was considered to be an anti-gun framework, since
peace is the antithesis of violence. Individuals both avoiding conflict and resolving conflict without resorting to armed confrontations would adopt such a framework. Within organizations,
Alternative Dispute Resolution practices such as mediation are
conflict management approaches, which emphasize the role of
addressing conflict as collaborators not as adversaries. The
ethical outcome of not accepting Peace Ethics is that the risk of
more confrontational, adversarial, violent, and armed ways to
resolve conflict will take place in organizations increasing the risk
of psychological and physical harm.
Freedom from conflict is one dimension of peacebleness
(Beck-Dudley and Hanks 2003). Furthermore, peacebleness is
essential for human flourishing (Beck-Dudley and Hanks 2003)
and human flourishing is related to both virtue (Barnes 1984)
and the virtuous organization (Beck-Dudley and Hanks 2003).
A virtuous organization focuses upon how an organization
behaves (Solomon 1992). More specifically, Solomon (1992) identifies caring and compassion as virtues that should exist in the
workplace.
Beck-Dudley and Hanks (2003) describe two assumptions
about the virtue of peacebleness within the context of work:
An explicit assumption of virtue theory is that humans are
respectful to each other, that they care about each other, and
18
BUSINESS AND SOCIETY REVIEW
that they exercise compassion. An implicit assumption,
however, is that they exhibit peacebleness toward each other
and toward their work environment. (p. 43).
It is unrealistic to strive for a workplace that is free of all conflict.
As such, peacebleness is not defined in this fashion. It is defined
as “freedom from hostile conflict” (Beck-Dudley and Hanks 2003,
p. 434).
Another perspective of the notion of peacebleness in the workplace is the reality that workplaces are communities and that “one
participant cannot choose peace without the cooperation and
choice of peace by other participants” (Beck-Dudley and Hanks
2003, p. 446). According to Younkins (2008), “the legitimate aim
of politics is peace and order” (p. 271). As such, any legislation,
court ruling, and workplace policy should promote peace and
order. This aim does not align with the previously mentioned
findings of Loomis et al. (2005) reporting an increased risk of
workplace homicide when guns are present in the workplace.
Peace Theory therefore suggests that participatory organizational
leadership through increased attraction to opportunities for voice
possibly creates the situation that employees are likely to resolve
disputes with words and not with more violent means (Nichols
1999; Peck 1988).
In summary, it is likely that an organization, which promotes peace within its organization, would most likely discourage
the use of and the availability of weapons that do not promote
peace.
APPLYING THE ETHICAL THEORIES TO REAL-LIFE
WORKPLACE SCENARIOS
The three frameworks and six corresponding ethical theories will
now be applied to two actual real-life incidents of workplace
violence to demonstrate the utility of these frameworks in framing
the ethical decision.
Real-life Scenario 1—Shooting Spree
Omar Thornton, a driver for a beer distributor, calmly agreed to
quit after being confronted with surveillance video showing him
MARTIN ET AL.
19
stealing beer. Shortly afterward, he started shooting. He fatally
shot eight fellow workers and wounded two others at the company
warehouse in Manchester, Connecticut, then killed himself.
Thornton, who is black, alleged in a phone call to 911 that he had
been racially harassed. However, his employers and union said he
had never filed a complaint. Nothing in his work history or behavior suggested he would be violent, according to company representatives.
“Ten seconds before he started shooting, if you had asked me,
does he look like he’s going to react in any way? I would have said
‘no, he seems calm,’ ” a company vice president grazed by the
gunman’s bullets, told The Associated Press the day of the attack.
Statistically, a beer distributor is not a likely workplace for
multiple murders to occur. Based on Bureau of Labor Statistics
data (2011), only 3 percent of workplace homicides occur in the
wholesale trade sector.
(Based on an incident, which occurred in Manchester,
Connecticut, August 2010)
Pro-Gun Framework
Both the Libertarian and Fundamentalist perspectives would
agree that murder is unacceptable. This would include murder by
a firearm, whether inside or outside of the workplace. That said,
both the Libertarian and Fundamentalist perspectives would look
at this scenario and argue for the right to bear firearms as a
means of either preventing this incident or reducing the negative
impact.
Libertarianism
From a Libertarian perspective, if people in the workplace had
been armed, or had easy access to their firearms, this individual
may not have been motivated to go on a killing spree knowing he
would encounter deadly resistance in return. He would likely
pause to take a mental calculation, balancing the “pros” of
shooting others versus the “cons” of being shot and possibly
killed in the process. Firearms in this case would be a deterrent.
In addition, even if the knowledge that others could also get
their firearms was not a sufficient deterrent, then at least it
might have possibly cut down the number of casualties. Thus,
20
BUSINESS AND SOCIETY REVIEW
absent armed guards in the workplace to protect the employees
against such atrocious acts (an expense unlikely to be taken by
most manufacturing plants), the next best option would be let
people protect themselves via either the possession of, or access
to, a firearm.
Fundamental Rights
The Fundamental Rights perspective to this scenario is equally
straightforward. The right to bear firearms is a right granted to us
as citizens in the United States by our Constitution. Although
murder is not accepted or tolerated by Constitutional Fundamentalists, the fact is there are situations where people, or collectives
of some type, attack others with the intent of killing them. This
scenario is an example of such an attack; in this case, a rogue
individual is killing defenseless people. Regardless of the reason
this person had for embarking on this killing spree, we as individuals have the moral and ethical right to protect our families
and ourselves, luckily this basic obligation is protected in our
legal rights as U.S. citizens. Had more people exercised their
fundamental right to bear arms, or have easy access to them, this
situation may have had a better outcome.
Moderate-Gun Framework
The Consequentialism and Stakeholder perspectives are two
theories that do well to acknowledge the involvement and concerns of multiple contributing parties. As such, decisions based
on what is morally good or morally bad behavior is often attributed to differences in perspective. Therefore, arguments for and
against topics such as the right to bear arms in the workplace are
not as straightforward when it comes to the application of such
theories.
Consequentialism
According to the Consequentialist perspective, an action is determined to be morally proper or morally improper based on a
cost–benefit analysis of the consequences involved. If an action
results in consequences that are predominantly favorable, then
the action is good. If an action results in consequences that
are predominately unfavorable, then the action is bad. Yet
MARTIN ET AL.
21
consequences under the principles of Consequentialism can affect
groups differently thereby making judgment of actions much less
straightforward.
