Saturday, February 24, 2018
Does Owning a Weapon Cause Harm?
In the wake of yet another lethal shooting in an American school, survivors and activists are again calling for greater restrictions on gun ownership. Groups have called for raising the legal age to purchase a gun to 21, create more thorough background checks for purchases and even banning assault rifles. Yet gun owners and groups that represent them have resisted such restrictions claim that "guns don't kill people, people kill people." Which position is correct? Are restrictions on gun ownership -- and even the prohibition of some kinds of guns -- justified? Does the ownership of a gun cause harm? How does it compare to things like the possession of dangerous material such as poison, fertilizer and plutonium? Can the Harm to Others Principle justify restrictions and/or prohibitions on gun possession?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The government should be responsible for regulating all gun ownership without the definitive prohibition of specific guns. The specialized prohibition of anything increases its likelihood in illegal markets, placing the individual and society at a greater risk. The foundation of Mill's arguments for using the Harm to Others Principle is that the individual must be free unless it affects others or hurts society. Mill's emphasis on personal liberty justifies the act of gun possession because the literal act of possessing is one's freedom, but the harm one commits should be restricted. An individual's ability to use guns aren't being restricted except for its storage, which remotely impacts the individual since it affects the gun when not in use. If the individual chooses to take the gun and hurt another then there is punishment based off of intent, but that no longer concerns the literal act of possession. Legislation should be proactive however to reduce the probability of needing punishment. Using a tiered system of qualifications would be restrictive not of the ownership but the type of gun; with thorough background checks to determine eligibility and regulations for certain guns for higher qualified people would promote a balance of individual liberty and concern for others and society. An average gun owner, once vetted, would be able to access say small firearms, hunting rifles, and small semiautomatic weapons, but law enforcement would use be given access to a higher grade weapon than this average person because they are given mandatory training, that they must pass, with this gun. This is logical for society's purpose, the individual is satisfied with the ability to own a gun and is given a range of which society deems appropriate and others who are more qualified, like successfully trained law enforcement, would be given access to better guns, which adds to their ability to protect that individual.
ReplyDeleteFirstly, one must recognize, regardless of their stance on the prohibiting of guns, that their needs to be an end to these horrid atrocities, better known as school shootings, which claim the lives of innocent students each year in this country. One must also recognize that of all the people who deserve to be murdered, children wishing to learn fall at the absolute bottom of this list, if one ever existed. It must be understood that I am a passionate enjoyer of guns, for one of my favorite activities, clay pigeon shooting, involves them, and that every single individual with whom I am acquainted that owns guns takes their possession of them very seriously; the places where their guns are kept are very secure, and once out of the safe, there are extremely strict rules about shooting them. I understand that certain groups are advocating to raise the legal age to purchase of possess a gun to twenty one, but I disagree; if individuals who are eighteen years of age can be enlisted into the military, I believe that same eighteen year old should be able to legally possess a firearm. Having said this, I do believe in background checks being performed on individuals wishing to purchase a gun. If sexual batter, for instance, appears on a background check of an individual wishing to purchase a firearm, or anything indicative of them either being a serious criminal or having a mental illness, I believe that particular individuals should not be allowed to purchase or possess a gun. I would say I agree with the saying, “guns don’t kill people, people kill people,” for many reasons. I believe that if someone has a mental illness and wishes to harm others, they will find a way to do so with or without the assistance of a gun. For example, suppose I wanted to commit a mass murder, I would have many options to go about doing so; I could shoot people, I could stab people, I could drive a car into people, etc. I think that if a crazy person is destined to kill, they will do so regardless of whether or not they have a gun; in other words they will find a way to kill. Having said this, I believe banning guns will not stop people destined to kill. Also, I must add that even if guns were banned, and the only weapon a person wanted to kill with was a gun, I believe they would be able to obtain one regardless of what the law says. All in all, I believe banning guns will not stop mass murders, or any kind of murder or form of violence. I also believe that owning a gun does not necessarily cause harm, and that it depends heavily on the type of person who owns it. I believe that simply keeping a secured gun in a house is not harmful, but I believe someone who leaves their loaded gun near their two-year-old child can result in harm. Guns do, in my opinion, compare to dangerous materials, such as poison, fertilizer and plutonium, because all can be used for non-harmful purposes. I believe that people, not weapons, harm people, meaning Mill’s Harm to Others principle cannot be applied to the ownership of a gun.