Guns in the Workplace

[MaverickNH]

Latest tripe in the NY Times: Workers’ Safety and the Gun Lobby
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/30/opinion/30fri4.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

"The aura of invincibility that has legislatures bowing before the gun lobby is running into a commendable challenge from corporate America. Two conservative powerhouses — gun fanciers and business leaders — are facing off in statehouses over the gun lobby’s attempt to stop employers from exercising their property rights and barring workers from carrying firearms to work.

Bills to deny this common-sense right to workplace safety were initially approved in three states. But they failed last year in such gun-friendly states as Florida, Georgia, Indiana and Virginia after business interests rose up in active opposition. The National Rifle Association is back at work harder than ever in a dozen states. But so are Chambers of Commerce and corporate executives, warning of the danger — and business liability — of forcing companies to allow workers to carry guns.

There is no debate that doing so endangers workers. Workplaces that tolerate guns are five to seven times more likely to suffer homicides than job sites that ban firearms, according to a 2005 study in The American Journal of Public Health. The notion that self-defense mandates keeping guns in office drawers or out in parking-lot glove compartments is a dangerous fantasy.

The employers’ challenge was first thrown down in 2002 by an Oklahoma company that fired workers who refused to leave their weapons at home. That sparked the gun lobby’s mischievous campaign. With court fights under way, the employers’ cause was bolstered by the American Bar Association’s approval last month of a resolution defending the primacy of “traditional property rights” and federal laws mandating safe workplaces.

The private sector is showing good traction. The feisty Florida Chamber of Commerce doesn’t shy from mockery in warning lawmakers against a “Take Your Gun to Work Day” mentality. In Georgia, a conservative legislator with an A-plus N.R.A. rating, buttressed now by actively concerned corporations, dared to denounce the gun lobby’s “bullying” threats (“We will spare no effort to work against you,” vows the N.R.A).

The nation’s welfare needs more of this man-bites-John Wayne news."

*****
Searching back to the quoted 2005 study, I find the authors make some startling disclaimers about their conclusions: 1) They did not know whether the workplace homicides, in companies not prohibiting guns, were shootings, 2) They did not know whether the homicides were perpetrated by employees of the companies that didn't prohibit guns.

This ends up a lot like saying companies that do not probit the chaiining of pens to desks are more likely to be robbed of large amounts of cash - like banks being robbed. Correlation but no causation.

Searching back further, to their own prior publications, they see the highest rates of homicides in companies that do not prohibit guns from these industries: taxi cabs, convenience stores, food vendors. Another prior publication concludes solo working conditions to be a key factor.

All in all, while they make it sound like their data and analysis show that companies not banning guns in their corporate offices will increase the likelihood that gunfire will break out, their actual data and analysis suggest that cabbies, pizza delivery drivers and late-night gas station attendants are the victims.

They started out fairly clean, saying employees of non-European descent, working solo at night, were morely to be killed. As I dig firther, I'll bet I find funding from The Joyce Foundation and other such fronts for the anti-gun dollars.

 

[Scrivener]

The NRA should certainly appreciate the fundamental importance of property rights, which is what this particular fight is about.

The NRA would better allocate its resources elsewhere - like NOT blocking the now-successful lawsuit against the D.C. gun law.

 

[Weerd Beard]

This is espeshally huge when you think about how much of our day we spend commuting. No guns in the parking-lot means you get to go without durring your commute, and any errands you might run on the way home.

Not a good thing at all.

And gun-free zones are already such a fantastic idea. Hell just look up the term "Going Postal" or the fact that "School Shooting" is a commonplace term.

Grrrrr

-Weer'd Beard

 

[Jose]

The NRA should certainly appreciate the fundamental importance of property rights, which is what this particular fight is about.

When that property right disarms the law abiding ALL DAY LONG, not just while at work, the right to keep and bear arms trumps all.

Kentucky and Tenneessee have already told employers to stuff their "property rights" where the sun don't shine. Citizens of those two enlightened states are free to keep any firearms they want in their vehicles, regardless of where that vehicle may be parked.

This fight ain't over by a long shot.

 

[Rockrivr1]

As far as I'm concerned, I don't care what my company policy is. What they don't know wont hurt them, or me for that matter. They haven't asked and I don't tell.

Then again, I do get some weird looks from people who come by my cube. I have a dummy 50 BMG round on my cube shelf.

