Guns, Rights, and Deaths Galore

On March 10, 28-year-old Michael McLendon was heavily armed and intent on death in rural Alabama. Having a fascination with guns, he carried two assault rifles, a shotgun, a .38-caliber handgun, a Russian semiautomatic carbine, and a military-style Bushmaster rifle. He was licensed to carry a pistol but not automatic weapons. (Click here, here, here, here, here and here for more.)

In less than an hour and over a 20 mile stretch, he killed 10 people, wounded six, and finally took his own life. The dead included his mother, his grandmother, his uncle, two cousins, and five random victims. The bloodbath ended at one of his former employers where he probably intended to add to his list of victims. But after continuing a shootout with police officers who’d been chasing him, he went inside and shot himself. By then, he’d fired 200 rounds of ammunition.

Though unclear why he had left a recent job, there were notes indicating trouble with three former employers. He identified supervisors and co-workers who had done him wrong. He and his mother had filed suit against one of the employers, and he may have been “depressed about job issues.”

While not a classic case of workplace violence, the Alabama shootings are relevant because state legislatures continue to pass laws giving individuals rights to carry guns in all kinds of places and restrict employers’ rights to ban guns from the workplace. Advocates of these laws argue they will reduce workplace violence, because when a disgruntled or disturbed employee brings a gun to work and tries to use it on bosses and co-workers, employees lawfully carrying weapons will intercede and prevent a catastrophe. 

Note: McLendon was chased by several well-armed police officers, two of whom were wounded by McLendon. They didn’t kill him. He shot himself.

1. 

   Mike says:

   March 13, 2009 at 12:00 pm

   Is it then your assertion, that if carrying any weapons were illegal in Alabama, that this would have been averted? This individual went out with the intent to murder, and was carrying illegal weapons. Why would a law against carrying a revolver have stopped him when he was already intent on committing mass murder? Do you think the deterrent effect of a firearms violation is enough to dissuade those that have already decided to commit a capital offense? There is no marginal increase in potential harm to the perpetrator, so why would they care? Might as well increase the penalty for speeding and evading arrest as well, because that little bit more might have stopped him from running right? Wrong.
2. 

   Chiburbian says:

   March 13, 2009 at 3:21 pm

   I like that idea… make running from the cops Illegal. That would have definitely stopped him from doing so. I mean – prohibitions work in Chicago to keep people from carrying concealed weapons and shooting each other right? Wait, they don’t you say? I don’t understand?
3. 

   John Phillips says:

   March 15, 2009 at 5:56 pm

   Mike and Chiburbian,

   Thanks for weighing in.

   My only assertion is that employers should have the right to ban weapons from their workplaces if they want to. I think you’re right. If someone is intent on mass murder, mass murder will probably occur. I think that requiring employers to allow employees to carry weapons adds to the potential violence. As I noted in my post, if several police officers can’t stop a heavily armed person, several John or Jane Employees won’t be able to either.

   It’s the employer’s business. The employer’s right should be greater than the individual’s right when it comes to the employer’s workplace.

   Thanks again.

   John