As indicated above, the Consequentialist perspective often
requires two considerations: what are the types of consequences
and for whom are the consequences? Given the above scenario,
supporters of gun control would argue that the unfavorable consequences of the employee’s behavior demonstrate why there should
be policies in place to prohibit employees from bringing guns into
the workplace. On the other hand, opponents of gun control would
argue that the consequences of not allowing employees to protect
themselves via the possession of, or access to, a firearm would
result in greater unfavorable consequences, such as the high
number of casualties demonstrated in the above scenario. If
employees had been armed, then the employee in this scenario may
have reconsidered his actions with the understanding that others
may have access to firearms, or if he had still engaged in the act,
then it is possible that employees will have been able to cut down
the number of casualties. As such, consequences change based on
perspective.
Stakeholder Ethics
The Stakeholder perspective identifies several groups that affect
or are affected by the organization’s policies and procedures. As
indicated above, such stakeholders include, but are by no means
limited to, the employees and managers of an organization,
members of the public, legislators, and stockholders. Given the
above scenario, supporters of gun control would argue that organizations have a social responsibility to its employees and
managers. As such, organizations should instill policies and procedures that prohibit employees from bringing guns into the
workplace in order to protect all employees and managers of the
organization from harm. On the other hand, opponents of gun
control would argue that organizations have a social responsibility
to its employees and managers and therefore by not allowing
employees and managers to protect themselves via the possession
of, or access to, a firearm would result in potentially putting
employees’ and managers’ safety at risk. If the organization in the
scenario had allowed its employees and managers to protect
themselves via firearm, and the employees or managers had been
22
BUSINESS AND SOCIETY REVIEW
armed, then the employee could have reconsidered his action or
the number of employee casualties could have been reduced. In
effect, consideration of the interests of multiple stakeholders can
produce conflicting views.
Anti-Gun Framework
Public Health Ethics
According to Public Health Ethics Theory, the above scenario is a
good example of why organizations need a policy that does not
allow employees to bring guns to work or to the parking lot of the
organization. When there is no policy forbidding the carrying of
guns, it is more likely that an individual might be carrying a gun
near the grounds. While not every employee will follow the rules,
it increases the likelihood that an employee will not have a gun in
a volatile situation. Without this policy, it makes it too easy to
have access to guns in an emotional situation, and thus too easy
to use the easily accessible weapons.
Due to the nature of the event (having to quit his job because
he was caught stealing), the employee was probably very emotional and likely angry at the situation. If he did not have easy
access, he might have had to go home and get his gun or buy a
gun, which would take even longer. Both situations would have
given him a “cooling off” period. By the time he accomplished the
event of acquiring a weapon, he might be thinking more rationally
about his situation, he might come up with a less tragic way to
deal with his situation. Since the literature shows that workplaces
where guns were permitted were about five times as likely to
experience a homicide as where all weapons were prohibited, this
situation is less likely to occur if (1) individuals are not carrying
guns and (2) they are less likely to carry guns if they are prohibited by the organizations’ policy. According to Loomis (2008), a
no-weapons policy that bars guns from the workplace may be
effective in preventing the personal violence that is not planned
from becoming lethal.
Peace Ethics
Beck-Dudley and Hanks (2003) develop a normative model for
considering how corporations can be authentic communities.
MARTIN ET AL.
23
Their theory is that in becoming authentic communities, businesses will be in a better position to foster virtues that may have
positive spillover effects into the local community.
In this scenario, it is likely that an organization that promotes
peace would not allow and would have policies in place that do not
allow guns. Guns readily accessible would not promote peace. In
addition, an organization could have conflict resolution mechanisms in place and employees would have access to Employee
Assistance Programs to help them deal with undue stress in their
lives.
Furthermore, the employee would have an opportunity to
express his voice in the workplace. This would potentially reduce
the urge for a violent reaction in the workplace. In this scenario,
however, managers had no indication of the employee’s potential
for gun violence. It is possible that in another scenario, they could
have had an indication of the potential and referred employees for
treatment.
Real-life Scenario 2—Spillover of Domestic Violence
Marsha Midgette, a Wal-Mart employee, only recently had been
suffering physical abuse from her husband of 26 years prior to the
incident in question. Her husband, who had been suffering from
depression, recently had checked out of the mental hospital
against medical advice. In the abuse incident, Marsha was injured,
requiring an emergency room visit and a subsequent arrest of her
spouse. His bail required him to stay away from his wife until his
court hearing, but no specific court order was issued. Management
was aware of his ongoing abuse toward Midgette but was not aware
of imminent danger of serious harm.
Prior to the time her shift was to start, the store employee stood
in the break room. Her husband, in violation of his bail requirement, entered the room, took out a 22-caliber revolver, shot his wife
in the head, and then shot himself. He did not survive the shooting,
but she did. The employee sued the employer, claiming that it
breached its duty to protect her in the following ways: by failing to
call the police when they knew that her husband was there; by
having inadequate security; by failing to provide her a safe environment to work; and by failing to have in place a policy to address
24
BUSINESS AND SOCIETY REVIEW
spousal abuse and training management on how to handle such
abuse.
(Based on Marsha Midgette, Plaintiff, v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
317 F. Supp. 2d 550; 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 359)
Pro-Gun Framework
As stated previously, neither the Libertarian nor Fundamentalist
perspective condones murder whether by firearm or otherwise.
Looking at this scenario from both a Libertarian and Fundamentalist perspective, both would also note that domestic violence is
a terrible act. However, domestic violence occurs whether firearms
are present or not. The presence of a firearm allows finality to the
dispute. In this case, there is a specific target to the violence and
motivation to cause harm to this target. Had the perpetrator not
been given easy access to the victim in the workplace then the
same result would likely happen at a different locale.
Libertarianism
As indicated above, from a Libertarian perspective, there is contention that a handgun should be useful, perhaps exclusively
useful, for self-defense. In this particular case, had the victim of
domestic violence been armed, or had easy access to a firearm,
then by contention, the perpetrator may have been deterred in
aggressively seeking out the individual. Additionally, given the
locale of the workplace, if people in the workplace had been
armed, or had easy access to their firearms, the perpetrator may
have been less motivated to enter the victim’s place of employment knowing he may encounter resistance from witnessing
coworkers. Therefore, from a Libertarian perspective, a firearm
would serve as a deterrent to allow people (victims) to protect
themselves via possession of, or access to, a firearm.
Fundamental Rights
From a Fundamental Rights perspective, it has been asserted that
the Second Amendment offers protection against the infringement
of a fundamental right. The fundamental right to bear arms helps
to protect other fundamental rights such as self-defense (Wheeler
1997). Therefore, one has a fundamental interest in avoiding
harms that would expose oneself to injury and/or death due to
MARTIN ET AL.
25
violence (Stell 2001), in this particular case, domestic violence.