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the government, an actor that must preserve the interests of broader society, should place restrictions on gun ownership for several reasons. Firstly, I believe that just the act of having a gun at your disposal promotes the risk of firearm homicide. According to Michael Siegel, a Professor in Community Health Sciences at Boston University, a 1% increase in gun possession resulted in an increase in firearm homicide by 0.9%. This is a frightening statistic that creates the case for gun ownership restriction. This disproportionate increase in gun violence as a result of gun ownership should fit under the Harm to Others Principle, therefore, demanding restrictions on gun ownership. Secondly, the security of an individual is not promoted by “good people” owning guns. If we used a macro analogy of this, we can look in the case of nuclear weapon proliferation. The scope and magnitude of these weapons are not comparable at all; however, they can provide an effective comparison of individual and community security. Under the aforementioned argument for gun ownership, every nation should be entitled to create their own weapons. If every nation could build nuclear weapons, they could prevent other nations from waging nuclear war. This is clearly not the correct response to security crises as allowing free development of nuclear weapons or free obtaining of guns does not defuse a crisis. Instead, they exacerbate existing instability on community levels. Just as poison, fertilizer, and plutonium are regulated by the FDA, DHS, and DOE respectively out of national security fears, why are gun ownership regulations lacking? Guns are much more prolific in violence and terrorist-related activities, so they should be regulated just as plutonium, fertilizer, and poison are. Thirdly, these restrictions do not severely reduce freedom to use guns. Raising the age for gun ownership clearly does not violate the Harm to Others Principle as Mill explicitly states “this doctrine is meant to apply only to human beings in the maturity of their faculties.” If 18 years old is empirically insufficient for complete maturation in the context of gun ownership, then Mill believes the restriction is perfectly justified. When weighing an individual’s life against the freedom of gun ownership, it is clear that preserving a life is far preferable to gun ownership. Taking a life means ending that individual’s life of freedom which outweighs any freedom gun ownership provides. To conclude, the Harm to Others Principle justifies restricting gun ownership as it presents a clear danger to other individuals, and the sacrifice of another individual’s lifetime of freedom far outweighs the freedom gun ownership has.
ReplyDeleteSiegel, Michael, Craig S. Ross, and Charles King. “The Relationship Between Gun Ownership
and Firearm Homicide Rates in the United States, 1981–2010.” American Journal of Public Health 103.11 (2013): 2098–2105. PMC. Web. 25 Feb. 2018.
Employing Mill’s ideologies from On Liberty, there ought to be increased regulation, if not prohibition, of gun ownership. Base on the harms to other principle, the responsibility of a government is not to tolerate maximum liberty, but rather to ensure the reduction of harm serves as a side constraint to liberties such as gun ownership. In order to evaluate what suffices a harm enough to restrain such liberty, we have to look at the magnitude of harm, the frequency of harm, and the extent of liberty restrained. First, regarding the magnitude of harm, one must realize the 2nd amendment argument is antiquated. Our founding fathers lived in an age where muskets and pistols could only fire 2 or 3 times per minute, not to mention the high chances of misfire rates. It explains why mass shootings in schools were never a concern in the 18th century. The magnitude of harm of guns have grown exponentially since the writing of the 2nd amendment, not to mention there is simply no need for any civil militia to fight the British colonial power at this point. Second, regarding the frequency of harm, for every time a gun in the home was involved in a self-protection homicide, there are 1.3 unintentional deaths, 4.5 criminal homicides, and 37 firearm suicides (LaFollete). This goes to show the potential benefits of one instance of self-protection are far outweighed from the irreversible harms of 43 instances of avoidable deaths. At this point of argumentation, it is more than clear that gun ownership causes harm to others. The debate shall proceed simply as to what extent can liberty be limited, which Mills specifically argues paternalism is permissible to restrain liberties of individuals like children or the mentally-ill. Currently, it is easier for children to buy a gun than it is to buy alcohol (Wheeler). The intoxication brought by alcohol is far less deadly than the direct and continuous penetration of a human body from bullets by an AR-15 shooting at 180 rounds per minute (Kehoe). Additionally, mentally-ill individuals are capable of purchasing guns too (Freeman). These two instances show that it is inexcusable to tolerate current gun laws. Moreover, if the liberty of gun ownership—the liberty to feel the adrenaline rush at a shooting range—is literally depriving 17 people’s liberty to do anything, to even breathe, we see a gross imbalance of liberties: the NRA’s liberty defend an outdated amendment costing the irreversible deprivation of liberties caused by tragic, gruesome, and avoidable deaths.
