Thursday, March 5, 2020
Does Owning a Gun 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)
I think that while the literal phrase, "guns don't kill people, people kill people" is true, it must be acknowledged that guns make it significantly easier for individuals to do so. Also, this logic can be used for any physical weapon, which eliminates the purpose of restrictions. For example, the government could outlaw knives and use the argument: knives don't kill people, people kill people. The extremely literal interpretation of this defense is astounding, especially considering that gun violence is becoming a widespread issue within the United States. Thus, I do support background checks, as I believe that they provide a safeguard against dangerous individuals possessing firearms. For example, for individuals with violently expressive mental illnesses, the government must implement restrictions on their purchase of these weapons. In addition to background checks, I also support a ban on assault weapons. Assault weapons are military-grade, and there is no rational reason why an everyday citizen would need one of these weapons of destruction. For example, if an individual wants to hunt, there is no reason why they need to purchase an assault weapon, especially when there are less deadly options available. Although I do not believe that the inherent ownership of a gun causes harm, I believe that an assault weapon ban promotes societal safety. Specifically, for items such as poison and plutonium, there are no practical uses for these substances. An individual does not just have poison or plutonium for no reason. If I have plutonium in my possession, then I probably am not using it for anything beneficial. In the case of fertilizer, I believe it is good that stores require a signature. If an individual uses it for ill purposes, authorities can quickly find their name. In the case of the Harm to Others principle, I don't believe that this can justify restrictions on gun possession, as the mere possession does not indicate that harm to others has occurred. In the opinion of Mill, the government cannot restrict liberty unless an action directly causes harm to others. Thus, simply owning a gun does not justify the need for punishment/restriction, and Mill would not support the implementation of said restrictions.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteWhen it comes to gun ownership, Mill would assert that the government has little authority to prohibit the types of weapons people possess so long as those weapons have lawful uses. In the example Mill gives with poison, he states the government cannot restrict the sale of poison because they fear it could be used in a crime. Mill says that the power of government to ban things that have the potential to be used in the commission crime is prone to be abused since there are few liberties that cannot be used to facilitate a felony. Mill states that there is an exception to this, giving the example that if poison were only used to commit murders, then the government would be justified in prohibiting it. In the United States, the three most common reasons people own firearms are for defensive purposes, recreational shooting, and hunting. Guns that fall under the definition of assault weapons are commonly utilized for lawful purposes, and according to Mill, the government does not have the authority to prohibit them. Weapons that the government would be justified in banning are ones that possess no lawful uses such a rocket launcher. Under this principle, the government would be justified in prohibiting plutonium since do to its lack of legitimate lawful purposes. Additionally, the government would not be justified in banning ammonium nitrate fertilizer or poisons since they do have lawful uses such as farming or pest control. That is not to say they should be unregulated, the government would be justified in requiring buyers to provide their information. When it comes to purchasing a gun, under current federal law, buyers of firearms must be at least 18 to buy a long gun and 21 to buy a handgun. When it comes to the age of the buyer, Mill would assert that once a person is legally an adult, they should be allowed to purchase a gun. Furthermore, the buyer must complete a background check, which checks whether they meet specific legal criteria to own a firearm. Background checks are similar to the example with poison, in which the seller should be required to take down information from the buyer. Background checks are a justifiable restriction under the harm to others principle as a person with a criminal record is more likely to criminally misuse a firearm and harm others. Overall, the harm to others principle does not justify the prohibition of firearms as the simple act of possessing a firearm does not harm others. There are some limitations on the liberty as the government can justly prohibit items that possess virtually no lawful purposes as well as requiring the buyer to fill out paperwork.
To best understand the requisite for gun ownership I believe it is best to look at the philosophy of Robert Nozick. Nozick's philosophies extend from the esoteric and Western ideas of individuality and libertarianism to form a principle called self-ownership that should be paramount to all other values. Self-ownership is the fundamental idea that all people have the right to own themselves, their bodies, talents and abilities and use them to their furthest extent whenever they please unless they violate the rights of others. Such a view of human existence completely rules out a monopoly on force from the government because the existence of an armed state with no way of resistance paves the way for domination from the government and the eventual takeover of our self-ownership. Nozick establishes the principle that people should be able to own themselves and their property, thus, by extension, they should be allowed to own weapons as well. I believe that any restriction on our ability to own weapons in turn restricts our ability to own ourselves. Once we give the government absolute power on force and violence we essentially give up our freedom forever and leave our future up to the hope that the bureaucrats in the government will be virtuous and merciful and not oppress us forever. That is a risk I am not willing to take and in so far as we loose a part of ourselves when we take away our defense, restrictions on that right should be seen as not just taking away one of our rights, but taking away a fundamental part of ourselves. As for the principle that "guns don't kill people, people kill people" I think the logic behind it is sound, even though the phrase itself is cringeworthy. For example, I can kill someone with a bread knife so if we took the logic that knifes kill people then we shouldn't be allowed to have them. But of course we do allow knives because the decision to kill is the fault of the person and not the object. The only time we can restrict weapons is when that weapon poses a threat to the existence of our society. For example, a nuclear bomb or chemical weapons shouldn't be allowed to be owned because the existence of those weapons poses a threat to the very society we live in to the point that it is existential. However conventional weapons do not pose and existential risk to society and are a fundamental part of us owning ourselves so the ownership of guns should not be restricted.
ReplyDelete