Hence, from a Fundamental Rights perspective, we as individuals
have the moral and ethical right to protect ourselves. Had the
victim or coworkers in this particular establishment exercised
their fundamental rights to bear arms, or have easy access to
them, this situation may have had a different outcome.
Moderate Gun Framework
Consequentialism
According to Consequentialism, consequences must be considered
in addition to those affected by the consequences. Given the
scenario of the spillover of domestic violence in the workplace,
the consequence of a volatile individual having access to a gun
allowed for the occurrence of an extreme example of an unfavorable consequence. Accordingly, supporters of gun control would
advocate that such consequences could be reduced if individuals
were not allowed to bring guns into an organizational facility.
Conversely, those who oppose gun control would argue that the
consequences of not allowing employees, or managers, to protect
themselves via the possession of, or access to, a firearm would
result in greater unfavorable consequences. These include the
injury of the employee in the scenario whereby members of the
organization could have better protected themselves from the
presence of the husband when he was spotted on company
grounds. Additionally, if the employee’s husband had suspected
that his wife, other employees, or mangers within the company
had been armed, then the husband may have reconsidered his
actions with the understanding that others may have access to
firearms. In addition, consequences to other employees and the
public should also have been considered.
Stakeholder Ethics
In accordance with the Stakeholder perspective, organizations
have a responsibility to protect those groups affected by the
operations and policies of the organization. As such, organizations
need to be in a position that allows them to put a policy in place
that would prohibit employees, managers, customers, and
members of the community from bringing guns into the workplace, or on company property, such as the company’s parking
26
BUSINESS AND SOCIETY REVIEW
lot. On a larger scale, supporters of gun control would argue that
an individual, such as the husband in the scenario, would have a
harder time accessing a gun, thereby reducing the chance of
acquiring a gun while operating in such a volatile psychological
state. On the other hand, opponents of gun control would advocate that organizations have a social responsibility to the safety of
its employees, managers, and other stakeholders and therefore if
employees are allowed to possess, or have access to, a firearm,
then an employee, such as the victim in this particular scenario,
could have better defended herself. Additionally, the attacker may
have reconsidered his action given the understanding that his
victim or other members of the organization could have access to
firearms.
Anti-Gun Framework
Public Health Ethics
According to Public Health Ethics Theory, the above scenario is a
good example of why organizations need a policy that does not
allow employees, customers, or other individuals to bring guns to
work, to an organizational facility, or to the parking lot of the
organization. When there is no policy forbidding the carrying of
guns, it is more likely that an individual might be carrying a gun
on the grounds if it is not forbidden. While not every individual
will follow the rules, a clear policy increases the likelihood that an
individual will not have a gun in a volatile situation. Without this
policy, it makes it too easy to have access to guns in an emotional
situation, and thus too easy to use the easily accessible weapons.
Due to the fact that the organization knew that the employees’
husband was depressed and violent, if he was not able to have
easy access to the gun and bullets, he might not as easily have
been able to perform the violent act.
The relationship between the presence of guns at work and the
increased likelihood of homicide at work has already been previously established. Furthermore, other research indicates that 74
percent of battered women are battered by their abusive partners
at work (Matejkovic 2004). Thus, it is understandable that Public
Health would be improved if knowing that the likelihood that an
employee will be in possible danger, it is in the organization’s best
interest to reduce the likelihood of possible violent reactions.
MARTIN ET AL.
27
Loomis (2008) suggests a no-weapons policy that bars guns from
the workplace may be effective in preventing the first type of
situation from becoming lethal. A Public Health perspective would
also facilitate public and/or private health resources a priori or
post hoc for counseling for the perpetrator, victims, and/or
bystanders.
Peace Ethics
Peace Ethics would have no bearing on this case, as the Peace
procedures that the company might employ, would not have
affected the violence of the partner of the employee. There is
nothing that the company could have done that would have
alleviated his mental condition. The husband’s onset of violence
was sudden, and even if they had counseling for domestic abuse
spouses, the chances are that this incident would not have
changed unless they had gun detectors on the premises and since
the company sold guns and bullets, that would be unlikely. As in
the first scenario, promoting open communication of workplace
issues, or of private but potentially spillover issues, can promote
more harmonious workplaces.
PORTRAYALS OF WORKPLACE VIOLENCE POLICIES
Portrayed in Table 1 are recent examples of employee safety and
handgun policies. The names of the companies are disguised, but
the actual policy wording is contained in this table. These are
examples of what companies are doing to manage guns in the
workplace.
The advice of corporate security professionals is to be proactive.
Some suggestions are that rather than there be circumstances in
the workplace where employee Second Amendment rights to bear
arms confront provisions in employee handbooks, it would be
preferable to be proactive in preventing such incidents by following the advice of corporate security professionals. This involves
some or more of the following: enhancing physical security
through environmental controls; developing workplace violence
prevention policies; implementing threat assessment and management procedures; and training employees in violence prevention.
Other actions include employing a security staff; screening
Samples Of Employee Safety And Firearms Policies*
Fast-food Restaurant
http://imgpg.jobing.com/company/images/860/t/ddo-Employee_Handbook_English.pdf
UNACCEPTABLE BEHAVIOR/MISCONDUCT
Bringing firearms or weapons onto Company premises.
Petroleum Company
https://oxylink.oxy.com/Taleo_Onboarding_Documents/Corporate%20Staff%20Employee%20Handbook.pdf
Occasionally, it becomes necessary to use disciplinary measures when personal conduct is contrary to accepted practices. In an effort to provide
you with some guidance, the following are simply examples of the most common types of conduct that are not acceptable and which may
prompt the Company to exercise its right to terminate the employment relationship with or without cause and with or without notice, or to
issue lesser discipline:
Possession or use of firearms, explosives or other dangerous weapons or material on Company property, including parking lots except where
allowable by law.
Financial Services Company
http://teamworks.wellsfargo.com/handbook/HB_Online.pdf
Possessing firearms and weapons on company premises or at company-sponsored events is dangerous to team members and is strictly
prohibited. No team member may bring a weapon to the workplace unless specifically authorized by the director of Security or the chief
auditor—for example, someone in a specific security or guard position. For purposes of this policy, a “weapon” means any item designed
primarily for the purpose of inflicting bodily injury, which may include items that are legal to own. You are not permitted to have these items
at work or while you’re conducting business on behalf of the company.
TABLE 1
28
BUSINESS AND SOCIETY REVIEW
Continued
*Retrieved on July 3, 2012.
Staffing and Recruitment Agency
Employee Handbook
http://www.adeccousa.com/employees/documents/adecco_handbook_for_web.pdf
The possession, transfer, sale or use of firearms, weapons, explosives or other improper materials with or without valid permit is prohibited on
company or client premises. It is a violation of this policy to possess a weapon, to threaten another individual with bodily harm, or to assault
another individual at any time while on Company property or during working hours or while engaged in business regardless of location.
