You're the one claiming that employers should allow their employees to work armed, so you're the one who has the burden to show that doing so decreases the risk of innocents being harmed
I have not said anything about what a employer should do, so I have no obligation to post any evidence.
No, we don't have the same position. You assume that an owner needs to show evidence that allowing employees to carry increases risk in order to forbid the practice. My position is that since there is no evidence either way, either policy (allowing or forbidding carry while working) is equally justifiable.No evidence has been posted either that says when people are armed there is a decreased risk that innocents will be harmed. I acknowledged that, I also stated that all we really have to go on are reports where guns helped or didn't help. To my knowledge there is no reliable study conducted that contrasts being armed with prevention of people being harmed in an armed robbery to those unarmed in similar situations. Absence of evidence is not evidence. The precedence is that people have a Constitutional right to be armed and defend themselves, to remove such ability without evidence that it is a beneficial policy is not rational.
Seems like we have the same policy then. But as stated, there isn't facts that would support the notion that being armed, in the event of an armed robbery, results in more innocent people being harmed or in more deaths. In principal people should be allowed to defend themselves from robbers, especially if they are armed. It's wrong to subjugate people to the mercy of a robber and hope that they choose to not harm anyone if they get what they want. Nothing emotional about that.
Businesses are not run to allow their workers to exercise their rights. They are run to make a profit. Business owners set rules based on what they feel will further their goal of earning a profit,. Those business policies are not "subjugation". It's nonsensical hyperbole to claim it is "subjugation"