1/4 Of You Think A Coworker Could ‘Go Postal’, Far More If You Work For The Government

Published on November 18th, 2009

Sounds like a good reason to take the day off.

Twenty-six percent (26%) of employed adults say they have seriously thought that someone in their workplace was capable of mass violence, according to the latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey.

Most working adults (64%), however, say they have not seriously thought a co-worker would be capable of such violence. Another 11% are undecided.

One-in-three men (33%) say they have held that thought before, compared to only 17% of women.

Forty-three percent (43%) of government workers say they have felt a fellow employee was capable of mass violence, more than double the number among those who work for private companies.
[...]
Just 22% of all Americans believe stricter gun control laws would reduce the number of workplace shooting sprees. Most (58%) adults say stricter laws on gun ownership would not help this problem, while another 19% are undecided.

28 users responded in " 1/4 Of You Think A Coworker Could ‘Go Postal’, Far More If You Work For The Government "

Subscribe to this post comment rss or trackback url

# 1 Mr. Fusion said, on November 18th, 2009 at 5:46 am

Looks like the opening for another gun debate.

# 2 Benjamin said, on November 18th, 2009 at 6:24 am

Unarmed employees are easy pickings from a mass shooter. If they had people with a concealed carry permit they would have a fighting chance.

# 3 Ah_Yea said, on November 18th, 2009 at 6:43 am

There is something about this that doesn’t make sense:

“Twenty-six percent (26%) of employed adults … Most working adults (64%)”

?? Does this mean that 38% (64-26) of employed adults don’t work??

Sounds like stimulus money to me!

# 4 chuck said, on November 18th, 2009 at 6:51 am

So what percentage of the working population work for the post office? Do 100% of postal workers think their cow-orkers could “go postal” ? That might affect the average.

# 5 Mr Diesel said, on November 18th, 2009 at 6:57 am

Around here I’m probably the one all those people are worried about….

# 6 B.Dog said, on November 18th, 2009 at 7:22 am

Where I work, we just have taxes taken out of our paychecks and have the government do some killing for us.

# 7 Postman said, on November 18th, 2009 at 7:38 am

Things have changed a lot in post office in recent years.

I think at this point students, or military would be the workplaces most likely to inspire workplace violence.

one of the stories being covered up in news right now is about ft hood. Most of the injured and killed were hit by the cross fire. So in the exactly one case we have a mass shooting with other armed people, it was made considerably worse by adding more guns.

# 8 Benjamin said, on November 18th, 2009 at 8:44 am

Postman said, “one of the stories being covered up in news right now is about ft hood. Most of the injured and killed were hit by the cross fire. So in the exactly one case we have a mass shooting with other armed people, it was made considerably worse by adding more guns.”

Cite your sources on the crossfire causing the deaths and injuries in the case of Fort Hood.

What is your solution if a guy starts shooting a place up? In the Fort Hood situation only the terrorist and the police officers had guns. Compare it to your solution of letting Hasan shoot people until he runs out of bullets and then having the police order him to get on the ground in a stern voice. If that doesn’t work, you they could add the phrase, “or else.”

In the case of Fort Hood, our military was defenseless because only the shooter and a couple police officers had weapons. In the case of Virginia Tech, only the shooter had a gun and he kept killing people until he had one bullet left, than he killed himself.

Why are only deranged people and terrorists allowed to have guns on college campuses? Why is our own military unarmed on its own bases and have to rely on the police? Why can’t law abiding people be on an equal footing with those who would kill us. Who’s to protect us? The police who are much more interested in enhancing revenue than protecting us?

# 9 Postman said, on November 18th, 2009 at 9:20 am

the biggest gun grabber in all human history was George bush. Iraq, if you recall was a giant failed gun grabbing expedition.

There is a growing call (among conservatives and republicans) to launch another gun grabbing effort at Iran.

I think you should ask them and not someone like me who insists on background checks as gun shows, and wants to hold gun owners responsible for what their guns do as long as they are the registered owner.

because, you are right, having the biggest guns around does tend in inhibit gun grabbers.

# 10 boyzindahood said, on November 18th, 2009 at 9:46 am

Read it again.

26 percent think it’s possible.
64 percent think it’s not.
11 percent undecided.
—————–
101 percent total (must be a rounding error)

# 11 Thinker said, on November 18th, 2009 at 10:06 am

Actually I think it has nothing to do with guns, but the person behind the gun. When people freak out if someone raises a voice and think we need ‘anger management’ I think it just stores it up for the future.

People need to have the freedome to get pissed off without someone thinking your deranged.

# 12 Mr. Fusion said, on November 18th, 2009 at 10:56 am

#7, postman,

Most of the injured and killed were hit by the cross fire. So in the exactly one case we have a mass shooting with other armed people, it was made considerably worse by adding more guns.

I too think this is incorrect. Only the police had the firearms.

As I understand, on military bases only law enforcement are allowed to carry fire arms. All other weapons must be locked up and ammunition kept separate. Training with weapons is carried out under extreme supervision.

# 13 Ah_Yea said, on November 18th, 2009 at 11:03 am

Am I the only one who finds it ironic that a madman kills a bunch of people in a “gun free zone” on a military base?

# 14 Ah_Yea said, on November 18th, 2009 at 11:03 am

boyzindahood, thanks for the correction.