ReplyDeleteWork Cited
Freeman, Marc. “Why Can Some Mentally Ill People Still Buy Guns?” Sun-Sentinel.com, 25 Feb. 2018, www.sun-sentinel.com/local/broward/parkland/florida-school-shooting/fl-pn-gun-laws-mental-illness-background-checks-20180222-story.html.
LaFollette, Hugh. [Professor in Ethics, University of South Florida], “Gun Control”, Ethics Vol. 110, 2000.
Kehoe, Tom. “How Many Rounds Does a Semi-Automatic Rifle Fire per Minute?” Quora, 21 July 2016, www.quora.com/How-many-rounds-does-a-semi-automatic-rifle-fire-per-minute'.
Wheeler, Lydia. “What Are the Legal Ages for Buying Guns?” The Hill, 22 Feb. 2018, thehill.com/homenews/politics-101/375154-what-are-the-current-age-restrictions-on-guns.
Simply put by John Stuart Mill the Harm to Others principle states, “The sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.” Liberals today argue that gun bans are justified by this principle, that this could be a solution to fact that, “It's not even two full months into 2018 and there have already been 17 school shootings — more than twice as many as this time last year.” (https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/14/florida-school-shooting-brings-yearly-tally-to-18-in-2018.html) While I’m unsure if this stance is true, I believe that there is a more convincing justification for a gun ban: the Harm to Self principle. This principle is best put by Gerald Dworkin as, “giving the legislative powers of a society the right to impose restriction on what Mill calls ‘self-regarding’ conduct… [Although] there must be a heavy…burden of proof…to demonstrate the… harmful effects…to be avoided and the probability of their occurrence.” A gun ban is justified by this principle for two reasons. First, owning guns poses a threat to children (a child being a person under fifteen years of age). The New York Times reports, “[A] review of hundreds of child firearm deaths found that accidental shootings occurred … [in] 259 accidental firearm deaths of children …in eight states where records were available.” (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/29/us/children-and-guns-the-hidden-toll.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0) Hundreds of children die each year because they accidently shoot themselves with legal guns. These children do not mean to hurt themselves, in some instances they are merely three years old and have no idea what they are doing. While the conservative argument, "guns don't kill people, people kill people," is sometimes true, in the case of hundreds of American children killed every year, sometimes it is the guns. The second reason why I think a gun ban is justified under the Harm to Self principle is the more obvious issue of suicide. Suicide via gun is actually very common in the U.S. as the Washington Post states, “Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data shows that in 2012 there were 20,666 suicides by gun. That works out to one self-defense killing for every 78 gun suicides.” Some might argue that people would commit suicide regardless of the availability of guns but statistics prove that, “A 2009 meta-analysis …found that policies that influenced the firearm ownership rate had the most prominent effect on suicide rates….for every 10% decline in the household firearm ownership rate,… total suicides dropped by 2.5%. The decline in suicide rates was highest among children.” (http://www.armedwithreason.com/debunking-the-guns-dont-kill-people-people-kill-people-myth/) The logical warrant for this is that some suicide attempts people can be saved from, such as calling an ambulance minutes after someone ingested a large amount of pills, whereas other suicide attempts such as gun use are irreversible. Because of these two reasons which uphold Dworkin’s principle, I think the United States should employ a gun ban.
