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 2nd 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 2nd 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 5th 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 35th 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 2nd 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.
No comments:
Post a Comment