 

[MaverickNH]

Searching about, I found the guy's CV - a long history of workplace violence research, with a turn toward (or against) guns only in the last few years.

I also dropped the fellow an email - I'll post if I get a response. (notice the appeal to social injustice as bait - but as the ends justify the means for these academic dupes of Sarah Brady, I'm sure he's willing to sacrifice a few cabbies to save the rest of us from ourselves)

"[section quoting the NY Times article] The public is being presented with an interpretation of your work as proving that, in companies not prohibiting guns on the premises, gunfire breaks out amongst employees and employees are shot and killed 5-7 times more frequently than in companies banning guns on the premises.

I don’t believe this is what you had concluded. The publication referenced did indeed disclaim knowledge of whether 1) the victim was killed by another employee, 2) the victim was shot to death. Am I reading your published work correctly?

In your prior publications, it appears that your work indicates occupations such as taxi driver, gas station attendant and pizza delivery drivers were victimized at a rate making them significant contributors to study outcomes. As well, it seemed that you had indicated companies with employees of non-European descent composed a significant part of the at-risk population. One of your recommendations was that solo work be considered an at-risk practice as well. These conclusions drive in directions inconsistent with the motives of the popular press in attempts to influence public/private policy debates.

It is indeed important to gain recognition that immigrants, who often take solo jobs in the services industries, such as taxi, gas station and fast-food/delivery, are at greater risk of fatal victimization. But is appears to be a misinterpretation of your work by the popular press to suggest that in companies that do not prohibit guns in a standard office environment, gunfire will break out more frequently among employees. This emphasis leaves the true victims unrecognized, furthering the harms of socioeconomic inequity, while distracting focus and action on other workplace environments not indicated as significant by the outcomes of your data gathering and analysis. In effect, your work is being used by others to further an agenda not supported by your conclusions.

How can this be corrected?"

 

[SKS Ray]

My shop has 4 people that carry. We're the best armed auto repair/body shop in Southeast Mass.

 

[Lynne]

My shop has 4 people that carry. We're the best armed auto repair/body shop in Southeast Mass.

Damn...if you weren't so far away from me, I'd become a customer!!

As far as the work place goes...I do believe I'd rather run the risk of defending my life if need be and then getting fired for having a gun on site, rather than getting killed because some CEO is an anti.

 

[hminsky]

maverickNH, well written response!

 

[RKG]

Well, if I were smarter perhaps I'd sit this one out, but . . . .

This issue is a lot closer than some may think. The right to bear arms is a right that is exercisable only against the government. (Against which government is still in litigation.) That is to say, the right to bear arms is actually a prohibition (to what extent is likewise in litigation) against the enactment of statutes that would interfere with that right.

It is a distension of the Second Amendment to say that it also limits the power of a landowner to dictate what is and is not invited on his property.

For instance, let's say someone invites me to his house to dinner. I accept. Then he tells me that my gun is not welcome. Well, this might change my view of my former friend, and it certainly does something to my appetite, but I do not believe that my LTC, or the 2d Amendment, should mean that I have the right to tell him me and mine are coming anyhow. And I think it would be very dangerous to extend that power to the legislature as well.

Employers who prohibit licensed carrying in the workplace, or the workplace parking lot, are in my judgment quite misguided. They are, however, the owners of their property, and so far as I am aware, their rights as property owners are not limited to restrictions that I agree with.

I, for one, think the NRA is off base with this campaign, and I fear the negative consequences.

 

[MaverickNH]

It is a distension of the Second Amendment to say that it also limits the power of a landowner to dictate what is and is not invited on his property.

When a company employs members of the community and/or lets the community through their doors for the purpose of business, the concept of private property changes to various degrees. I have found that the studies referenced above were funded by NIOSH - Nat'l Institute Occupational Safety and Health - as studies of workplace health and safety. Their very broad scope includes workplace violence, as homicide is listed as the #2 cause of workplace death. While this sounds impressive, accidents are obviously #1, leaving little in 2nd, 3rd, etc., places to consider.

If, as an employee, customer or vendor at a company, I am exposed to potential health and safety risks (toxic substance, fire and electrical hazards, hazards of falling, being run-over, having limbs crushed, etc.), a company must comply with a host of standards for reducing these risks. The company is liable for fines, penaltie and prosecution if not diligent.

