View Full Version : When Good intentions go bad
His intentions are good but the level of fail here is anti gun groups wet dream. What he should do is hire a professional to train his people and help guide them to the proper choice of fire arms. Minimal course to obtain license and a POS judge, what could go wrong?
Company owner requires workers to have firearm at the office
ATLANTA (AP) -- The decision by the owner of a small insurance company to require his employees to carry firearms at the office has sparked a debate: Would having a gun on the job make you safer, or is it inviting violence into the workplace?
Lance Toland said his three offices, based at small airports in Georgia, haven't had problems with crime but "anyone can slip in these days if they want to. I don't have a social agenda here. I have a safety agenda."
When a longtime employee, a National Rifle Association-certified instructor who's been the company's unofficial security officer announced her retirement, Toland wanted to ensure the remaining employees were safe. He now requires each of them to get a concealed-carry permit, footing the $65 bill, and undergo training. He issues a Taurus revolver known as "The Judge" to each of them. The firearm holds five rounds, .410 shells that cast a spray of pellets like a shotgun.
"It is a weapon, and it is a lethal weapon," said Toland, whose company specializes in aviation insurance. "When a perpetrator comes into the home or the office, they have started a fire. And this is a fire extinguisher."
No employee balked at the mandate, he said. "They all embraced it 100 percent, and they said, you know, I'm tired of being afraid," Toland said.
Cont:
Geez, Taurus Judges? Are they open carrying? Anti-gunner wet dream indeed.
Aside from choice of weapon, he probably knows his people, perhaps he just empowered them?
But, yeah.
Geez, Taurus Judges? Are they open carrying? Anti-gunner wet dream indeed.
Aside from choice of weapon, he probably knows his people, perhaps he just empowered them?
But, yeah.
With .410 shot shells no less.
Georgia gets weird at times with violent crime. Replace Judge with Glock 19 and I see no real issue.
Kids at GSU and GT get mugged almost weekly. MARTA late at night can also be amusing. If you don't look like someone who will whip an ass.....expect to get accosted.
Everybody in LE work of a certain age and time in is looking for something else to do. Even if you save the fricking day; it's still your fault.
So...yes. More private people need to be packing.
Taurus judge. With .410 shells. I CANNOT think of a more inappropriate firearm for the task at hand.
I appreciate the sentiment though.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Playing devil's advocate, they can be loaded with 45LC and there's a LOT of dead Mexican soldiers, Native Americans, Filipinos, Cattle Rustlers, and maybe even a Stuka thanks to that caliber.
Just say'n
Playing devil's advocate, they can be loaded with 45LC and there's a LOT of dead Mexican soldiers, Native Americans, Filipinos, Cattle Rustlers, and maybe even a Stuka thanks to that caliber.
Just say'n
But that aint what he got them....Between that and the .410 a much better choice, but an overall horrible choice given alternatives regardless.
At least he is pro gun and not putting a gun free zone sign on the door for all criminals to enjoy.
Any of you nay-sayers want one of them shooting a Judge with .410 shells at you? I don't.
Any of you nay-sayers want one of them shooting a Judge with .410 shells at you? I don't.
I don't wanna be shot at with a pellet gun or a .22, or sling shot, that does make them any less a poor choice for that intended use.
Any of you nay-sayers want one of them shooting a Judge with .410 shells at you? I don't.
It always winds me up when people post shit like this. Nobody is saying that they can walk off a round to the chest and it's not what's being implied.
The .410 shotshell is a terrible choice for defensive ammo when a better selection FOR THAT VERY REVOLVER exists. It's not even saying "buy them new guns," just buy them decent ammunition for the task at hand.
How about this: http://www.hornady.com/store/45-Colt-185-GR-FTX-Critical-Defense/ A round practically designed for the Taurus...
I don't wanna be shot at with a pellet gun or a .22, or sling shot, that does make them any less a poor choice for that intended use.
Let's ask a different, and perhaps a more appropriate for the discussion, way: If you were a criminal looking for a mark and you knew everyone in that building was carrying a Judge with .410 shells in it, and had at least some training on how to use it, would you try to rob the place?
I'm going to assume the answer would be no. Mission accomplished.
The Judge would not be my first choice either, but I think it makes the point well enough for its intended purpose.
Let's ask a different, and perhaps a more appropriate for the discussion, way: If you were a criminal looking for a mark and you knew everyone in that building was carrying a Judge with .410 shells in it, and had at least some training on how to use it, would you try to rob the place?
I'm going to assume the answer would be no. Mission accomplished.
The Judge would not be my first choice either, but I think it makes the point well enough for its intended purpose.
Then we agree to disagree as I think it's a terrible choice for its intended purpose which may be more than as a bluff and deterrent to would be criminals. The issue is, the owner appears to consider it a good choice when it aint. If you're going to foist that POS on your employees, use a rnd that's most effective, or better yet, do a little research and forget the Judge.
Then we agree to disagree as I think it's a terrible choice for its intended purpose which may be more than as a bluff and deterrent to would be criminals. The issue is, the owner appears to consider it a good choice when it aint.
Fair enough sir.
We have different issues, it seems. While you and I understand the differences in performance between different guns and calibers, I think your average street thug is going to be thoroughly deterred by a bunch of people carrying big honkin' revolvers. I think we agree that this is not the best choice of firearm here. The judge wouldn't even be on my list, if I were to make a list of guns that I felt appropriate for this purpose.
Is it possible that the owner is considering .410 birdshot a "less lethal" option than some standard caliber?
Another issue I have here, is that while I would certainly condone, and even encourage employees to get trained and carry concealed, I would never "require" it of anyone. I think that too, is an error in judgement.