ReplyDeleteIdeally, owning a weapon shouldn't be a problem. However, violence and the lack of equality has plagued our society with outcomes turning out to become near-massacres. The question itself is complex in its own right, but the answer can be summarized with one word: yes.
ReplyDeleteIt is widely accepted that the government's sole purpose is to serve and protect its people. In doing so, paternalism is granted in certain situations after one elects to become a citizen or integrated member of society. As such, it is important to analyze Mill's Harm to Others Principle when he states, “The sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.” Mill recognizes that restriction of rights should be limited to situations where an individual is threatening the freedoms and liberties of another. In the status quo, the right to arms is a controversial and important right of all citizens in the United States. The second amendment allows individuals to protect themselves, but also creates a more dangerous situation. With citizens able to buy rifles at the age of 18, shootings are inevitable in our society. With current events, I find that it is unecessary to provide an explanation as to why they are inevitable when neither the government nor the NRA have succeeded to reduce the threats to the lives of students around the nation. Dworkin states that "Paternalism is justified only to preserve a wider range of freedom for the individual in question." Similar to Mil's Harm ot Others Principle, Dworkin's ideals regarding paternalism revolve around the rights of each individual. When someone gains access to weapons, they then gain the ability to claim the lives of others. Though it is undeniable that there is definitely a benefit in exercising the second amendment, there is too much responsibility that accompanies it for an 18 year old. Ultimately, a compromise is required to find a solution that siginficiantly reduces the threat of guns to the lives of children while still maintaining the second amendment. Dworkin suggests "that we would be most likely to consent to paternalism in those instances in which it preserves and enhances for the individual his ability to rationally consider and carry out his own decisions." Increasing the age limit, legallly enforcing restrictions over the ownership of arms, and creating deterences for the mentally-ill is what the people-what the children-need. Gun reform is overdue and it is critical that our government secures the lives of tomorrow.
According to Mill, gun prohibitions would be justified because a gun is similar to poison in the way that it can be used to harm others. Mill would disagree with the direct prohibition of guns because that would infringe on personal liberties because a dangerous item can serve other purposes. Even though guns have been used in most acts of terror in America, guns can help provide protection and a way to defend oneself. Because of this, I think guns should have stricter regulations that include more thorough background checks and raising the legal age for purchasing them. In the example Mill gives with poison, he agrees with regulations such as a registry for those who purchase it in the case that it is used for crime. He argues though that the government prohibiting things in order to prevent crimes will only lead to government abuse and the reduction of liberty. According to this idea, Mill would think that prohibiting assault rifles would lead to the government prohibiting all guns and stripping Americans of their second amendment right. I agree with Mill because if banning assault rifles follows the trend of what happened during prohibition, assault rifles would just become more accessible illegally. I do however think that assault rifles are unnecessary and lead to more violence, so immediate and long term solutions for this problem are vital.
