Liberty to use guns

In the army, soldiers have the liberty to use guns when not in the action so as to play a virtual reality simulator in order to simulate a real battle sequence and give them the feel for the real deal of shooting enemies. The object of this “game” is to give soldiers not so much the urge to kill but to sort of aid them in the process of actually firing on and killing another human being. However, there is a big difference between video games, which are used for entertainment, and the program, which was used for firing training by the army soldiers.

Young gun owners are no army soldiers but their tendency for violence certainly may have something to do with their perception of reality and truth (Bechtel, 2004). In the corporate world, hiring employees in relation to gun ownership has brought a new level of complexity into one’s business and a new set of considerations. One issue is whether or not it is ethical to recruit people with questionable ethics. The delinquent records probe, no matter how unethical it may seem, is an essential for modern-day employers.

The huge risk of taking on the wrong applicant for one’s business has rendered this concern a vital one for any organization. One of the ways by which employers resolve this is by carrying out background checks on the candidate before, during, or after the pre-employment phase of interviewing (Gladwell). Part of investigating the deep-rooted history of an applicant, with drugs and gun ownership in the list, employers turn to background check. But with invasion of privacy discerned so as to leave one’s self some reservations and confidentiality, applicants tend to see this prejudicial to their better frontage as an adept constituent.

However, courts allow this kind of inquiry provided a written consent rests between the employer and the would-be employee (Schminke, 1998). Criminal background check, in particular, has been, beyond corporate requisitions, a civil call, if not obligation, of most citizens in our country. But should the company be using the results out of strict confidence and against making use of the more significant services of the applicant, they are candidly fuelling protests against unwarranted discrimination.

Certainly, discriminating against others is illegal as well as unethical. Alongside the gun ownership enactments, many federal, state, and local laws prohibit discrimination in all phases of employment. The obvious situations in which to guard against discrimination are in hiring and promoting people (Schminke, 1998). The psychologists believe that the interviewers sometimes exercise a common mistake of basing their evaluation of an applicant on the latter’s behavior in the meeting and in the past.

As in most humanistic situations, the interviewers usually attribute the interviewees’ actions to dispositional factors, thus ignoring social psychology’s evidence that people are not nearly so consistent as generally assumed, and that their behavior, for which a person once or still owns a gun, so often depends on the circumstances (Gladwell). This tendency to favor dispositional factors, rather than aspects of the situation that provide a far better explanation, is so powerful and widespread that it has been called fundamental attribution error (Schminke, 1998).