Just as LaFollette says, I believe that there is a “range of alternatives” when it comes to gun control options (LaFollette, 2007). “Our choice is not merely to support or oppose gun control, but to decide who can own which guns, under what conditions” (LaFollette, 2007).
LaFollette proposes a couple of keys topics that help to navigate the way through the issue. The first topic is whether the citizens have a right to bear arms (LaFollette, 2007). My stance on this question is that, yes, citizens do have the right to bear arms as a policy forbidding gun ownership completely feels to extreme. However, I appreciated the distinction provided by Tushnet in his article in The New England Journal of Medicine: there is a difference between gun ownership with the thought of “bearing arms in connection with service in an organized militia” and knowing that “the second part of the Amendment protects an individual right, no different in kind from the right of free speech protected by the First Amendment” (Tushnet, 2008). In my opinion, there is an individual right that supports private protection but I draw the line when gun ownership is used for aggression and violence.
The second major topic that LaFollette bring us are the high level of murders and whether guns are to blame. Of course, it is not the guns that are murdering people, it is people that do the murdering. “In 2007 to 2008, the United States experienced 78,622 (25.87 per 100 000) nonfatal firearm injuries and 31,224 (10.36 per 100 000) fatalities, of which 40% were homicides, 55.6% suicides, and 2% unintentional deaths” (Gostin, 2010). To me, stats like this demonstrate that guns in this country are not being used for the private protection that I spoke of earlier. Therefore, it leads me to the big question.
The next topic is if the government should curtail private gun ownership. According to LaFollette, there are two factors to consider: autonomy and risk (LaFollette, 2007). Personal autonomy and the ability to make independent decisions and the risk that gun ownership can have on other people. In my opinion, there are certain parameters that should be in place prior to selling a gun. Including time frames of expressing interest and possession, background checks and even personal history.
If people are denied gun ownership, which group(s) of people are ethical to deny? LaFollette presents an argument that says felons should be denied gun ownership because their past behavior forfeits their right to own guns, which makes sense to me (LaFollette, 2007). The other consideration is a history of mental illness. Since “suicides consistently claim nearly twice as many lives as firearm homicides every year” it would be logical that we, as a society, would try to help people by preventing access to firearms if they have mental illness (Gold & Simon, 2016).
While I realize that groups do support the right to bear arms without any restrictions and they have their arguments in relation to freedom and what the constitution says verbatim, it is hard for me to believe that we should applying a centuries-old document to today’s issues and problems. That is not to mention the technology that is in some of our guns and the increased damage that could be done.
It is a complicated topic but one that we need to address as a society.
References:
LaFollette, H. (2007). The practice of ethics. Malden, MA: Blackwell Pub.
Tushnet, M., J.D. (2008). Interpreting the right to bear arms -- gun regulation and constitutional law. The New England Journal of Medicine, 358(14), 1424-6. doi:http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.libproxy.db.erau.edu/10.1056/NEJMp0801601
Gostin, L. O. (2010). The right to bear arms: A uniquely american entitlement. JAMA : The Journal of the American Medical Association, 304(13), 1485-1486. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2010.1419
Gold, L., & Simon, R. (2016). Gun violence and mental illness (First edition.). American Psychiatric Association Publishing.
Comments
Post a Comment