ReplyDeleteNo one can argue that the government does not have the duty to protect its citizens from harms. The motivation for humans to leave an anarchic state of nature is so that they can be guaranteed protection from offenses they may be unable to prevent themselves, and in return, they give up some of their rights in order to allow the government to take authority in these cases of protection. Under this this definition of the government, I argue that not only would it be justified to restrict gun ownership, but also to ban guns entirely. First is the premise that guns are not inherently harmful. However, this argument is self-defeating for those who advocate for gun use for self-defense. If private gun ownership is useful to prevent crime or arm a militia, it is because they are designed to threaten and inflict harm. While many other common items (i.e., cars) can easily cause harm, they do not have the primary use of causing harm, unlike guns. Even those who use guns for sport recognize that it is the act of destruction (whether it be a deer or a clay pigeon) for which they use a gun. Further on the topic of self-defense, guns are a poor mechanism for self-defense; the gun is often used against the victim; studies show that the odds of an assault victim were 4.5 times higher if the victim was carrying a gun (AJPH). And, the harms outweigh the benefits. As the Washington Post found, “In 2012, there were 8,855 criminal gun homicides in the FBI's homicide database, but only 258 gun killings by private citizens that were deemed justifiable, which the FBI defines as "the killing of a felon, during the commission of a felony, by a private citizen." That works out to one justifiable gun death for every 34 unjustifiable gun deaths.” On net, guns are hurting citizens, not helping them. Additionally, the logic of safely securing guns as well as using them for self-defense is nonsensical. If your home is broken into and you are facing a dangerous intruder, either your gun is readily accessible for use and therefore minimally secured, or it is safely secured, and cannot be accessed quickly enough to use in self-defense. Though advocates may also believe that these are due to unsafe gun practices, that is also untrue. First, many accidental gun deaths occur even when the correct protocol is followed. The incident a few years ago when a woman was shot and killed by her toddler was a registered and trained gun user, and had her gun stored in a designated firearm carrier deemed to be safe for concealed carry without incident. Or, eliminating background check loopholes (such as purchasing at gun shows) is also ineffective. As the Center for Public Integrity found, lying about one’s background to purchase guns is common; so common that it often evades prosecution. “Among the 67,000 people who failed background checks conducted directly by the FBI in 2009, fewer than 70 ever faced criminal charges… Justice officials cited a lack of resources” (CPI).
ReplyDeleteFurthermore, not having easy access to an extremely lethal weapon will reduce gun crimes. There is a limited time-to-crime rate after purchasing a gun, the impulsive decision to kill another person is often poorly thought out. By banning guns or making them extremely difficult to access, these impulsive kills will be impossible (it is far more difficult to impulsively, say, strangle someone; shooting a gun distances the perpetrator from the crime, and is far easier to commit). Finally, as The New York Times found that escalation in domestic violence situations is often deadly for women when a gun is present in the household, “when a gun is present in a domestic violence situation, the risk of homicide increases by 500 percent. Of the 1,615 women murdered by men in 2013… handguns [were] the most popular tool of choice” (NYT). Overall, it is obvious that guns make harm to others far more accessible and likely, and creates harms that could not otherwise exist. Therefore, the harm to others principle absolutely justifies restrictions on guns.
DeleteSources:
Investigating the Link Between Gun Possession and Gun Assault. American Journal of Public Health, November 2009
Ingraham, Christopher. “Why it’s never ‘the right time’ to discuss gun control.” July 27, 2015. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/07/27/why-its-never-the-right-time-to-discuss-gun-violence/?utm_term=.4a2c2d1e8a5e
Schmitt, Rick. “Badly flawed background check system fails to contain firearms sales” The Center for Public Integrity. June 23, 2011. https://www.publicintegrity.org/2011/06/23/4982/badly-flawed-background-check-system-fails-contain-firearms-sales
Maloney, Allison. “The “Boyfriend Loophole” in U.S. Gun Laws is Costing Women’s Lives.” New York Times. September 18, 2015. http://nytlive.nytimes.com/womenintheworld/2015/09/18/the-boyfriend-loophole-in-u-s-gun-laws-is-costing-womens-lives/
Owning a firearm does not equate to levels of violence or intent to commit a crime. Restrictions on guns cannot be justified by the harm to others principle simply because there is no harm that stems from just owning a gun. Current policy already answers many of the calls for reform by citizens, and the problem is a cause of the lack of enforcement that would prevent those incapable of responsibly owning guns from attaining them. The harm to others principle would apply if firearms’ only purpose was to unjustly take lives, but firearms have several practical uses such as home defense, self-defense, hunting and protection from a tyrannical government. This is why it is illogical to compare owning or purchasing a gun to buying poison or harmful chemicals; the most common use of poison is for mischievous or malevolent acts, while guns save far more lives in the US annually than they take. According to a survey done by the Center for Disease Control, “Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year.” The CDC also reports that there are roughly 11,000 gun related, non-suicide deaths in the US annually, so at its lowest point of roughly 500,000 there are still exponentially more lives saved by guns than there are taken. The harm to others principle does not justify the restriction of access to firearms because not only are there many practical uses for guns, but if anything they prevent more harm than they cause.
ReplyDelete