Employees in violation of this policy will be subject to disciplinary action up to and including termination. The Company strongly urges that
any acts of violence in the workplace and any weapons observed thereon be reported to the company management and/or Human Resources
Exceptions may be extended to security personnel, in Company or Client parking lots and parking facilities.
Retailer
http://webimgsrv.burlingtoncoatfactory.com/static/pdfs/corporate/Code_of_Conduct.pdf
To preserve Employee safety and security, weapons, firearms, ammunition, explosives, and incendiary devices are forbidden on Company
property.
TABLE 1
MARTIN ET AL.
29
30
BUSINESS AND SOCIETY REVIEW
customers, clients, and visitors; screening potential employees;
referring employees to employee assistance programs; enforcing
zero-tolerance standards toward threats and violent behavior from
employees; and prohibiting weapons on company property
(Loomis 2008).
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR HOW A COMPANY
SHOULD PROCEED
Rather than deal with legal challenges to employees’ rights to
own and carry guns into the workplace, companies should act
proactively by incorporating the following measures. These specific recommendations build upon the work of Kirk and Franklin
(2003) that focused upon workplace violence.
Management of Workplace Safety through State of the Art
Security Measures
The company can secure more parts of the workplace, using
guards and electronic monitoring. The company can also regulate
and minimize access to the premises. This can be done by activities such as requiring swiping of ID cards for all access and by
accompanying all visitors on the premises. The company should
maintain a heightened alert in the event of layoffs, terminations,
or negative performance evaluations.
Management through Human Resource Policies and
Employee Communications
Hiring should include screening for personality types prone to
violence. Valid personality assessment and more in-depth background checks can facilitate this. When appropriate, employees
should be referred to an Employee Assistance Plan—perhaps even
if the precipitating situation is not at the workplace. This referral
should occur in such instances of perceived substance abuse,
domestic violence, or perhaps even altercations among employees
on or off premises. Employee relations professionals should
assure that the company policies are communicated fully. More-
MARTIN ET AL.
31
over, the policy should state that there would be zero tolerance
toward threats and violent behavior.
Management by Monitoring Rapidly Changing State and
Municipal Laws
Corporate legal counsel should be consulted frequently on this
issue, in view of the fact that laws in various states and municipalities vary. These laws could be expected to be reviewed with increasing frequency, in view of recent societal events involving guns.
CONCLUSION
Business leaders face critical decisions in responding to gun
legislation while protecting their employees and customers. The
focus of this article is on the two recent court rulings at the
federal level and on state laws, which have an impact on
employers and employees. “Stand Your Ground” and “Castle
Doctrine” laws have highlighted additional legal and ethical concerns. The decision facing organizational leaders is not solely
a decision of legal compliance, but also an ethical decision.
Whereas prior work has explored the debate from a rights perspective, our article provides a diverse ethical map, or framework, upon which to place the firearms debate. This is a unique
contribution to the literature. Furthermore, this analysis seeks
to mirror the complexity confronting managers who often have
to make decisions using multiple frameworks given the political
and organizational dynamics of the firm. Based upon our review
of the literature, this is the only analysis exploring the question
of allowing guns at work from an ethical point of view. We reach
the conclusion here that guns should not be allowed in the
workplace and that human resources has an affirmative duty to
make sure that this is the case. Our position on the ethicality
of guns in the workplace is clearly grounded in the two anti-gun
ethical frameworks: Public Health and Peace ethics as well as
our interpretation of the moderate gun ethical frameworks:
Consequentialism and Stakeholder Theory. With regard to the
two pro-gun frameworks, Libertarianism and Fundamental
Rights, we acknowledge these two perspectives but also recognize that these two ethical frameworks are limited.
32
BUSINESS AND SOCIETY REVIEW
Future research should examine the ethical aspects as well as
legal aspects of policies of employers. Additionally, it would also
be desirable to first describe and then categorize the specific ways
that employers are addressing this issue. In-depth case analysis
of litigated cases at various court levels could also allow a greater
understanding of this issue. Since there is so much variation in
state laws, monitoring what the various task forces and legislative
bodies do would also be useful to our understanding.
In conclusion, the next time you enter a workplace in a country
that allows individuals to carry guns under a specific set of
requirements and in a state, parish, or province that allows
individuals access to guns at work, including in company parking
lots, stop and ask: Does this employer have a (well-defined) policy
about guns at work that goes beyond legal compliance, and
perhaps frames the issue from an ethical point of view?
It is unclear how many companies have a firearm policy based
on an ethical perspective (in addition to a legal one), but it is clear
that given recent court decisions (both federal and state levels)
policies regarding guns in the workplace should be at the forefront of company policymaking dialog. We believe that when all
factors are balanced, aspects of all frameworks are included.
The perspectives of the frameworks are taken into account when
companies adhere to applicable laws, when consequences are
weighted relative to their impact on stakeholders, and when
public health, peace, and safety are included into company
policies.
NOTES
1. “Stand Your Ground” laws generally state that, under certain circumstances, individuals can use force to defend themselves without first
attempting to retreat from the danger (http://criminal.findlaw.com/
criminal-law-basics/stand-your-ground-laws.html).
2. The Castle Doctrine allows people to defend their homes against
intruder through lethal force (http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-lawbasics/self-defense-overview.html).
3. The dissenting judges argued that the right to own guns was not
“fundamental” and therefore states and localities should be free to regulate or even ban them.
MARTIN ET AL.
33
4. Constitute a danger to himself or to others or to be persistently or
acutely disabled or gravely disabled; convicted of a felony, or who has been
adjudicated delinquent for a felony, and whose state civil right to possess
or carry a gun or firearm has not been restored; serving a term of imprisonment in any correctional or detention facility; serving a term of probation pursuant to a conviction for a domestic violence offense or a felony
offense; undocumented alien or a nonimmigrant alien; and juveniles.
5. Schools; in a government building or in a courthouse; secured
areas of airports; hydroelectric or nuclear power plants; inside a jail or on
the grounds; polling places on Election Day; establishments that are
licensed to sell alcohol for consumption on the premises; mental health
facility; and place of worship.
6. “The Gun Control Act of 1968”, Public Law 90–618. See also Hardy
(1986). The Firearms Owners’ Protection Act: A historical perspective.
Cumberland Law Review, 17, 585–682.
7. Brady Campaign to End Gun Violence. (2012). State gun laws.
Retrieved from http://www.bradycampaign.org/stategunlaws. See also
National Rifle Association (2012). State laws. Retrieved from http://
www.nraila.org/gun-laws/state-laws.apsx.
