Ethics Of Gun Control
Essay by 24 • December 20, 2010 • 1,628 Words (7 Pages) • 3,036 Views
The Ethics of Gun Control
The phrase "Gun Control" means different things to different people. One bumper sticker states that "Gun Control means hitting your target." However one defines gun control, the mere mention of it brings controversy. Opposing sides have for years fought over the laws that govern firearms. For the purposes of this paper "Gun Control" is defined as policies enacted by the government that limit the legal rights of gun owners to own, carry, or use firearms, with the intent of reducing gun crimes such as murder, armed robbery, aggravated rape, and the like. So defined, gun control understandably brings favorable responses from some, and angry objections from others.
The gun control debate is generally publicized because of the efforts of the Pro-Gun Lobby or the Anti-Gun Lobby.The best known of the Pro-Gun Lobby is the NRA, headed by Charlton Heston and Wayne LaPierre. The Anti-Gun Lobby includes such organizations as Handgun Control, Inc., The Violence Policy Center, and the ACLU, and is commonly
associated with such figures as Sarah Brady.
It is doubtful that anyone would dispute that reducing violent crime is a good thing. Most pro-gun lobbyists will concede that guns are used in
violent crimes, and that guns act as an enabler for criminals. It is
impossible to deny that mass shootings could not be carried out without
guns. This fact is generally the basis of the anti-gun movement. They
argue that since guns are commonly used in the commission of crimes, and
since guns are inherently dangerous because of their primary function
(the primary function being the destruction of the target), that guns
should therefore be outlawed. The pro-gun lobby counters this by saying
that law-abiding citizens using firearms protect themselves from
criminals 2.5 million times every year , and that there is a
correlation between increased gun ownership and a reduced crime rate
.
The arguments of the anti-gun lobby are generally based on
so-called "common-sense" and emotional pleading, with relatively few
statistics backing up their claims. They argue that the Second Amendment
to the Constitution is only giving the states the right to regulate
militia activity and therefore possess and "bear" arms . Some
of the more extreme anti-gun lobby advocate repealing the Second
Amendment altogether.
Since the most extreme advocates of gun control wish to ban guns
regardless of the Constitution, it becomes necessary to not just examine
the law of the land, and the courts interpretation, but also the
underlying philosophies of both sides of the debate. This is not to say
that the issue cannot be argued from a legal standpoint. In the past few
years, as class-action lawsuits have become more prevalent, some lawsuits
have been brought against gun manufacturers on the grounds that they
produce and distribute a dangerous product. In some cases, juries
decided for the plaintiffs, and thus set precedent for more anti-gun
suits. This hardly sets an actual legal precedent against the legality
of guns themselves. In fact, US v. Emerson, a case resolved just last
Spring, a federal appeals judge upheld under the Second Amendment the
right to own/possess a firearm even for a man who was under a restraining
order issued at his estranged wife's request . This
decision overturned a law in Texas that made it illegal for someone with
a restraining order to own/possess a gun. This decision was made in part
because the judge decided that the Second Amendment indeed said that an
individual has the right to "keep and bear arms", not just the state.
Any other argument regarding the legal rights of the individual under the
Second Amendment seem unnecessary, since the precedent of individual
rights has again been upheld.
Without any legal argument to speak of, the debate must now move to a
philosophical one. From a deontological perspective, the first question
to be posed is, "In regards to everyone in the world, is an act of
self-defense from loss of life or limb morally justified?" Few would
answer this question with anything other than "yes". The next question
that arises is, "Is it morally okay for everyone to possess a firearm for
use in self-defense?" The answer to this, without allowing for other
uses of firearms must be yes. To defend one's self is instinctually
right, and is rationally allowable as well. If threatened with a gun, it
is difficult to effectively defend one's self with anything other than a
gun . Thus for self-defense, guns meet the requirements of the
Categorical Imperative. The question then becomes, "What type of guns
should be allowed?" The answer cannot be easily given, unless one
arrives at an answer based entirely on the need
...
...