Right now, an effort is being made to establish that individuals that carry guns in a workplace increase the risk of death or serious injury. If this case is made and acknowledged, then it bears on all companies to prohibit all persons from having guns in the workplace (if not contrary to constitutional rights). If a case is made that individuals that carry guns in the workplace reduce the risk of death or serious injury, then companies prohibiting persons from carrying guns in the workplace will be liable for the increased risk attendant in disarming all who are in the workplace.

"Proving" guns in the workplace are dangerous is easy, as the media takes limited academic studies and extends conclusions broadly, so that MIT, Harvard and Yale stamps get put on the garbage fed to the public in the papers, on the radio and TV. Proving guns in the workplace enhance safety is hard - the number of gun studies not driven by anti-gun sentiments and funding is staggering compared to the few authors conducting studies supporting guns (Kleck, etc.)

The work of John Lott (More Guns, Less Crime) has gone a long way to convincing many that having guns leads to more safety, rather than less. But such an emprical arguement lives and dies based on data and analyses, which vary with time, place, method and interpretation. Firmer in lasting value are arguements based on constitutional law. The gain is greater in winning but the risk greater in losing. As there are few places most of us go that are not the property of others, relinquishing the ability to be armed while conducting public life severely limits the utility of being armed.

Consider: How is inviting a friend over for dinner, and asking him to leave his gun at home, different than opening a restaurant and prohibiting guns on the premeses? I see your point, and find the property agruement important, but also see the table turns when one opens one's doors to the public, come one, come all.

 

[Jose]

Employers who prohibit licensed carrying in the workplace, or the workplace parking lot, are in my judgment quite misguided. They are, however, the owners of their property, and so far as I am aware, their rights as property owners are not limited to restrictions that I agree with.

I would agree if the actions of the employer affected the employee during ONLY working hours. But they do not, and I do not.

Their policies disarm you on your own time: the drive there, the drive back, and any place you may stop in between. Therefore an inalienable right has been infringed and the legislature must step in to provide redress.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Employers who prohibit licensed carrying in the workplace, or the workplace parking lot, are in my judgment quite misguided. They are, however, the owners of their property, and so far as I am aware, their rights as property owners are not limited to restrictions that I agree with.

The fundamental issue is does a property owner, or employer's rights, extend to being able to assert the right to search an employee's car under penalty of dismissal for refusal? If this is OK, what if an employer suspects and employee and tells him "You will permit us to check your home for our property of face immediate discharge?" Or, what about "We will search your car for a privately owned laptop. If we find one, you will be required to give it to our forensic team to search for company confidential information you are not authorized to have off permises or face termination?' Or, what about "Corporate security will drive you home so that you may surrender your home computer for forensic examination if you want to keep you job?"'

The question is not one of "do employers have rights", but "how far do such rights extend?"

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Ponder the following.

Which plaintiff has a greater chance of prevailing?

Plaintiff A's spouse is killed in a workplace violence incident at a large and very successful firm. Plaintiff argues that spouse had an LTC and but for the company ban, spouse would be alive.

Plaintiff B's spouse is killed in a workplace violence incident at a similarly sized employer who did not ban guns. Plaintiff's counsel brings in numerous professionals in the field of human relations who testify that it is virtually unheard of for a major firm to allow employees to be armed on the premises.

Setting aside one's personal views, if you were a corporate attorney who would be kicked off the gravy train if you turned out to be "wrong", which advice would you give?

State standard in this area would help all employers as they would no longer have to play "lawsuit lottery" with their decision.

 

[M14Robert]

I would agree if the actions of the employer affected the employee during ONLY working hours. But they do not, and I do not.

Their policies disarm you on your own time: the drive there, the drive back, and any place you may stop in between. Therefore an inalienable right has been infringed and the legislature must step in to provide redress.

+1 !

 

[Jose]

Ponder the following.

Which plaintiff has a greater chance of prevailing?

Plaintiff A's spouse is killed in a workplace violence incident at a large and very successful firm. Plaintiff argues that spouse had an LTC and but for the company ban, spouse would be alive.

Plaintiff B's spouse is killed in a workplace violence incident at a similarly sized employer who did not ban guns. Plaintiff's counsel brings in numerous professionals in the field of human relations who testify that it is virtually unheard of for a major firm to allow employees to be armed on the premises.

