A634.8.3.RB - Gun Control: What is the Answer?

Citizens should have a right to bear arms — but with restrictions.

When it comes to gun control, I subscribe to the theory of moderate abolition (MA) (LaFollette, p. 179), the belief that, although gun ownership should be allowed, that right comes with an asterisk. The rules surrounding guns must be stricter. Essentially, I subscribe to the belief that rights come with inherent limitations, and guns are no different. “My right to free religious expression gives me wide discretion in how I exercise my religion. … (but) it does not permit me to sacrifice humans” (LaFollette, p. 180). When one person’s rights begin infringing on other people’s rights, the system must be rethought, even restructured.

Currently a constitutional right, gun ownership in America is such a heated debate partly, I believe, because of how deep-seated the issue is in the concept of the “American spirit.” America is a nation that values autonomy, and its right to protect that autonomy, which serves as argument enough for some to believe that gun ownership is fundamental to the American experience. But is that rational?

In some ways, yes. If gun ownership is seen by many as a part of the country’s heritage and tradition, and abolishing them would not be wanted by the majority, it seems reasonable to maintain that freedom. Let people keep their hunting rifles and hobby guns, and draw the line at semi- and fully-automatic weapons. Even as lower-power firearms are concerned, though, we wouldn’t extend the same heritage argument to, say, personal-use explosives or even drugs, if they were seen in a similar way — a contradiction that forces us to acknowledge the argument’s holes.

LaFollette (2007) discusses the old cliché that “guns don’t kill people, people do” (P. 183-184), and although that argument is also flawed, it serves as a good springboard for analyzing the risk and danger of guns. Undoubtedly, guns are dangerous — but not only because of their function but because of what they represent. Meant for hunting and/or self-defense, guns have associated risks that, say, knives don’t have. Adults have little risk of accidentally killing themselves with a knife, for instance, and although a knife could be used as a murder weapon, it has nowhere near the capacity to inflict the kind of damage seen in mass shootings.

In these ways, the conversation surrounding gun control has very little to do with actual guns. It has more to do with society, and government’s primary responsibility to keep its people safe. “Gun control does not concern what private individuals should do, but what government should allow private individuals to do (LaFollette, p. 185). The argument that guns should be left alone because they are a constitutional right is faulty because constitutional amendments are, by their very name, open to tweaks and reinterpretations. The argument that guns are necessary for self-defense, even, is weak being that guns generally are not known to diffuse situations. “The one correlation in the gun control debate that is seemingly beyond dispute is the high correlation between the presence of guns – especially handguns – and homicide rates” (LaFollette, p. 193).

And so what argument is justified in this debate? To me, the concept of protecting freedoms valued by the majority is valuable, and also is the concept of protecting the majority’s right to safety. Finding a line in the middle of those two necessities is the key. Taking for granted the idea that removing every gun from the market (and from people’s homes) is simply unrealistic, it’s important that we focus instead on the elements of this situation that are controllable. At the moment, the one action we can take that works toward protecting the rights of people on both sides of this debate — the right to preserve tradition, and the right to safety — is to enforce tighter restrictions that remove high-powered firearms from the market while maintaining the rights to rifles and hobby guns.

The Opposing Side

The opposing side of the gun control debate — the side that argues for full abolition — is much simpler to articulate. Rather than dealing in abstract theories and a discussion of concepts like heritage, rights vs. privileges, and freedom, this side of the debate is data-driven.

According to ABC News, there was a total of 323 mass shootings in America this year (Jeffrey, 2018). A mass shooting, in this case, is defined as an event where four or more people were killed by one lone shooter (although two shooters are counted in a few of the 323 events cited). Simply, that number is staggering. It illustrates a clear problem in the country, and although its cause is not the right to own guns alone, it is clear that gun ownership has played a major role in perpetuating this pattern.

In short: Something needs to change.

In 2017, the United States recorded a similar total of mass shootings, at 346 (Jeffrey, 2018). Clearly, these numbers prove that society at large is being negatively impacted by citizens’ open access to guns. Too many people are losing their right to safety in order for gun owners to preserve their right to tradition. In the face of these numbers, it is easy to see that laws and restrictions haven’t worked. The only answer, then, is full abolition

References

Jeffrey, C. (2018). Mass shootings in the U.S.: When, where they have occurred in 2018. Retrieved from https://www.abc15.com/news/data/mass-shootings-in-the-us-when-where-they-have-occurred-in-2018

LaFollette, H. (2007). The Practice of Ethics. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.