Abstract
Over the years, there have been endless debates over implementation of gun control laws in the United States. These debates have been precipitated by horrendous acts of gun violence committed by licensed gun holders. Consequently, the issue of gun control has become a major public policy issue in a nation caught between gun violence and resistance to limitations on private citizen’s ability to bear arms. The most ethically interesting discourse in this debate is whether, in modern times, the state should regulate the ability of civilian to purchase, own and use arms. This paper has evaluated this issue from different ethical principles. The paper has made the conclusion that people should be allowed to possess arms for self-defense but that there should be laws to regulate how the arms are used.
Introduction
Gun violence is a common crime and a leading cause of death in the United States. Statistics indicate that Americans are fifteen times more likely to be killed by a gun than citizens in other developed countries are. It is estimated that there are currently 300 million guns in the hands of American citizens or roughly one gun per person. Each day, tens of people are killed by guns in the United States and about thrice that number are left with grievous injuries. Notable acts of gun violence such as the Columbine High School massacre (1999) and the Virginia Tech shooting (2007) made many people understand the nature of the existentialist threat posed by gun violence. These worrying trends and statistics have raised concerns about the safety of Americans. Accordingly, gun control has been touted as the most effective remedy.
As used in the United States, the term gun control refers to any legislative action taken by the federal, state or local government to regulate the sale, purchase, safety, servicing and use of firearms by private citizens. Currently, gun controls laws are weakly enforced in the United States. Attempt to make the laws more stringent have elicited varied responses regarding the legitimacy of gun control laws and their effectiveness in reducing crimes. The social and political debates regarding the question of how much gun control should be allowed have polarized the American society. Some people feel that implementation of gun control laws is a waste of time and resources because the laws cannot end violent crimes. Proponents argue that although no law can eliminate all deaths and injuries caused by guns, it is reasonable to assume that strict and well-enforced laws can reduce incidences of gun violence.
Arguments against Gun Control
The Constitutionalism argument
Opponents of strict gun control laws argue that such laws are a violation of the Second Amendment of the US Constitution. The Amendment states that the right of citizens to bear arms should not be violated. Here, the Constitution establishes and affirms the right of private citizens to purchase, possess and use firearms to defend themselves and their properties. It can also be argued that the second amendment enables citizens to protect themselves from the tyranny of the government. Therefore, stricter gun control laws are unconstitutional, at least as far as the second amendment is concerned (Pierce, Braga & Wintemute, 2015).
Villaveces (2000) has rebutted the constitutionalism argument stating that the right to bear arms does not imply the assertion of unlimited or absolute right. In thinking about gun control laws and rights, it is important to understand that all rights granted in the US Constitution are limited in scope and that most of them are subject to overriding. It is for this reason that underage citizens (young children), mentally ill people and persons convicted of violent crimes are not allowed to possess arms. These limitations fall within the confines of the Second Amendment. Sometimes, the right to bear arms as provided for in the Second Amendment can be overridden by taking into account interests of public welfare.
The Moral Rights Argument
Some people argue that the right to use arms for self-defense is a fundamental (basic) moral right that should not be violated by any legislation (gun control laws). As a fundamental moral right, it exists independent of the Constitution or any other laws. Therefore, legal regimes are required to protect the right to bear arms as one of the various fundamental human rights such as the right to life. The status of the right to bear arms as basic implies that it can only be subject to minimal restrictions such as limiting eligibility to adults or law-abiding citizens.
According to Rosengart (2005), moral rights (though fundamental) are not absolute. Their enjoyment is dependent on an individual meeting certain minimum conditions such as mental health and criminal background checks, required safety courses, competency in using firearms and gun liability insurance. Meeting these requirements allows for those who are competent to own firearms to use in self-defense as a fundamental human right. This consideration would make it more likely that individual gun owners will enjoy their right responsibly. Another reason for this line of reasoning is that there is overwhelming evidence to support the notion that restrictive gun laws are effective in fighting crimes. As such, the moral rights argument is rebutted on the basis that allowing everybody to own and use guns with no restrictions can lead to potential misuse and thus cause more harm than good.
Positive Case for Gun Control
The Consequentialist Argument
The consequentialist case for gun control focuses on the argument that the consequences of using guns are undesirable. Consequences are the primary purpose why the government is contemplating to regulate gun usage in the United States. Given the right for private citizens to bear arms, the consequentialist argument for gun control appeals to gun’s dangerousness and the potential for abuse. Thus, while the consequentialist argument does not favor ban on ownership and use of guns, it does focus on the the consequences of using guns. To the consequentialist, ownership of guns is not wrong so long as the guns can be put to the most effective use. For example, defending people and their properties and elimination of crimes are good uses of firearms. Based on this reasoning, guns should not be banned. On the other hand, if ownership and use of guns can result in death, injury, tension or chaos, then it is right for the government to regulate the firearms (Pierce, Braga & Wintemute, 2015).