# 15 Benjamin said, on November 18th, 2009 at 12:15 pm

#13 Gun free zones are self-defense free zones. Expect this to happen more often when entire cities or states become gun free.

# 16 Goiter said, on November 18th, 2009 at 12:20 pm

When exactly did the phrase “going postal” overtake the more correct phrase “going ballistic”? Aren’t they all just plain “nuts”? And should they all be put (back) in a “can”?

In any case, I would think that most people would prefer to be shot rather than have their lives taken away by some faceless cold entity like a government, insurance company, or identity thief. Being forced to live in hell seems much more cruel than getting shot in the head.

# 17 Postman said, on November 18th, 2009 at 12:50 pm

Was not a gun free zone. All early reports said there were multiple shooters. The investigation will reveal most were killed by friendly fire. Which Is also why republicans are desperate to declare it terrorism. So the can invoke state secrets.

# 18 Postman said, on November 18th, 2009 at 1:21 pm

Also… Remember they thought shooter was dead? Why would they think that, unless there was a dead guy with a gun?

# 19 Ah_Yea said, on November 18th, 2009 at 1:48 pm

Ok Postman, back up your claims.

Oh wait, you can’t! We know you don’t have a clue!!

Let’s see if you can read and apply critical thought…

http://tinyurl.com/y9qs9dm
http://tinyurl.com/ybusret

Ok you crazy radical jihadist liberal!

# 20 Postman said, on November 18th, 2009 at 1:50 pm

#19

bing ft hood multiple shooters

then suck on it:)

# 21 Benjamin said, on November 18th, 2009 at 2:18 pm

Postman, where to begin… Back up your claims about the friendly fire incidence. I bet you $100 every bullet there was from a cop or Hassan. Are you saying that some of the victims were shot by the police who were responding to the situation? If you are, than I go back to my first point: should the cops have done nothing and let Hassan continue to kill people?

# 22 ECA said, on November 18th, 2009 at 5:20 pm

Lets ask something..

Raise you hand if you have EVER done customer service..
RAISE your hand if you have CALLED customer service, and HELD for more then 20 minutes..

I have done the first…
AND I went for 2 hours on the second..FOR THEM TO PICK UP THE PHONE.

# 23 ECA said, on November 18th, 2009 at 5:22 pm

NOW,
Which would you rather BE..
Wondering if the ASS on the phone was COMING FOR YOU??
OR sitting NEXT to some MANIC/DEPRESSIVE next to you talking to a customer thats been on hold, or BOUNCED 10 times?? AND they still have the WRONG department..

# 24 deowll said, on November 18th, 2009 at 7:43 pm

You don’t need a gun to kill somebody. I had a cousin that killed seven people with a lighter.

He died in prison.

# 25 Greg Allen said, on November 18th, 2009 at 7:53 pm

>> Ah_Yea said, on November 18th, 2009 at 11:03 am
>> Am I the only one who finds it ironic that a madman kills a bunch of people in a “gun free zone” on a military base?

You are not alone.

I’m a gun control advocate but I’m not sure what to think of this.

Who knows more about guns than the military — and they ban them on their own bases! This tends to affirm my beliefs.

However, I have to admit that there may have been less dead if they had been allowed to carry their guns at that moment.

But this is a unique circumstance — all these people were presumably well trained and disciplined in gun use.

This is very different than the insane suggestion by gun nuts that colleges, bars, churches and girl scout meetings would be safer if everyone was armed.

# 26 Alex said, on November 19th, 2009 at 6:40 am

The solution is to have all gun owners have “gun nut” tatooed on their forehead so we all know who the dangerous ones are.

# 27 Benjamin said, on November 19th, 2009 at 6:46 am

#25 Greg Allen said, “However, I have to admit that there may have been less dead if they had been allowed to carry their guns at that moment.

But this is a unique circumstance”

Not unique. There would have been fewer dead at Virginia Tech if students who had concealed carry permits were allowed to conceal carry that day. Many of the students there with concealed carry permits (but no guns with them) were former military and presumably trained to use guns.

When I go out, I don’t wish to be shot at by a crazy person. Cops cant be everywhere and if they were it would be a police state. If someone with a concealed carry permit were nearby, it would serve to protect me and everyone else around.

# 28 Glenn E. said, on November 20th, 2009 at 5:45 pm

The reason behind these “postals” and worker suicides (see France Telecom), isn’t whether guns are available or not. It’s the increase adoption of employers of management tactics, design to force workers out before reaching retirement. Thus avoiding the burden of paying them a pension. Also tactics design to demean the workers, so they’ll not ask for better working conditions, or form unions. Keep them feeling like worthless cattle or sheep. And they’ll work til they drop, expecting little more. The corporate elite are the real sick bastards. Not those who snap cause their jobs have relocated them all over the country, to work a new area. Just like cattle.

Leave Your Reply Below...

Comment Moderation is Active, so if your comment doesn't
show up immediately, please don't submit it again.

Special Deals 4U

25% off eHarmony subscription with code EHTECH
12-percent discount forever with code TECH
10-percent discount and free month using TECH10
10-percent or 30 dollars off weekly car rental!
Get 10-percent discount on car rental!
Get 10% off rental cars!
Get 10% off Dollar rentals!
Discounts on domain names!