Gun Control: An Uneasy Balance

Gun Control: An Uneasy Balance

In the Practice of Ethics LaFollette attempts to answer if gun ownership is a right and he does so by balance a right against the safety of society (LaFollette, 2007). And I do tend to agree that owning a weapon is not a fundamental right in an ethical sense. LaFollette states that owning a gun does not advance a person in such a fashion as to improve their life or maintain their life (LaFollette, 2007) whereas food and access to shelter and clothing are fundamental rights a gun does not advance those rights, it can merely defend them.  Additionally citizenry can form together for protection and establish governments to provide for common interest and protection. All of that being said the right to self-defense is a fundamental right and in a country awash in firearms debating if they are fundamental rights is akin to closing the barn door after the horses have long left.

The gun control argument in the United States is one that is consistently re-ignited after one of the frequent mass shootings the US endures.  The problem is so prevalent that, for the US, one can find lists of mass shootings categorized by year. This post will not concern itself with discussing whether or not there is a problem with gun deaths in the US.  The CDC lists 33,726 firearm related deaths in its most current data. If another country were killing 33,000 US citizens a year there would be a call for war. The gun control argument is often subject to many false comparisons and logical fallacies. There are those that argue vehicles kill about the same number of people per year. While this may be true a vehicle’s sole purpose is not to kill or injure; and fatalities occur when a car is used improperly. Such fallacies can be discarded.

When discussing gun control it is better to focus on the statistics from guns themselves. There is a correlation between states that are considered to have looser firearm regulations (largely states that lean Right in governance) and firearm deaths: states that have looser restrictions on firearms tend to have greater numbers of per capita gun deaths.  Cities that border states with loose gun control laws, like Chicago does Indiana, also have high numbers of gun deaths as weapons are easily transportable across state lines. Hawaii, which is an island and has strict gun control laws, has the lowest number of per capita gun deaths.  Hawaii also has the benefit of being able to control its borders. The argument that gun control does not work is intellectually dishonest. While many who argue for gun control use other countries as examples and indeed Japan, Australia, Canada, France, The UK, and a host of other First World nations do have gun control laws and low gun death numbers; Hawaii is a US state.

The argument isn’t if gun control works because it can if it is evenly applied. The argument is how much regulation is appropriate. In Heller vs District of Columbia the Supreme Court ruled that states can regulate access to firearms.  This is balanced against the Second Amendment which allows for the private ownership of weapons.

Is it ethical to restrict firearm ownership? Yes it is. There are already restrictions on what a private person can legally own. You won’t see nuclear weapons listed for sale alongside pistols in your local gun store and access to automatic weapons or surplus military hardware is subject to very strict controls. It is ethical to restrict speech in the interest of public safety as there are laws against inciting riots or libel and slander. If one amendment can be restricted for safety than all can be restricted for safety to suggest that nothing be limited negates the point of having a law against anything. The argument that the second amendment is inviolate is emotional rather than logical. While there is a right to own firearms there can be limitations on what type and of what capacity. We have an ethical obligation to see to the safety of each other and the argument that large numbers of private firearm ownership guarantees that safety is also easily discarded. Anecdotal evidence that private firearm ownership prevents crime is easy to find. It makes sense that in a country where firearms outnumber the population the law of averages dictates that sooner or later a person will stop a crime. Actual, empirical evidence suggests that increased gun ownership increases the chances of crime (Pappas, 2015).

We are left with the usual detriment of democracy; that somehow an argument based on emotion and bad information is somehow equal to one based on reason and evidence.  Evidence strongly suggests that unregulated firearm ownership is hazardous to the safety of society. If we accept that it is morally ethical to wish that a society is safe than we must place limits on what people can and can’t do with weapons. If a person wishes to argue that the individual desires are placed above the safety of a society than they are arguing from a position of selfishness.

LaFollette, H. (2007). The practice of ethics. Malden, MA: Blackwell Pub.

All Injuries. (n.d.). Retrieved December 08, 2016, from http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/injury.htm

Firearm Mortality by State: 2014. (n.d.). Retrieved December 08, 2016, from http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/firearm.htm

Hawaii Gun Control Laws - FindLaw. (n.d.). Retrieved December 08, 2016, from http://statelaws.findlaw.com/hawaii-law/hawaii-gun-control-laws.html

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER. (n.d.). Retrieved December 08, 2016, from https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html

Pappas, S. (2015, July 6). Guns Don't Deter Crime, Study Finds. Retrieved December 08, 2016, from http://www.livescience.com/51446-guns-do-not-deter-crime.html