REFERENCES
Adams, R. 2006. “Responsibility for harm: A critical look at the protection
of Commerce in Arms Act,” Business and Society Review 111(3): 269–
285.
Arkes, H. 2010. “The Constitution and its moral warnings,” Harvard
Journal of Law and Public Policy 33(2): 495–506.
Ayres, I., and Donohue, J. J. III 2009. “More guns, less crime fails again:
The latest evidence from 1977 to 2006,” Economic Journal Watch 6(2):
218–238.
Barnes, J. 1984. The complete works of Aristotle: The revised Oxford
translation, Vol. 2. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Bassin, A. 1997. “Why packing a pistol perpetuates patriarchy,” Hastings
Women’s Law Journal 8(2): 351–364.
Beauchamp, T. L., and Bowie, N. E. 2004. Ethical Theory and Business,
7th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Beck-Dudley, C. L., and Hanks, S. H. 2003. “On virtue and peace:
Creating a workplace where people can flourish,” Vanderbilt Journal
Transnational Law 36(2): 427–449.
Boots, D. P., Bihari, J., and Elliott, E. 2009. “The state of the castle: An
overview of recent trends in state castle doctrine legislation and public
policy,” Criminal Justice Review 34(4): 515–535.
34
BUSINESS AND SOCIETY REVIEW
Brady Campaign to End Gun Violence. 2012. “State gun laws,” http://
www.bradycampaign.org/stategunlaws/, accessed August 22, 2012.
Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2011. “Occupational homicides,” http://
www.bls.gov/iif/oshwc/cfoi/work_hom.pdf, accessed May 12, 2013.
Busch, M. 2003. “Is the Second Amendment an individual or a collective
right,” St. John’s Law Review 77(2): 345–377.
Carroll, A. B., and Buchholtz, A. K. 2009. Business & Society: Ethics and
Stakeholder Management, 7th ed. Mason, OH: South-Western Cengage
Learning.
Castle Doctrine. n.d. http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-law-basics/
self-defense-overview.html
Glazer-Esh, E. 2010. “Florida’s ‘guns-at-work’ law: Why it has employers
up in arms and what the Florida legislature should do about it,”
University of Miami Law Review 64: 663–771.
Gordon, C. 2012. “Coffee company’s gun policy draws attention from both
sides of debate,” http://www.nbc33tv.com/news/national-news/coffeecompanys-gun-policy-draws-attention-from-both-sides-of
-debate, accessed August 21, 2012.
Greenwood, M. 2012. “Ethical analysis of HRM: A review and research
agenda,” Journal of Business Ethics 114: 355–366.
Hamburger, T. 2012. “Trayvon Martin shooting spurs protests against
companies with ties to legislative group,” http://www.washingtonpost
.com/politics/trayvon-martin-shooting-spurs-protests-against
-companies-with-ties-to-legislative-group/2012/04/12/
gIQAs8HuDT_story.html, accessed May 7, 2012.
Hardy, D. 1986. “The Firearms Owners’ Protection Act: A historical and
legal perspective,” Cumberland Law Review 17: 585–682.
Hayes, K. 2010. “I killed five racists,” http://www.Cbsnews.Com/
8301-504083_162-20012557-504083.Html, accessed November 19,
2010.
Heinzelmann, N., Ugazio, G., and Tobler, P. N. 2012. “Practical
implications of empirically studying moral decision-making,” Frontiers
in Neuroscience 6: 1–14.
Hemenway, D. 2011. “Risks and benefits of a gun in the home,” American
Journal of Lifestyle Medicine 5(6): 502–511.
Ingram, D. 2012. “Conservative group retreats on ‘Stand Your Ground’,”
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/17/us-usa-alec
-idUSBRE83G1CG20120417, accessed May 7, 2012.
Kahan, D. M. 2003. “The gun control debate: A culture-theory manifesto,”
Washington & Lee Law Review 60: 3–14.
Kirk, D. J., and Franklin, G. M. 2003. “Violence in the workplace:
Guidance and training advice for business owners and managers,”
Business and Society Review 108(4): 523–537.
LaFollette, H. 2000. “Gun control,” Ethics 110(2): 263–281.
Leenaars, A. A., and Lester, D. 1997. “The effects of gun control on the
accidental death rate from firearms in Canada,” Journal of Safety
Research 28(3): 119–122.
MARTIN ET AL.
35
Levy, R. A. 2010. “Second Amendment redux: Scrutiny, incorporation,
and the Heller paradox,” Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy
33(1): 203–216.
Loomis, D. 2008. Preventing Gun Violence in the Workplace. CRISP Report:
Connecting Research in Security to Practice. Alexandria, VA: ASIS International Foundation, Inc.
Loomis, D., Marshall, S. W., and Ta, M. L. 2005. “Employer policies
toward guns and the risk of homicide in the workplace,” American
Journal of Public Health 95(5): 830–832.
Lott, J. R. 2000. More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and GunControl Laws. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Lott, J. R. 2012. “What a balancing test will show for right-to-carry laws,”
Maryland Law Review 71: 1205–1218.
Ludwig, J. 2005. “Better gun enforcement, less crime,” Criminology &
Public Policy 4(4): 677–716.
Mahon, J. F., and Wartick, S. L. 2003. “Dealing with stakeholders: How
reputation, credibility and framing influence the game,” Corporate
Reputation Review 6(1): 19–35.
Matejkovic, J. E. 2004. “Which suit would you like-the employer’s
dilemma in dealing with domestic violence,” Capitol University Law
Review 33(2): 309–346.
National Rifle Association. 2012. “State laws,” http://www.nraila.org/
gun-laws/state-laws.aspx, accessed August 22, 2012.
Nichols, P. M. 1999. “Regulating transnational bribery in times of globalization and fragmentation,” Yale Journal of International Law 24: 257–
263.
Peck, C. 1988. Sustainable Peace: The Role of the U.N and Regional
Organizations in Preventing Conflict. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield
Publishing Group.
Peloza, J., and Papania, L. 2008. “The missing link between corporate social responsibility and financial performance: Stakeholder
salience and identification,” Corporate Reputation Review 11(2): 169–
181.
Petrick, J. A., Cragg, W., and Sanudo, M. 2012. “Business ethics in
North America: Trends and challenges,” Journal of Business Ethics
104(1): 51–62.
Pollock, S. G. 1983. “State constitutions as separate sources of fundamental rights,” Rutgers Law Review 35(4): 707–722.
Powe, L. A. Jr. 1997. “Guns, words, and constitutional interpretation,”
William and Mary Law Review 38(4): 1311–1404.