Setting aside one's personal views, if you were a corporate attorney who would be kicked off the gravy train if you turned out to be "wrong", which advice would you give?

State standard in this area would help all employers as they would no longer have to play "lawsuit lottery" with their decision.

And Kentucky and Tennessee have set the standard.

 

[kevin9]

It's one thing of a company to ban guns in their buildings, another to do so within employee's private property on the parking lot. The first is misguided, but legal. The second is a real conflict between a company's right to control their property and the Constitutional rights of the employees (2nd and 4th). I think it logical in this case that the rights of the employees trump those of the employer for several reasons. First, 2 rights beats 1 right. Second, I don't think the 1 right of the company is as strong as those of the employees. I seem to recall reading somewhere that companies generally are not considered to have the Constitutional rights of individual citizens. Third, as Jose points out the actions of the company would extend into areas that are clearly beyond their purview. This seems logical to me but IANAL.

To answer Rob's hypothetical question, I would think Plaintiff A would have the better case because it could be shown that the wife would have been carrying if so allowed and thus would have had a chance. In the case B the company would have to show that restrictions would have prevented the incident. Although many companies may prohibit guns I've not heard of any actual evidence that such restrictions actually prevent violence. As above, IANAL, and I'm being logical whereas this is the legal system we're talking about here, YMMV.

 

[KMaurer]

I too am a strong supporter of private property rights, including the rights of business owners to do utterly stupid things with their businesses. I think the question here is one of public policy, which we all pretty much accept as imposing some limitations on private property tights. We live in a state where most employment is "at will", meaning that either the employee or employer is free to terminate the employment relationship without having to have a reason at all. However, the legal system has always been less tolerant about terminations for what it deems to be improper reasons, than about those exercised simply because one party "felt like it". For example, the legal system tends to frown on employers firing people because they joined a union, reported safety violations or dangerous practices in the work place, or refused sexual advances by their bosses. It would seem to me that the crucial question here is whether we're willing to treat the right to protect one's life as being as worthy of protection as one's right to not be exposed to off-color jokes or associate with other workers. My understanding is the the laws being supported by the NRA don't even go that far, but merely protect one's right to have the means available to protect one's life before arriving at and after leaving the workplace. (I gather that the question of actually being able to protect one's life while at work would be considered to be to extreme a position even for the NRA.) Failing this limitation, would be too much to ask that an employer who requires employees to surrender any effective means of defense face the same liability as one who requires that they unnecessarily engage in some other unsafe, though not illegal practice as part of their job?

Ken

 

[RKG]

I see your point, and find the property agruement important, but also see the table turns when one opens one's doors to the public, come one, come all.

What you are implicating is the so-called "common carrier" rule. Certain classes of business are obliged, as a condition of taking on the business, to serve all comers who are capable of paying the price and not unruly. This applies to carriage companies (originally stage coaches), some inns and restaurants, franchised telephone companies, and perhaps a few other types of businesses.

A business in general, however, is not a common carrier just by being in a business. Subject to rules on prohibited discrimination, they are not obliged to serve all comers, and they can impose proprietary limits on who is invited to their custom.

Note further that the issue of "common carrier" applies only to the duties (if any) of the business to its customers. There is no equivalent doctrine with respect to employees.

 

[RKG]

I would agree if the actions of the employer affected the employee during ONLY working hours. But they do not, and I do not.

Their policies disarm you on your own time: the drive there, the drive back, and any place you may stop in between. Therefore an inalienable right has been infringed and the legislature must step in to provide redress.

Two problems:

First, the term "inalienable right" means a right that a person lacks the capacity to waive or give away. Even if the 2d Amendment is read as we would like, the rights it confers are waivable.

Second, the collateral consequences of a "no guns in my parking lot" rule are immaterial. The employee or prospective employee who finds such rules (and their collateral consequences) unacceptable is free to find another job (or another nearby parking lot).

 

[RKG]

The fundamental issue is does a property owner, or employer's rights, extend to being able to assert the right to search an employee's car under penalty of dismissal for refusal? If this is OK, what if an employer suspects and employee and tells him "You will permit us to check your home for our property of face immediate discharge?" Or, what about "We will search your car for a privately owned laptop. If we find one, you will be required to give it to our forensic team to search for company confidential information you are not authorized to have off permises or face termination?' Or, what about "Corporate security will drive you home so that you may surrender your home computer for forensic examination if you want to keep you job?"'

