Employers must use instead the behavioral interviewing technique to evaluate a candidate’s experiences and behaviors so they can determine the applicant’s potential for success, which is beyond the basis on gun ownership (Gladwell). The interviewer identifies job-related experiences, behaviors, knowledge, skills, and abilities that the company has decided are desirable in a particular situation (Schminke, 1998). If there is any iniquitous in records related to gun ownership to be unearthed, the candidate should be granted the chance to expound on their circumstances.
The job candidates must be notified upon their legal rights prior to any decision to discard the job applications (Schminke, 1998). Indeed, pre-employment background checks couldn’t be unethical and appropriately help companies weed out unscrupulous job candidates who have been convicted of felonies or illegal possession of a gun that might otherwise increase the likelihood of an unsafe working environment. Still, an employer must look at the objectivity of the selection decision, which shall be based on the candidate’s education, skill level, past experience, and personal characteristics, as appropriate.
Employment decisions, therefore, are forced to be based on business necessity, not on an employee’s or applicant’s iniquitous circumstances such as those connected with gun ownership (Schminke, 1998). Why we should fall into this ethical dilemma, often in judging others based on gun ownership and violent tendencies, sometimes even in judging ourselves, is difficult to explain. Perhaps, as one investigator has suggested, thinking that we know what people are really like gives us at least an illusion of being able to predict their behavior and is therefore comforting (Schminke, 1998).
Then again, as young gun owners among yuppies perhaps may be left alone most of the time outside the social reward structure, they are inclined to use aggression to get personal recognition and compensate for the anonymity and powerlessness they feel. The sense of unidentifiability for these irresponsible gun owners may also play the roles of the armed heroes or the powerful villains. It is therefore necessary to warn the gun owners and advise them what should be done, but there is no need to implant fear because in turn, this sensationalistic approach either desensitizes or terrifies the susceptible owners (Hinkle, 1994).
Gun ownership only illegal when the possession of the firearm has bypassed legal boundaries and most especially when its use is made for the wrong reasons. Deterrence, which aims to deter one particular offender from committing the same offense twice, may be the answer. Increasing punishments should lower crime rates related to guns. Deterrence, logically, can only work for crimes that are pre-planned (Choongh, 1997). If an enraged person planned to shoot someone, he would obviously attempt to make sure he would get away with it, rather than take the life sentence.