Richardson, S., and Windau, J. 2003. “Fatal and nonfatal assaults in the
workplace, 1996 to 2000,” Clinics in Occupational and Environmental
Medicine 3(4): 673–689.
Singer, A. E. 2010. “Integrating ethics and strategy: A pragmatic
approach,” Journal of Business Ethics 92(4): 479–491.
Society for Human Resources Management. 2007. “Public policy statement on weapons in the workplace,” http://www.shrm.org/advocacy/
36
BUSINESS AND SOCIETY REVIEW
publicpolicystatusreports/federal/documents/workplace%20weapons,
%20final,%20board%20approved.pdf, accessed October 27, 2010.
Society for Human Resources Management. 2012. “SHRM’s guide to
public policy issues: a voice,” http://www.shrm.org/advocacy/issues/
documents/12-0061%20leg_issues_book_fnl.pdf, accessed April 7,
2013.
Solomon, R. C. 1992. Ethics and Excellence: Cooperation and Integrity in
Business. New York: Oxford University Press.
Stand Your Ground Laws. n.d. http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-law
-basics/stand-your-ground-laws.html, accessed July 12, 2010.
Stark, C. A. 2001. “Fundamental rights and the right to bear arms,”
Criminal Justice Ethics 20(1): 25–27.
Stell, L. K. 2001. “Gun control and the regulation of fundamental rights,”
Criminal Justice Ethics 20(1): 28–32.
Verbeke, A., and Tung, V. 2012. “The future of stakeholder management
theory: A temporal perspective,” Journal of Business Ethics 112(3): 1–15.
http://www.springerlink.com/content/04770084v0516408/fulltext
.pdf, accessed July 17. 2012.
Vernick, J. S., Hodge, J. G. Jr., and Webster, D. W. 2007. “The ethics of
restrictive licensing for handguns: Comparing the United States and
Canadian approaches to handgun regulation,” The Journal of Law,
Medicine & Ethics 35(4): 668–678.
Weber, L. J. 2002. “Protecting public health and the environment: Business ethics and responsibility,” Business Ethics Quarterly 12(4): 547–
554.
Wheeler, S. C. 1997. “Self-defense: Rights and coerced risk-acceptance,”
Public Affairs Quarterly 11(4): 431–443.
Younkins, E. W. 2008. “Toward the development of a paradigm of human
flourishing in a free society,” The Journal of Ayn Rand Studies 9(2):
253–304.
CASES AND LAWS
District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S. Ct. 2783 (Supreme Court 2008).
Florida Preservation and Protection of Right to Keep and Bear Arms in
Motor Vehicles Act 2008.
McDonald v. City of Chicago, IL., 130 S. Ct. 3020 (Supreme Court 2002).
Midgette v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 317 F. Supp. 2d 550 (Dist. Court
2004).
Copyright of Business & Society Review (00453609) is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and
its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the
copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email
articles for individual use.
Gerald Ford was America’s greatest President (largely because
Ford’s short term of office transferred “the Hippocratic injunction from the medical to the political realm, he did the
least possible harm”) I imagine he would have savored the
historical point that it was the Ford administration’s adherence to standards of fair play and the rule of law that prevented his deportation from the United States.
It is difficult to assess the impact on American letters and
political life had the INS undertaken deportation proceedings
and expelled Alexander from the United States. Certainly his
critique would have flourished elsewhere, though without the
American flavor he developed and the unique independence
he found in Petrolia; but certainly American political and intellectual life would been much the poorer had the decidedly
un-American activities of the FBI and INS prevailed.
Postscript
One final note concerning the diminutive length of
Alexander’s released FBI file: the brevity of his file raises more
questions than it answers.
Either the FBI has more files which they have either not
located or have and intentionally won’t release, or it is
possible that no further FBI files on Alexander exist. It is
tempting to speculate whether either outcome is a measure
of FBI incompetence: either a recent incompetence in the
Bureau’s ability to search, identify, and release existing files,
or a more ancient incompetence in evaluating the threat that
was Alexander Cockburn. Having studied the extent of FBI
surveillance during this period, I am betting on the former,
though both remain possibilities. While FBI noncompliance
with FOIA requests is a measure of the Agency’s contempt
of the law and a lack of Bureau professionalism, the federal
courts do not look at such incompetence lightly. Three
months ago, US Federal Judge Edward Chen awarded FOIA
researcher Seth Rosenfeld $470,459 in legal fees accrued in
decades of Rosenfeld’s legal efforts to access documents (from
an uncooperative FBI) relating to FBI political oppression at
UC Berkeley during the 1950s and 60s.
During the last two decades I have filed several hundred
FOIA requests, and recurrently received initial responses claiming there were few or no files, only later to have
hundreds of pages released upon appeal. In early December
I filed a multi-pronged administrative appeal with the FBI,
arguing that there are indications within the released FBI
file showing that there are other referenced files relating to
Cockburn that were not searched for or released to me. As
results of these appeals become available, I will report on
these findings here at CounterPunch.
I will be surprised if the currently released files turn out
to be the final installment of the FBI’s holdings on Alexander
Cockburn. CP
David Price a professor of anthropology at Saint Martin’s
University in Lacey, Washington. He is the author of Weaponizing
Anthropology: Social Science in Service of the Militarized State
published by CounterPunch Books. He can be reached at
dprice@stmartin.edu.
12
No Magic Bullets: Deadly
Lessons from the Sandy
Hook Little Tyke Massacre
by Nancy Scheper-Hughes
“We have met the enemy and it is us”—Pogo
A few years ago just as I was about to deliver a lecture on
‘violence in war and peace’ in the auditorium of a large public
university in the US the event was interrupted by police responding to a bomb threat. Although police dogs did not
sniff out a bomb, the lecture was rescheduled and moved to
the palatial home of the dean of undergraduate studies who
lived in a suburban gated community. Or, rather, who lived
in a gated community that had grown, my genial host explained, like a solid wall of invading kudzu around his lovely
faux Frank Lloyd Wright home precariously encased in glass.
The dean assured me that we would not be stopped or inspected by security guards posted at a kiosk at the gates of his
community that evening. On principle he had refused to pay
the membership dues that supported the elaborate security
system that monitored the movements of all residents and
their guests. A godfather clause permitted him to do so.
The whole thing was absurd, he said angrily. The real
threat was not, as feared, from the surrounding low income
neighborhoods but from inside the gated complex itself.
Scattered among the upper middle class professionals living
there were some arrivistes who had climbed the economic if
not the social ladder by involvement in the local drug trade.