The question is not one of "do employers have rights", but "how far do such rights extend?"

As the law now stands (and properly so), an employer or prospective employer has the right to insist, as a condition of employment, that the employee agree to allow him do all of those things (presuming to keep this argument on point, a lack of prohibited discriminatory animus (such as a pretext for racial or religious discrimination)). If you don't want to work for such a guy, you don't have to.

 

[RKG]

Ponder the following.

Which plaintiff has a greater chance of prevailing?

Plaintiff A's spouse is killed in a workplace violence incident at a large and very successful firm. Plaintiff argues that spouse had an LTC and but for the company ban, spouse would be alive.

Plaintiff loses. Choice to leave her gun at home was that of plaintiff's decedent. In addition, as a general rule one does not have a duty to protect third parties, including employees, from criminal behavior by others.

Ponder the following.

Which plaintiff has a greater chance of prevailing?

Plaintiff B's spouse is killed in a workplace violence incident at a similarly sized employer who did not ban guns. Plaintiff's counsel brings in numerous professionals in the field of human relations who testify that it is virtually unheard of for a major firm to allow employees to be armed on the premises.

I'm presuming here that the decedent was killed by another employee, who was armed. Plaintiff loses. Decision to work where there is no rule against armed employees was that of decedent. Also, same rule as above. Also, lack of proximate cause: fact that malefactor was willing to violate statutes on assault or murder means that he wouldn't have been swayed by an employer rule on guns in the workplace.

That said, it is just the latter scenario (assuming I have interpreted the question correctly) that motivates these rules. The rationale behind the "no guns" rule is logically faulty and supported by no empirical data of which I am aware, but in this case the fear becomes the reality.

For present purposes, though, the issue isn't whether workplace "no guns" rules are wise, logical, or factually supported, but rather whether the employer has the right to make the rules in his own place. He does and, in my judgment, he should.

 

[RKG]

I too am a strong supporter of private property rights, including the rights of business owners to do utterly stupid things with their businesses. I think the question here is one of public policy, which we all pretty much accept as imposing some limitations on private property tights. We live in a state where most employment is "at will", meaning that either the employee or employer is free to terminate the employment relationship without having to have a reason at all. However, the legal system has always been less tolerant about terminations for what it deems to be improper reasons, than about those exercised simply because one party "felt like it". For example, the legal system tends to frown on employers firing people because they joined a union, reported safety violations or dangerous practices in the work place, or refused sexual advances by their bosses. It would seem to me that the crucial question here is whether we're willing to treat the right to protect one's life as being as worthy of protection as one's right to not be exposed to off-color jokes or associate with other workers. My understanding is the the laws being supported by the NRA don't even go that far, but merely protect one's right to have the means available to protect one's life before arriving at and after leaving the workplace. (I gather that the question of actually being able to protect one's life while at work would be considered to be to extreme a position even for the NRA.) Failing this limitation, would be too much to ask that an employer who requires employees to surrender any effective means of defense face the same liability as one who requires that they unnecessarily engage in some other unsafe, though not illegal practice as part of their job?

Ken

Each of the examples cited derives from a statute that is designed to effectuate the purposes of some other statutory scheme. More importantly, none involves mandating that the owner of private property permit physical entry onto the property by someone whom the property owner elects to exclude, which amounts to a partial confiscation of the landowner's property. Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp., 458 U.S. 419 (1982).

 

[RKG]

It's one thing of a company to ban guns in their buildings, another to do so within employee's private property on the parking lot. The first is misguided, but legal. The second is a real conflict between a company's right to control their property and the Constitutional rights of the employees (2nd and 4th). I think it logical in this case that the rights of the employees trump those of the employer for several reasons. First, 2 rights beats 1 right. Second, I don't think the 1 right of the company is as strong as those of the employees. I seem to recall reading somewhere that companies generally are not considered to have the Constitutional rights of individual citizens. Third, as Jose points out the actions of the company would extend into areas that are clearly beyond their purview. This seems logical to me but IANAL.

