Gun Control: What is the Answer?
There is and has been much controversy over gun ownership and the regulation of ownership for many years. I think the debate on whether or not U.S. citizens have the right to bear arms will continue on for some time, but not because of rights afforded us, but because many believe we have a moral right to bear arms. Rights must refer to a right provided by the local, state or federal government, or as an inherent right, such as the right to defend ourselves. If we thought it enough to defend ourselves with a stick, then so be it, however, our society has provided experiences telling us that a stick will not be enough. "Now a reasonable means of self-defense is one that is able to reliably, effectively and practically deliver a proportionate amount of force in response to a threat of harm. Guns seem to clearly satisfy this description...This isn't just armchair theorizing either: there is overwhelming agreement within the empirical literature that guns are extremely effective in self-defense and are used frequently for this purpose" (Hsiao, 2018).
So if we may have a moral right to bear arms, why the need for a constitutional amendment? As we understand our New England history, families always bore arms in support of defending one's self, family and personal property. Based on this I would speculate that our Founding Fathers wanted to ensure that this moral right was afforded to future generations that may not come from the same democratic beliefs of the day. In line with this, I do believe a citizen's moral right to own firearms ought to be recognized and honored at the local, state and federal government levels. "If guns didn't protect anyone from assault and didn't work for hunting, they wouldn't have their present value. This suggests that gun rights must be (1) derivative from more general rights and (2) contingent upon them serving certain purposes. In societies in which guns do not serve such purposes related to any basic rights, there is no moral right to gun ownership. But, once again, we have assumed there is such a right in the US today" (DeGrazia, 2014). However, exercising this right comes with great responsibility, and with such responsibility must come oversight as it pertains to thorough background investigations.
Society has changed so much since the late 18th century, we implement processes in support of protecting other citizens against those applying for certain types of firearms. In addition, policies regulating such ownership of these firearms ought to do so in accordance with local ordinances. Barry et al. (2018) states, "Policies with high public support and minimal support gaps by gun ownership status included universal background checks, greater accountability for gun dealers unable to account for their inventory, higher safety training standards for concealed carry permit holders, improved reporting of records related to mental illness for background checks, gun prohibitions for persons subject to temporary domestic violence restraining orders, and gun violence restraining orders."
On the other hand, if the state and federal governments made owning a firearm illegal, save those jobs entailing security and law enforcement, perhaps crimes conducted with firearms would no longer be an issue. However, I cannot see how the government can regulate the black market, ensuring firearms never fall into the 'wrong' hands. With the onset of 3D printing, it goes to show that innovation too can create supply and demand markets. Society has shown us all that in the absence of laws and regulation, such activities will occur. Nonetheless, if firearms were removed from society and banned from manufacturing for consumers, I think there would be much less firearm-related crimes. Jehan et al., (2018) share, " The United States ranks number one in the list of countries with most privately owned guns with 101 guns for every 100 individuals. This has resulted in the loss of 32 lives and the treatment for 140 people every single day for gun-related violence. The overall economic burden associated with gun violence actually exceeds more than $100 billion dollars every year."
Perhaps what we think is moral, based on our basic rights to pursue life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, is not in fact basic. LaFollete (2007) states, "A fundamental right is a non-derivative right protecting a fundamental interest...I see no compelling reason to think owning a gun is a fundamental interest." However, he also goes on to share, "Wheeler disagrees. He argues that the right to bear arms is fundamental since guns are the best way to protect our fundamental interest in self-defense (1997)."
References:
Barry, C. L., D., Webster, D. W., Stone, E, Crifasi, C. K., Vernick, J. S., & McGinty, E. E. (2018, July.). Public support for gun violence protection policies among gun owners and non-gun owners in 2017. American Journal of Public Health. Retrieved from https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/full/10.2105/AJPH.2018.304432
DeGrazia, D. (2014, March.). The case for moderate gun control. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal, 24(1), 1-25. Retrieved from https://search-proquest-com.ezproxy.libproxy.db.erau.edu/docview/1523893593?pq-origsite=summon
Hsiao, T. (2018, October 31.). Natural rights, self-defense, and the right to own firearms. The Journal of the Witherspoon Institute. Retrieved from https://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2018/10/42765/
LaFollete, H. (2007). The practice of ethics. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
No comments:
Post a Comment