According to Rosengart (2005), it is up to the society to decide what things and behaviors are inherently dangerous. The same society has a moral duty to make those things and behaviors less dangerous within the constraints of the law and respect for other people’s rights. Thus, the consequentialist argument for gun control takes cognizant of the fact that addressing society’s interests in individual safety is paramount. Otherwise, the consequences of allowing unregulated use of firearms can be a great threat for the harmony of the society. Villaveces (2000) supports the consequentialist view by arguing that the presence of guns at the hands of civilians makes the society less safe than it could be in gun free situations. Available evidence supports Villaveces’views. For example, in the United States where gun control laws are minimal and weakly enforced, gun violence is a major threat to public safety. In fact, most of the people who commit gun violence crimes in the United States are registered gun owners. Therefore, gun violence is a direct consequence of not regulating gun ownership and usage in the country.
The Utilitarianism Argument
The utilitarianism theory of ethics states that individuals and the society should at all times act in a manner that results in the greatest good for the greatest number of people. According to this theory, actions, behaviors and laws are good so long as they promote happiness for as many people as possible and bad if they result in lack of happiness. Under the utilitarianism argument, gun control laws are good if they result in some form of good for the society not just an individual. Evidence suggests that gun ownership for the purpose of self-defense tends to be self-defeating because it exacerbates rise of violent crimes. In fact, a study by Pierce, Braga and Wintemute (2015) showed that American households, on average face a higher likelihood of suffering a gun related death if the house contains a firearm. Therefore, under the utilitarianism principle, it is imperative that the government implements legislations to regulate use of firearms.
The utilitarianism argument takes into account the fact that even in the absence of gun control laws, it is possible for guns to be used responsibly. However, this depends on important aspects such user’s knowledge of gun safety, safety features of the guns, socio-economic circumstances and other aspects. As things stand, nonetheless, gun ownership in the United States is strongly correlated with gun violence including suicides. Therefore, the benefits of owning guns are outweighed by the need to control gun ownership. In effect, legislating gun control can result in optimal utility for the greatest number of people than the current situation.
The Societal Obligation Argument
This argument is premised on the reasoning that everybody has a right to physical security and that this right must be protected by the society. In other words, it is up to the society to ensure that each and every person therein enjoys maximum security as individuals and in groups. The government is part of the society and therefore has a duty to provide security to its citizens. However, the government cannot just provide security by allowing people to posses and use guns as they wish. Rather, the government should implement appropriate law and control mechanisms to ensure that even though individuals can use guns for self-defense, they do so with the greater aim of promoting the interests of the society. The argument here is that gun control is an imperative obligation on the part of the government. Any action in the contrary would result in irresponsible gun use behaviors, as is the case currently in the United States (Rosengart, 2005).
According to Villaveces (2000), governments drive their mandates from the society and exist to protect and promote the interests of the society. The most compelling of these interests is security. Without security, a society cannot exist. The crucial point here is that individual’s right to security need to be enforced by a higher authority if they are to be honored in the society. Enforcement by a higher authority, of course, brings in the government. With regard to the threat of gun violence, it is the prerogative of the government to take all steps necessary to tame the vice. This includes making legislations to curb gun violence as well as purchase and ownership of guns. In general, if the government (and hence the society) allows people to use guns without any restrictions, then victims of gun violence can be said to be victims of the government’s negligence. In an ideal situation, no government would want such a thing to happen. This is the reason why government take measures to check and contain ownership and use of guns by private citizens.
Conclusion
My position on this divisive subject is that private citizens should be allowed to bear arms, and that the government should take necessary measures to ensure that guns possessed by private citizens are used responsibly. This means that the government should not ban ownership and use of guns by private citizens. Allowing people to own firearms will ensure that they take responsibility for their own lives and the safety of their properties. This can only be achieved in an environment of government supervision. By controlling purchase, ownership and use of firearms, the government will ensure that privately owned guns are used solely for the purpose for which they are supposed to be used. In addition, gun control can result in a reduction in the number of people using guns for criminal purposes.
References
Pierce, G. L., Braga, A. A. & Wintemute, G. J. (2015). Impact of California firearms sales laws and dealer regulations on the illegal diversion of guns. Injury prevention : journal of the International Society for Child and Adolescent Injury Prevention, 21 (3), 179–84.
Rosengart, M. (2005). An evaluation of state firearm regulations and homicide and suicide death rates. Injury Prevention, 11 (2), 77–83.
Villaveces, A. (2000). Effect of a Ban on Carrying Firearms on Homicide Rates in 2 Colombian Cities. JAMA, 283 (9), 1205.