One of these was the next door neighbor with whose children
my host’s seven year old son and five year old daughter had
struck up a friendship. One afternoon his children came back
with the usual stories of hide and seek, cops and robbers
and cowboys and Indians, but on this occasion they boasted
using real guns owned by the neighbor children’s parents.
Complaints were made, apologies delivered, and the guns
were moved to a more secure locked cabinet, but the dean
and his family remained trapped inside a pistol-packing, gunloaded located gated community. He was considering selling
his lovely home but would he have to inform prospective
buyers about the private armory next door?
This was not the first time that a lecture I gave (or
attended) was interrupted by violence. The first time was in
1994 at the University of Cape Town, just before the election
of Nelson Mandela, when a short but deadly period of political anarchy created a vacuum during which several hundred
civilians —black, brown and white— were killed in massacres in pubs, schools, worker hostels, churches and gasoline
stations.1 The Cape Town faculty knew how to duck and hide
during academic lockdowns which occurred with alarming
frequency. One of these lock downs occurred during a guest
lecture by the British literary scholar, Terry Eagleton, who for
some reason I was charged with introducing. Although I reassured Eagleton that the calls and response between police and
angry protestors were more symbolic than actual skirmish-
es, being ‘locked down’ by police in the arts block building
surrounded by angry, toyi-toying crowds, some of the protestors waving traditional weapons, felt as weirdly crazy as
being locked down in an armed suburban gated community.
My initial impulse was to flee through the basement of the
building and join the protesters, but under the circumstances,
we simply waited it out.
Later, in 2001, just prior to a lecture I was to give on
organs trafficking at the Social Anthropology Department
of Hebrew University a dud of a bomb exploded just outside
the entrance to the grand old campus on Mount Scopus. The
damage was minor. No one was hurt, and everyone in the
audience seemed relaxed, except me. After the talk an Israeli
colleague confided that people were so accustomed to a daily
dose of violent aggression that they ‘missed’ them when they
didn’t happen for a period. “It is as if our bodies are wired
or primed for the violence and we become bored during the
quiet periods.” I replied that some of us in California felt that
way when too much time passed without a moderate earthquake or temblor or two.
an anthropologist. Write about what you know. Write about
culture, write about cultures of violence”. Yes, indeed. But
America’s culture of violence is steeped in a deadly historical romance with handguns, pistols, rifles, M-16s, machine
guns and military assault weapons. There is no comparable
romance with, let us say, swords, spears, longbows, or battering rams, except for tidbits of Nordic mythology in cult film,
cult games like dungeons and dragons and hopelessly nerdy
Renaissance faires.
As a government recruiter for the Peace Corps during the
Vietnam War, I built a successful US-wide campus recruitment campaign around a slogan and a poster I designed with
potential Vietnam draftees in mind: “Shovels Don’t Jam like
M-16s. Join the Peace Corps”. [Peace Corps was not an official
alternative to military service in those days but it certainly
delayed being drafted while a PCV was in service overseas].
However, once Peace Corps Washington learned about the
campaign I was ordered to end it immediately. It was not only
‘inappropriate’ but I was told that I could face prosecution
under the appropriately named Hatch Act 2. Once again, I was
We continue to resist the fact that our nation is alone in the
industrialized democratic world in tolerating subcultures of
violence to form in our cities, towns and suburbs.
These three vignettes on the normalization of violence
all concern cultures of violence in countries at war, either at
home or abroad. Violence begets violence. In Israel one learns
to be cool when a teenage soldier’s rifle brushes against one
in a public bus. In South Africa one learned to drive one’s car
away from the sides of the road and to speed quickly under
pedestrian overpasses to avoid an angry shelling of large
stones. In the US we use a different normalization strategy:
we go limp and hibernate like obedient little dormice at the
tea table. Americans have learned to silence and censor themselves by, for example, collapsing to the powerful gun lobby
and to fundamentalist interpretations of our Constitution
as if it were all inevitable. If it was our Bible rather than our
Constitution we would never allow it, at least not in progressive circles. You really expect us to believe that when ‘God
separated light from darkness’ he meant to tell us that race
segregation is God’s will? But we politely acquiesce to censorship by gun supporters and the NRA, or worse, we respond
with self-censorship.
For example, the New York Times invited its readers to
participate in the weekly ‘Sunday Dialogue’ on December
18th, 2012, on the assigned topic: “Beyond Gun Control” in
response to the Sandy Hook Kindergarten Massacre. The
editors message was: no fruitless dialogue on gun control. Get
over it! The gunslingers already have won the war. Let’s move
on…
When I mentioned that I was writing an essay on the
tiny tot massacre in New England, a distinguished senior
colleague advised sternly: “Do not write about guns. You are
told not to talk about guns and war and to talk about what I
knew best, as a former Peace Corps Volunteer in the slums of
Brazil: peace and latrines.
Years later I received a tongue lashing from Prof. Glenn
Wilson, the charismatic and outspoken founder of the
Department of Social Medicine at the University of North
Carolina, Chapel Hill: “You can teach our medical students
any damn thing you think they need to know, Nancy, but for
Christ sake don’t talk about the public health risks and evils of
tobacco! Not in this state or we’ll be doomed from the start.”
And so we were then and so we are now: doomed, that is, by
self censorship.
No Magic Bullets
Schoolroom and schoolyard massacres. We have been
here before, déjà vu all over again. How much more can we
take? What are we willing to do, then, to stop the cycles of
violence that are destroying our communities? In the weeks
and days following the Sandy Hook tiny tot massacre, the
pundits and policy wonks have suggested many reasonable
strategies to help communities, parents, and professionals to
identify and respond to the assumed ‘early warning signs’ that
can precede and even to predict school shootings and other
massacres in public spaces such as shopping malls and movie
theaters. However, just about all the strategies suggested were
already implemented in 1999-2000 following a spate of mass
shootings culminating in the Columbine disaster that, like
Sandy Hook, was another tipping point when denial and normalization were the rule.
13
The Columbine massacre resulted in a vigorous national
dialogue and response following an impassioned speech by
President Clinton in the Rose Garden. It was 1999 and the
nation was stunned, and its political, businesses and religious
leaders were mobilized to find a way out of the labyrinth of
violence in America. President Clinton announced the formation of the National Campaign Against Youth Violence
(NCAYV). Unlike President Kennedy’s Peace Corps, a child
of what President Johnson called “the Great Society”, the
final incarnation of the New Deal, Clinton’s program was a
post-welfare state neoliberal public-private initiative, presaging George Bush the First’s ‘thousand points of light”,
which always reminded me of Disney’s twinkling little fairy,
Tinkerbell.
The National Campaign Against Youth Violence was led
by a dedicated California public interest lawyer, Jeff Bleich.