To answer Rob's hypothetical question, I would think Plaintiff A would have the better case because it could be shown that the wife would have been carrying if so allowed and thus would have had a chance. In the case B the company would have to show that restrictions would have prevented the incident. Although many companies may prohibit guns I've not heard of any actual evidence that such restrictions actually prevent violence. As above, IANAL, and I'm being logical whereas this is the legal system we're talking about here, YMMV.

1. Neither the 2d Amendment nor the 4th Amendment applies to one's employer.

2. While corporations do not have all the same constitutional rights as natural persons, their constitutional property rights are the same.

 

[Jose]

Second, the collateral consequences of a "no guns in my parking lot" rule are immaterial. The employee or prospective employee who finds such rules (and their collateral consequences) unacceptable is free to find another job (or another nearby parking lot).

Disagree. The courts have ruled numerous times against policies that confer undue hardship or burden upon individuals by stripping them of their rights.

The mere inquiry about firearms during the hiring process (regardless of company policy on the matter) is a de facto kiss of death for the employment offer. To believe otherwise is disingenous in the extreme.

And just as individual rights have been abridged by lawmaking and court precedents, so can (and have) the property rights of businesses and corporations. Your sword cuts both ways.

 

[RKG]

I knew I should have sat this one out.

("Ready on the right?" "Ready on the left?" "Ready on the firing line." "Commence firing at RKG!")

 

[Jose]

I knew I should have sat this one out.

("Ready on the right?" "Ready on the left?" "Ready on the firing line." "Commence firing at RKG!")

So, don't maintain that the property rights of businesses are absolute while maintaining that the Constitutional Rights of persons are not.

 

[RKG]

So, don't maintain that the property rights of businesses are absolute while maintaining that the Constitutional Rights of persons are not.

1. The constitutional right of a landowner, jural or natural, to exclude third parties from his land is, as the Supreme Court had held, just about absolute.

2. The constitutional rights of natural persons, such as those enshrined in the 2d Amendment, do not extend to private action, only governmental action, as the Supreme Court has also held just about without exception.

This discussion, however, ought not to be about what the law is -- since that will devolve into a contest of whose legal credentials are better than others, and since, as we all know, the law is whatever the last court with power to review says it is -- but rather about whether we think it is a wise or good thing to start down this slippery slope.

If the legislature is empowered to decree that employers must permit entry onto their land of armed employees, then it can also decree that homeowners must permit dog walkers to allow their pets to defecate on the homeowner's front lawn (there not being enough parkland to accommodate all the dogs), or to decree that shopping centers permit people to use their parking lots for political demonstrations for causes the shopping center disagrees with, or a whole bunch of other things that certainly frighten me and, I submit, should frighten us all.

 

[Jose]

If the legislature is empowered to decree that employers must permit entry onto their land of armed employees, then it can also decree that homeowners must permit dog walkers to allow their pets to defecate on the homeowner's front lawn (there not being enough parkland to accommodate all the dogs), or to decree that shopping centers permit people to use their parking lots for political demonstrations for causes the shopping center disagrees with, or a whole bunch of other things that certainly frighten me and, I submit, should frighten us all.

Riiiiiight, roll out the ridiculous slippery slope argument.

Tell you what. Why don't you call a few of your lawyer buddies in Kentucky and ask them if the legislature there has any plans to flush property owners rights down the toilet just because they have decreed that the right of people to defend themselves (by being able to have a weapon in their vehicle parked at work for use before and after work) trumps the ability of property owners to make them do otherwise.

You frankly sound just like the antis when the predicted the streets of Florida would run red with blood if shall issue CCW became the law.

 

[drgrant]

There is no debate that doing so endangers workers. Workplaces that tolerate guns are five to seven times more likely to suffer homicides than job sites that ban firearms, according to a 2005 study in The American Journal of Public Health. The notion that self-defense mandates keeping guns in office drawers or out in parking-lot glove compartments is a dangerous fantasy.

How much does everyone want to bet that this statistic is based off of
unbalanced data? (eg, data that is not normalized).

EG, The number of companies that have full blown "no gun" policies are
far lower in number than the number of companies that don't have any
written policy. So if you have 1000 companies that have none and
10 that do, It's very easy for that 10 to look good... since their chances
of ending up on the radar in terms of workplace shootings is that much
lower. It's like comparing the accident rate of one very good middle
aged driver against 1000 random middle aged drivers... as a whole, that
grroup is much more likely to have an accident because the numbers
aren't normalized.

-Mike