In
Chapter 12 of The Practice of Ethics, LaFollette talks about gun control
(LaFollette, 2007). LaFollette discusses the various ethical dilemmas of gun
control. Is it ethical for citizens to have private ownership of guns? Do
citizens have a right to bear arms? Should there be stricter restrictions of
gun ownership? Are guns safe? Are guns deadly? These are some of the thought
provoking questions I found myself wondering about as I read the chapter.
According
to the US Constitution, the Second Amendment reads: “A well regulated Militia,
being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to
keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed” (Second Amendment, n.d.). In other
words, the private citizens of the United States have the right to bear arms.
The question is, is ethical for a private US citizen to own a gun? To be
honest, it is difficult to say for certain if it is moral for private citizens
to own guns. In one part of my belief, yes people have the right and the moral
obligation to defend themselves, family, and property from those who may
threaten their lives or livelihood.
In the other
hand, it is the job of law enforcement and the government to protect the US
citizens, so there is no moral obligation or necessity for a private citizen to
own a gun. Guns can cause great harm if used for the wrong purposes. They can
get stolen, end up in the wrong hands, be used to commit crimes, and cause
great harm to innocent people. There are many unfortunate occasions where guns
have been used to hurt others and unintentionally they have been used to hurt
and it has killed children. Situations like these are the types of situations
that make you wonder whether private citizens should own or be allowed to own
guns. Some people believe that when they surround themselves around objects
that can greatly cause harm, they fall into negative behaviors. Others argue
that the presence of a gun in a household greatly increases the possibility of
someone getting hurt.
But,
reflecting on this notion, sometimes police officers are too far away, do not
get to the scene of the crime on time, are called after the situation has
passed, etc. To be honest, I would rather have my right to bear arms because
after all, as the National Rifle Association says: “guns don’t kill people.
People kill people” (LaFollette, 2007). A gun cannot load itself, choose its
target, commit the crime, and pull the trigger all on its own. It is the person
holding the gun that has the intention, character, and choice to do such
harmful actions. But, even thinking about this causes me to believe that there
should be more restrictions in place to avoid unlawful use of guns.
A couple
of weeks ago, I was watching a Spanish show about the mediation of cases that
are too small to be held in a civil court. A retired army gentleman had
suffered numerous health problems to which he has to take many different types
of medication just to function properly in society. The moments that he forgets
to take his medication are the types of moments where he reverts back to the
life in Afghanistan. When this happens, he looses total notion of what is
currently happening.
The
issue in all this is that he has a right to own a gun and he has a son that
stays with him. The days that he forgets to take his medicine, he scares his
son with the gun trying to teach him to be a soldier. His actions are
unintentional but very risky. When he was watching the case evidence, he
realized and recognized that he does not remember such occasion or behavior. Thankfully,
no great harm has been done to the child but just the possibility of something
happening is too great to allow such an individual to own a gun. Moments and
situations like these make me believe that the government should implement more
restrictions. Individuals, who suffer of mental problems from the war, should
not be allowed to own guns.
“Household
gun ownership has declined to a record low of 34%; yet, in contrast, another
poll showed nearly 50% of houses self-reported having a gun on the property. In
any event, it remains that America still has the highest rate of private gun
ownership in the world. In 2012, the Department of Justice released a report
revealing that firearm homicides declined nearly 40% between 1993 and 2011, and
nonfatal firearm injuries declined nearly 70% within the same time period. In
fact, all firearm violence, both fatal and nonfatal, was lower the former year
than the latter” (If Guns Cause of More Crime, Why Isn't There More Of It?,
n.d.).
Overall,
the debate of whether private citizens should be allowed to own guns depends on
the moral principles of the person debating this topic. I agree to some extent that there should be
more gun restrictions and I agree that we should be able to exercise our moral
right to defend ourselves. Inkling believes that “these laws which the
government is proposing are not to protect you; they are to hinder you from
fighting back” (Inkling, n.d.). If the crime rate is down year after year, it
means more people are becoming responsible gun owners. Therefore, I do not see the
legal harm that owning a legally registered private gun can cause others.
Remember the “Guns don’t kill people. People kill people” (LaFollette, 2007).
Reference:
If Guns
Cause of More Crime, Why Isn't There More Of It?. (n.d.). The Federalist.
Retrieved July 24, 2014, from http://thefederalist.com/2014/01/16/if-guns-cause-more-violence-wheres-the-exploding-crime-rate/
Inkling,
A. (n.d.). Why Should Citizens be Allowed to Own Guns?. Teen Ink.
Retrieved July 24, 2014, from http://www.teenink.com/opinion/current_events_politics/article/576786/Why-Should-Citizens-be-Allowed-to-Own-Guns/
LaFollette,
H. (2007). Gun Control. The practice of ethics (pp. 179 - 195). Malden,
Mass.: Blackwell Publishing
Second
Amendment. (n.d.). Legal Information Institute. Retrieved July 24, 2014,
from http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/second_amendment
No comments:
Post a Comment