|
TG,
I was not submitting a percentage likelihood for an ND. My point is that most employers would regard that chance of a discharge as being too high if it is not zero. For them, the ability to eliminate a known risk to everyone and liability is a better choice than prioritizing the vulnerability of a single employee.
My own experiences inform me that you have absolutely no reliable data about ND statistics. Why? Because there is absolutely no mechanism for detecting or reporting the full number of NDs and close calls unless the shot is detected, reported to the police AND ticketed. I couldn't say if unreported close calls are 90%, 99% or 99.9% of all incidents, and neither can you.
That explains the reasoning, but the legal basis is little different than not allowing someone you're not close to coming into your house with a gun to babysit your kids. It is your house, your people and your future. Why put everything you care about in the hands of someone you don't know and truly trust? No principle or single individual's perceived need of a gun should override your responsibility to all the people that rely on you.
In public and at home it is your call. But it is my call what sort of dangers come into my home. I don't understand what sort of individual liberties you think exist that take away other peoples right to choose what happens on their property. That's not freedom.
As I said earlier, a gun is only one solution to a personal security issue. If work makes it impossible, try a non- gun solution or get a job outside the war zone.
|