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

Often, we become so entrenched with our own beliefs based on the values that we hold that we unable to even entertain contrary ideas. We draw a line in the sand and take our stand. It is okay to vehemently defend our beliefs. In fact, by defending our beliefs, we are able to better support and refine them so that they are more relevant to our lives (LaFollette, 2007). What I absolutely love about studying ethics in this class is that it helps me to open my mind and see that my views are not the only relevant views. I am able to better empathize with those that hold different beliefs and I realize that it has nothing to do with morality but rather the individual situations in which people find themselves. One such issue is on gun control.

For as long as I can remember, I have been around guns. I was taught when I was a child how to handle both rifles and handguns. Though never a fan of hunting – I can’t stand the thought of harming an animal (though I am not a vegetarian) – I have always been a strong advocate of firearms and the 2^nd Amendment. To me, this has never been an issue of ethics but rather an issue of rights. Like I said, though, studying ethics has really opened my mind to the other side of just about every argument, including this one.

When we consider rights, there are actually different kinds of rights. Now this took me a minute to understand but it actually makes sense. Though the 2^nd Amendment is in the U.S. Constitution, it isn’t a fundamental right. “A fundamental right is non-derivative right protecting a fundamental interest. Not every interest we individually cherish is fundamental” (LaFollette, 2007, p. 180). In other words, just because something is in my best interest and is cherished by me, it may not be in the best interest of all. Another polarizing heated debate that illustrates this is with healthcare. Though affordable healthcare is important and is of great interest to a large portion of our society, it is not of as great importance to those that are adequately insured. Considering gun control, we can see a clear difference (or at least a generally clear difference) in the fundamental interests for those in rural areas versus those in urban areas (Blocher, 2013). In rural areas, guns are not just a part of the culture but also a way of life. They are openly displayed and carried. Their primary uses including hunting and defense, especially since help may not be readily available. On the other hand, in urban centers, guns serve no practical purpose as there are few opportunities to hunt and police officers are always within a stone’s throw. A few years ago, I was assigned to the 5^th Special Forces Group out of Ft. Campbell, KY. I lived in the small city of Hopkinsville, KY, which is primarily a Mennonite tobacco and corn farming community. I swear, babies were born with guns in hand but people there actually have a practical use for them. Now I live on the 35^th floor of a high rise on the corner of Central Park in NYC. Here it is illegal to even have a gun without going through a time-consuming and expensive registration process. Even considering that guns are of interest to some and not others, it may not even be classified as a fundamental interest. “Other fundamental interests are necessary to one’s flourishing no matter what one’s particular desires, interests, and beliefs” (LaFollette, 2007, p. 181). Even way out in the country, it is possible today to flourish without a gun.

What I am about to say may really bend some minds. What I want and what I support are two separate things. I want moderate gun control with moderate restrictions. However, I will always vote for complete gun rights. Though it is true that the gun is just the tool and not the agent (LaFollette, 2007), the gun kind of helps, don’t you think? I want there to be common sense regulations in place. This is the same song-and-dance that we hear all the time. We need background checks to ensure that those that have the guns are of good moral character. We need to restrict certain weapons that are designed to penetrate armor as they are specifically designed to kill. We need to limit the amount of firepower that an individual can have for the same justification that we have seat belt laws. It is dangerous to others. Though it is true that anybody can harm another with any gun, the likelihood greatly increases when we increase the range, firepower, and capacity. You see, guns are inherently dangerous which means that they are designed to harm (LaFollette, 2007). The more technology that goes into them, the more harm is done. Some may argue that knives are equally as useful in harming others which may be true but a knife is designed to be sharp and durable not as a weapon (generally) but as a tool. They are not designed to harm others but rather they are designed to cut your dinner or cut through a rope. Therefore, because of the intended use, it is not inherently dangerous.

So if I want reasonable reforms, why would I not vote for them? The answer boils down to an issue that isn’t even an ethical one. The 2^nd Amendment was added to the Constitution for a specific reason and that was to guarantee the ability to form a militia that can push back against a tyrannical or oppressive government (Winkler, 2007). Are guns dangerous? Absolutely. However, a government that has the ability to seize total control with no recourse is even more dangerous. That is why I feel that we have no choice but to allow access to assault rifles and even armor piercing ammunition. There is a danger to others but the danger to society as a whole is far greater if we increase gun control beyond what it already is.  

Blocher, J. (2013). Firearm localism. The Yale Law Journal, 123(1), 82-146

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

Winkler, A. (2007). Scrutinizing the second amendment. Michigan Law Review, 105(4), 683-733.