If you were a criminal looking for a mark and you knew everyone in that building was carrying a Judge with .410 shells in it, and had at least some training on how to use it, would you try to rob the place?
You, a non-criminal, is considering the situation from a logical and intelligent position. What makes you think that the average crackhead looking to steal some watches, wallets, computers, phones, etc, has researched his target before busting in the door?
Let's have some of the LEOs here chime in if they can... We don't need specifics, just a general feel for the criminal mind. What say you gentlemen? How many suspects that you've arrested did more than cursory recon on a target before committing a crime?
Well..
I think this is a teachable moment. There are oodles of qualified trainers to consult and most would say Glock 19.
But a lot of people seem to think a revolver is more "intuitive" than an Automatic. "Revolvers are more reliable".
No. Even with a speedloader, it requires more training than with an auto pistol to reload. Especially under stress. Five shots? Against a gang of five or better? Better be Jerry Miculek.
I don't know about other people and I'm not an instructor nor will I likely ever be one but....my personal rule of thumb is that I like controlled groups then reassess. Like bill drills.
Like guys giving a woman a snubnose or a chief special. "Here ya go. Defend yerself!"
I'm not saying he should turn his employees into an active shooter response team but yet....that seems to be his goal but without context.
I, personally, love some revolvers but if we were going up against the local Folk gang or whatever, a revolver would be my last choice.
These types never go one on one. Always in packs. But...
That's their reality so they'll adapt accordingly or not.
"Cursory recon"?
It's more like "dey alone? Dey got loot? See any popo?Is dey a bitch (a female or a weak looking male)? A'ight its on now"
Unless you hear a "Blaaat! SOOWOO!", congratulations, you are a target.
As that means they just saw a marked unit.
You, a non-criminal, is considering the situation from a logical and intelligent position. What makes you think that the average crackhead looking to steal some watches, wallets, computers, phones, etc, has researched his target before busting in the door?
I've known a few criminals in my time. Most of them are not stupid and most of them demonstrate a fair amount of interest in self-preservation. They tend to choose their targets with at least some degree of thought for their potential survival of the encounter. This is why criminals don't tend to rob police stations, right?
So in your scenario, if Joe Crackhead stumbles into this insurance agency and finds himself staring down the barrels of multiple large revolvers held by some serious looking folks with fingers on triggers, you don't think Joe will be sufficiently deterred? I do. I think even if Joe is currently very high, he will know what those large holes at the ends of those barrels are for.
Fair enough sir.
We have different issues, it seems. While you and I understand the differences in performance between different guns and calibers, I think your average street thug is going to be thoroughly deterred by a bunch of people carrying big honkin' revolvers. I think we agree that this is not the best choice of firearm here. The judge wouldn't even be on my list, if I were to make a list of guns that I felt appropriate for this purpose.
Is it possible that the owner is considering .410 birdshot a "less lethal" option than some standard caliber?
Another issue I have here, is that while I would certainly condone, and even encourage employees to get trained and carry concealed, I would never "require" it of anyone. I think that too, is an error in judgement.
I think you are giving thugs and nuts too much credit, but are they going to OC them at work a deterrence? As you're aware, there's better choices in big honkin' revolvers, there's better choices for that very revolver, and there's better choices than a revolver. I'm not even trying to start a revolver vs pistol discussion here. Just a better revolver with better load would be a big improvement on all fronts.
I think you are giving thugs and nuts too much credit, but are they going to OC them at work a deterrence? As you're aware, there's better choices in big honkin' revolvers, there's better choices for that very revolver, and there's better choices than a revolver. I'm not even trying to start a revolver vs pistol discussion here. Just a better revolver with better load would be a big improvement on all fronts.
I do agree with you on all if the above counts.
My point of contention here is that I think the chosen tool, while not yours or my first (or second or third or fourth either…) choice, is still adequate to get the job at hand done, that this company owner is trying to get done. Personally, I wouldn't take any Taurus, even if it was given to me for free. Unless I was desperate and there was just no other option… I'd rather have a Taurus for self defense, than nothing at all, in other words.
I do agree with you on all if the above counts.
My point of contention here is that I think the chosen tool, while not yours or my first (or second or third or fourth either…) choice, is still adequate to get the job at hand done, that this company owner is trying to get done. Personally, I wouldn't take any Taurus, even if it was given to me for free. Unless I was desperate and there was just no other option… I'd rather have a Taurus for self defense, than nothing at all, in other words.
It comes under the "better than nothing" option but the write up suggests the owner considers it a smart choice and an appropriate choice.
Requiring everyone to have a gun is every bit as bad as saying nobody can have a gun.
First off, it's not the kind of choice you make for somebody either way.
Second, not everyone is responsible enough to be a gun owner.
The choice of weapon alone demonstrates what a poor idea this is. When somebody who has no business owning a gun leaves it in their purse and their kid gets ahold of it, there are going to be serious repercussions.
Averageman
03-12-16, 19:49
Well..
I think this is a teachable moment. There are oodles of qualified trainers to consult and most would say Glock 19.
But a lot of people seem to think a revolver is more "intuitive" than an Automatic. "Revolvers are more reliable".
No. Even with a speedloader, it requires more training than with an auto pistol to reload. Especially under stress. Five shots? Against a gang of five or better? Better be Jerry Miculek.
Having shot a bit of IDPA and seen what it takes to shoot a revolver well in IDPA, I would say it is a skill set far above your average guy out there shooting a G-17 in competition, let alone what someone under stress will do.
A revolver might well be a narrow niche tool for some really specific skill sets and situations, this I would be very likely to say "Aint one of them."
Any of you nay-sayers want one of them shooting a Judge with .410 shells at you? I don't.
Well, there is that! :rolleyes:
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.