I'm in the polite but firm camp as well. Let the other side act out their fantasies with unwarranted rage.
Yeah, I've been pondering that as well. I'm sure it wasn't because I wrote them a time or two, but obviously something caused them to change policy. Maybe they had a management change or something like that. Dunno, but whatever it is, I'll take it!I wonder what really changed their minds? Not only did the signs come down, but now employees can be armed? Something happened...![]()
Nobody said all employees could carry, only that they are changing their policy for customers and employees. As is stands right now, there are no armed security services at their stores, so even just allowing certain employees to carry is a positive step; especially for the other employees, as well as the customers that choose to not arm themselves.In that article I don't see NFM allowing all employees with permits to carry. It says some security personnel will be armed, after training.
Nebraska Furniture Mart plan to arm security staff called leap into uncharted territory - Omaha.comIn defense of the company's policy changes, Batt (the company's executive vice president) said months of outside research and discussion went into the decision.
“We consulted experts in corporate and personal security. We didn't do this on our own.
We consulted the best minds on this strategy. It's only because we want to protect people,” said Batt. “Our goal is that this kind of thing will never be needed.”
My guess is that's the case is just about every state. That, however, is not an "obstacle", it's just a process that needs to be gone through. Remember that old saying, the difference between a stepping stone and a stumbling block is the height to which one raises one's foot.I know nothing about that state's laws, but I think they'll find having "armed security" create obstacles they haven't considered. In Fl, that would require an entirely different licensing above and beyond an individual concealed weapons license.
Yeah, based on the second article, they obviously have done their homework so I'm guessing they fully understand the path needed to arm staff.My guess is that's the case is just about every state. That, however, is not an "obstacle", it's just a process that needs to be gone through. Remember that old saying, the difference between a stepping stone and a stumbling block is the height to which one raises one's foot.
andI wonder what really changed their minds? Not only did the signs come down, but now employees can be armed? Something happened...![]()
There you have it.From the article ~"Batt cited incidents in which store employees have encountered people carrying weapons inside the store, including someone brandishing a knife.
“Times have changed,” Batt said. “You look at college campuses, retail establishments. ... We only have one mission here, and that's the safety of the staff and customers. We're sending a message that we will not tolerate any bad behavior.”
Both your lead sentence, and the article's headline, simply say "employees", without any further qualification or limitation. Without the detail further down in the article that the policy appears to only allow certain selected and trained employees (security) to carry, the headline is a tad misleading.Nobody said all employees could carry, only that they are changing their policy for customers and employees. As is stands right now, there are no armed security services at their stores, so even just allowing certain employees to carry is a positive step; especially for the other employees, as well as the customers that choose to not arm themselves.
I doubt that a customer has EVER won a suit on that basis. If anybody knows of such an event, please PM me.Might have figured out that their policy was a liability. Customer getting attacked and not being able to protect themselves because of company policy.
Quote from the second article:I wonder what really changed their minds? Not only did the signs come down, but now employees can be armed? Something happened...![]()