Gunning for safety
Editorial
Daily Vidette Editorial Board
Issue date: 4/3/08 Section: Viewpoint
At what point in life do jobs gain the right to abridge your constitutionally guaranteed rights?
In Des Moines, Iowa a Pizza Hut driver was recently suspended for carrying a hand gun while he was delivering. A handgun which was barred by Pizza Hut in their policies.
This delivery driver's handgun was found after he used it to defend himself from a would-be robber.
Allegedly, the delivery driver was purposefully called to an apartment where the robber was ready to rob him.
The person who was attempting to rob the delivery driver then pointed a gun at his head and demanded money.
The delivery driver pulled out his gun in order to defend himself from the robber.
He survived unharmed.
The robber sustained at least three gun-shot wounds, but survived his injuries.
A situation such as this calls into question Pizza Hut's policy.
Although it is understandable for Pizza Hut to want as little armed conflict as possible on their delivery routes, it is also completely understandable for delivery drivers to want the ability to protect themselves.
The second amendment grants you the right to carry a handgun, so what right does Pizza Hut have to supersede that right in their policy?
The delivery driver was suspended for breaking the rules and carrying his handgun.
He should have been; he broke the rules.
However, that does not mean that the rule should not be questioned.
By carrying his handgun, the Pizza Hut delivery driver saved his own life, or at the very least, saved his wallet and other valuables.
His gun was licensed. He had the right to carry it, and he obviously had a use for it.
Why then, does Pizza Hut choose to abridge his rights?
This is not an office building or desk job. As a delivery driver, he is placed in many situations where his life may be in danger.
It is unlikely Pizza Hut allows him to skip deliveries in dangerous parts of town.
On the other hand, it isn't necessarily only the driver who should be considered. With all of the small frustrations that accompany being a delivery driver, it is understandable for the public to be less than pleased about them carrying guns.
That being said, when it comes down to it, carrying a handgun is still within your constitutional rights as long as you follow the proper procedures.
It all comes back to one question.
Who should have guns?
If a person is placed, daily, into situations where his life may be in danger, it makes sense and is fair that the driver may carry a gun.
Pizza Hut should consider adjusting their policies to not only protect the safety of their patrons, but also the safety of their work force.
Sometimes guns actually do save lives.
In Des Moines, Iowa a Pizza Hut driver was recently suspended for carrying a hand gun while he was delivering. A handgun which was barred by Pizza Hut in their policies.
This delivery driver's handgun was found after he used it to defend himself from a would-be robber.
Allegedly, the delivery driver was purposefully called to an apartment where the robber was ready to rob him.
The person who was attempting to rob the delivery driver then pointed a gun at his head and demanded money.
The delivery driver pulled out his gun in order to defend himself from the robber.
He survived unharmed.
The robber sustained at least three gun-shot wounds, but survived his injuries.
A situation such as this calls into question Pizza Hut's policy.
Although it is understandable for Pizza Hut to want as little armed conflict as possible on their delivery routes, it is also completely understandable for delivery drivers to want the ability to protect themselves.
The second amendment grants you the right to carry a handgun, so what right does Pizza Hut have to supersede that right in their policy?
The delivery driver was suspended for breaking the rules and carrying his handgun.
He should have been; he broke the rules.
However, that does not mean that the rule should not be questioned.
By carrying his handgun, the Pizza Hut delivery driver saved his own life, or at the very least, saved his wallet and other valuables.
His gun was licensed. He had the right to carry it, and he obviously had a use for it.
Why then, does Pizza Hut choose to abridge his rights?
This is not an office building or desk job. As a delivery driver, he is placed in many situations where his life may be in danger.
It is unlikely Pizza Hut allows him to skip deliveries in dangerous parts of town.
On the other hand, it isn't necessarily only the driver who should be considered. With all of the small frustrations that accompany being a delivery driver, it is understandable for the public to be less than pleased about them carrying guns.
That being said, when it comes down to it, carrying a handgun is still within your constitutional rights as long as you follow the proper procedures.
It all comes back to one question.
Who should have guns?
If a person is placed, daily, into situations where his life may be in danger, it makes sense and is fair that the driver may carry a gun.
Pizza Hut should consider adjusting their policies to not only protect the safety of their patrons, but also the safety of their work force.
Sometimes guns actually do save lives.
Viewing Comments 1 - 7 of 7
Like My Anonymity
posted 4/03/08 @ 9:28 AM CST
Kudos for this piece of thoughtful writing. Pizza Hut should change its policies, or do they just prefer dead delivery drivers? Pizza Hut can always hire new drivers, but dead drivers cannot get a new life. (Continued…)
a libertarian
posted 4/03/08 @ 10:24 PM CST
While I agree with the author's conclusion, I will point out two important points:
1. The Constitution does not grant rights; it prohibits the government from infringing on rights. (Continued…)
Scott
posted 4/04/08 @ 7:36 AM CST
While I commend a College Newspaper that will stand up for our rights I feel that there is an idea here that needs to be squashed. I am talking about the question, "Who should have guns?" The tone leads me to believe that the writer believes we should allow the government to determine which law abiding citizens are worthy of the privilege of carrying a firearm for self-defense. (Continued…)
fsilber
posted 4/04/08 @ 12:04 PM CST
An employer has the right to make any demand on his employee he pleases, as long as he's not demanding that the employee commit a crime.
For example, before we had voting by secret ballot an employer could demand that his employees vote his preference (that's why voting was initially restricted to property owners, i. (Continued…)
MGoduto
posted 4/04/08 @ 3:41 PM CST
Actually, the Second Amendment doesn't GRANT us anything. As with the other amendments contained in the Bill Of Rights, they acknowledge pre-existing rights and serve as a limit on the power of government. (Continued…)
Paul Alexandru Cazacliu
posted 4/16/08 @ 6:29 AM CST
If the robber couldn't have a gun,he couldn't be a treat for no one,so any civilian couldn't have a gun wouldn't be any robber.We have to understand the Constitution in it's spirit and not in it's letter,that is in it's essence,the essence of it is to keep all the citizens safe,in the days of the 2nd amendment an efficient gun control couldn't be existed,but now,in a such high-tech control possibilities yes. (Continued…)
Scott Cogil
posted 4/16/08 @ 4:26 PM CST
I was more than please to read this article, a responsible citizen standing up for himself in the face of danger. It was so pleasing to read an article in this area that spoke of a positive factual story about guns and personal safety. (Continued…)
Post a Comment