Doug Williams had been through "anger management" counseling, politically correct "tolerance" seminars, and who knows how many other examples of the current batch of Orwellian educational "opportunities" being foisted on employees of public and private institutions across the country. When he snapped, though, he didn't attack verbally, he didn't use "hate speech," he didn't harass; he attacked with deadly force...and innocent people died. Mr. Williams, now deceased, is guilty of murder and suicide, but are there other culpable parties?
According to the Fox News story, supervisors and coworkers knew that Williams was a "hothead" and had engaged in verbally and physically threatening behavior many times. When Williams entered the plant armed with a shotgun and rifle, Hubert Threatt had a face-to-face encounter with him and recognized immediately that Mr. Williams had "snapped" and presented a clear and present danger to his co-workers. In fact, Mr. Threatt, after begging Mr. Williams not to shoot anyone, watched him kill three coworkers. It seems reasonable to assume that, had Mr. Threatt or any of his co-workers been armed, they could have stopped Mr. Williams before he started shooting, by either detaining or shooting him. Any able-bodied person in that plant, therefore, holds some culpability for failing to be armed and ready to defend themselves and their co-workers.
But does Lockheed-Martin encourage this sort of preparedness in its employees? Searching the Lockheed-Martin website for any mention of a company policy on firearms turned up one document that seems to be a standard subcontractor agreement of some sort, and it states, "Unauthorized Personal Property - WITHOUT PRIOR LOCKHEED MARTIN AUTHORIZATION CAMERAS, TELEVISIONS, RADIO, TAPE RECORDERS, COMPUTERS, ELECTRONIC DEVICES, FIREARMS, AMMUNITION, EXPLOSIVES, KNIVES, OR ANY OTHER WEAPONS ARE PROHIBITED ON THE FACILITY." In other words, Lockheed-Martin actually discourages its employees to be prepared for self-defense.
So, what does Lockheed-Martin do to protect the employees who abide by company policy and go unarmed? Exactly nothing. There are no armed guards and metal detectors at plant entrances. The fact that Mr. Williams entered the plant openly well-armed indicates the absence of any physical safeguards preventing anyone--employee or otherwise--entering the facility with "unauthorized personal property" of any sort.
This is a classic example of what happens when an armed criminal enters a "gun-free" zone with a gun. Innocent people, who have unquestioningly obeyed the "gun-free" policy, either die or watch helplessly as others die at the hands of a criminal. Common sense tells us that it is not the gun, but the criminal, who should be stopped, and an armed criminal can often only be stopped by an armed citizen.
Mr. Threatt and his co-workers should be chastised for failing to provide for their own defense. Part of their required training should include a course on self-defense, including the use of deadly force and the use, care, and carriage of personal firearms. Lockheed-Martin should be hit with a class action lawsuit for establishing a "gun-free" zone without providing physical security to ensure that the zone was truly "gun-free." And our culture should learn, yet again, the lesson that fancy words and politically-correct seminars cannot change people's hearts. People are inherently evil, and the only way to change a person's heart is for them to experience a redeeming relationship with Jesus Christ.