His strategy focused on what he described as a ‘guerrilla’
Public Service media blitz to raise national consciousness
about ‘youth’ violence. The campaign mobilized business corporations, volunteer organizations and the media to develop
and implement violence reduction programs, including the
‘squash it’ campaign that recruited youth leaders from inner
To assist the National Campaign, a Presidential Academic
Advisory Board was formed, led by anthropologist John
Devine. The Board included some of the nation’s leading
scholars of urban America and youth violence—Elijah
Anderson, Sissila Bok, Philippe Bourgois, William Damon,
Kenneth Dodge, Richard Freeman, James Garbarino, James
Gibbons, James Gillian, David Kennedy, Alan J. Lipton,
William Pollack, James Short, Joel Wallman, and Frank
Zimring, among others. I was also a member of the Board.
Over the course of several meetings we collaborated in the
preparation of a detailed report that identified key variables
overlooked by the national campaign.
We documented the links between isolated public mass
shootings in schools and the broader social and political
context of excessively high rates of youth homicides and
suicides, of alienation and isolation of youth from their
parents, schools, and communities. Drawing on the expertise
of the advisory panel members we explained the ‘Code of the
streets’ (E. Anderson) and the ‘Search for respect’ (P. Borgois)
that contributed to homicides and suicides among minority
youth. The hypersensitivity and hyper reactivity to imagined
insults were the offspring of a profound sense of shame and
The real dangers Americans face are not from
isolated rampages or the deranged mentally ill but from
unsupervised guns in the house next door.
cities in the US to respond to violent ‘flare-ups’ in schoolyards and streets using a then popular street culture slang
(‘Squash it’) with gang hand signs signaling “cool it”!
The National Campaign worked with city officials,
churches, schools, mental health services, and families in
cities and towns across America to limit children’s access
to guns and exposure to media violence. Bleich negotiated
agreements with powerful TV and film media to limit youth
access to the most gratuitous representations of violence.
The campaign worked with model cities that adopted antiviolence programs, some of them based on Nancy Reagan’s
earlier “Just say No” [to drugs] campaign. The newer version
of ‘Say No to Violence’ campaigns mobilized school children
and their teachers and parents, especially those in hard hit
inner cities, to wear purple ribbons memorializing murdered
school mates, to march against violence, and to take pledges
against alcohol and drugs associated with violence. In one
urban campaign schoolchildren covered city walls with black
paint child handprints accompanied by pleas for cease-fire
among marauding gangs. Public schools brought in special
counselors to teach schoolchildren techniques of self management and self control through meditation and deep breathing. The emphasis was on prevention, on desensitizing ‘at
risk youth (inevitably meaning poor Black and Latino urban
youth) to the risks of subcultures of youth violence in gangs,
hate crimes, drugs and racist and misogynist rap music.
14
low self-esteem resulting from the extreme marginalization of
unwanted and despised (even more than disrespected) populations. We described the culture of bullying in elementary
schools that was not yet recognized as a trigger in some mass
shooting incidents. Finally, we touched upon the lethal association of male honor with physical force and of power and
might with deadly weapons. This led us to a critique of gun
culture, but this conversation was derailed by those members
of the board who labeled gun control a toxic subject, one that
had to be carefully finessed.
We established connections between structural violence—
the violence of poverty, exclusion and extreme marginality—and everyday violence in the homes, streets and schools
of America. We described an epidemic of youth violence
(J. Gillin) that we linked to the punitive and carceral state
and to the militarization of American society following the
Vietnam and the first Iraqi wars. We debated the problems
of homelessness, drug addicted, and traumatized veterans
and their impact on children and adolescents. We introduced
the category of dangerous and endangered youth (N. ScheperHughes), young people who were both victims and perpetrators of violence.
Few of these concepts were familiar to Americans outside
the field of social science and the academy. They did not
travel easily or well. Neither did our advocacy on behalf of
the unmet needs of America’s youth for decent housing,
safe streets, medical, dental, and mental health services. It
was difficult to discuss parental, educational, and even nutritional child abuse and neglect. The idea that Americans
were not as child-centered as we imagine ourselves to be was
not a popular message. Under the guidance of John Devine,
whose book Maximum Security, drew analogies between
American public schools and US maximum security prisons,
the Academic Advisory Panel rejected political proposals
to increase technological security systems in schools, video
cameras, metal detectors, and the hiring of private security
agents to police school corridors and bathrooms.
Many of our conclusions went against the grain and not
surprisingly, the report was controversial and contested. It
was subjected to many agonizing edits, and passages dealing
with the dangers of readily available weapons in American
homes and proposals to buy back weapons from gang leaders
were watered down or deleted altogether. It was a noble
struggle but in the end censorship and self censorship ruled
the day. Those board members of a more critical persuasion
deferred to the those dedicated to real politic. In the end,
the report, delivered to President Clinton and his staff, was
shelved. Today, one can barely find it online hidden in digitalized US government archives. On one search I could find it
but parts of the report were redacted and even marked withdrawn. When I searched for it more recently I could only find
the executive summary and some references to members of
the advisory board.
It would be safe to say that the campaign, including the
innovative public relations ads, the anti-violence training
programs, the just say no to violence programs had no permanent or lasting effects. Advisory Board member Michael
Klonsky’s passionate advocacy for smaller schools with lower
teacher-student ratios that have a proven record of decreasing incidents of school violence, made no inroads to a US
Congress that was all about charter schools and downsizing
and closing failed public schools. The call for building new
and creative school environments on a human scale seems, in
hindsight, almost utopian.
Thus, after a brief respite the mass shootings in American
schools and other public venues resumed at an almost predictable rate. American citizens failed to go far enough and
deep enough inside our collective national unconscious. We
continue to resist the fact that our nation is alone in the industrialized democratic world in tolerating subcultures of
violence to form in our cities, towns and suburbs. No other
democratic nation allows its private citizens to assemble
military arsenals in their homes, practices that endanger the
lives of all in our suffering and disintegrating cities, in our increasingly armed and dangerous culturally isolated suburbs,
and even in picturesque New England towns.
The House Gun
In her award winning post-apartheid novel, The House
Gun, Nadine Gordimer describes a traumatized society
of white, middle class people who seemed to be sleepwalkers during the democratic transition that replaced a violent
racist police state with an imperfect ANC government led by
Nelson Mandela. Like the dean (above) confined to his dangerous gated community, the protagonists cannot imagine
that their son Duncan was capable of killing his girlfriend’s
casual lover with the kind of gun kept safely in his middle
class flat to defend the household against attack by skollies and
gangsters from the de facto segregated African townships.
The house gun, suggests, as one reviewer noted, a...
Purchase answer to see full
attachment