Monday, March 11, 2019
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 believe that there does need to be more restrictions on gun ownership. Firstly, in regards to the argument that "guns don't kill people, people kill people". This is an extremely weak argument as guns severely increase the harm people can cause to others. If someone comes into school with an assault rifle, they will undoubtedly kill many more people than if someone came into school with a knife. Just as someone's freedom is taken away when the law deems it "just", it should not be as easy as it is to obtain weapons in the United States. These laws would not ban guns entirely, as well-trained, noncriminals would have absolutely no problem obtaining their weapon. By banning assault rifles and making guns, as a whole, more difficult to obtain, we are only slightly altering the second amendment for the greater good; if less people can get guns, less people will kill people with those guns. With all of the gun violence that happens in the United States, it is definitely justified to enact these restrictions. Law abiding gun owners should find no problem with these laws either, as they could still own their gun, for protection or hunting or whatever their reason is. In the case of fertilizer and plutonium, we are not seeing people kill large amounts of people with these substances every week, so I do not believe they pose a threat for the greater number of people in the Unites States. However, if someone makes or obtains a poison solely for the purpose of killing, that should not be allowed. Fertilizer and plutonium differ, as they are not solely designed to kill, as are poisons and guns. Furthermore, under the Harm to Others Principle, guns should be restricted, to ensure that it is very unlikely that someone could harm another person with this device, as we have seen many times. The large amount of people this year who have been injured or killed by guns prove that they are a harm to other peoples, and should not be allowed under Mills' Harm to Others Principle. These people are hurting other people, thus their freedom should be altered, as the many people who have killed people with guns is a more important concern than the gun owners who have never killed.
ReplyDeleteWhile I do not believe that the act of simply owning a gun causes harm, I acknowledge that the current restrictions on gun ownership may not be sufficiently protecting the population from enduring harm. The question posed by this prompt reminded me of the class discussion about whether or not drunk driving is considered an action that harms others. While the act of drinking affects only the person who consumes the alcohol, there are a number of risks associated with driving while impaired. The driver could potentially be involved in a collision or hit a pedestrian or animal. If any of these events were to occur, the parties involved are likely to suffer from serious injuries or death. Due to its high risk and likelihood of harming others, Mill would not be in favor of driving while impaired. Mill has no problem, however, with a person consuming alcohol. I feel as though this relates to gun ownership because, like a drunk person getting into a car, the risk a gun poses to others is not introduced until the weapon is in use. If a gun is simply sitting in a home or museum somewhere, it is not posing a threat to others. My belief that restrictions must be improved comes from the higher risk associated with people who suffer from mental illness or people who participate in criminal activity. In order to minimize the risk associated with gun ownership, I believe the background checks done on individuals who are purchasing a gun should be more comprehensive. I also believe individuals should be screened in order to ensure that they are not suffering from mental illness or purchasing the gun with the intention of harming a group or certain individual. While there are risks associated with gun ownership, the act of owning the weapon is not the same as putting it to use.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAs this has been a hotly debated issue for a very long time, I don’t think either position is truly correct. However, in my opinion restrictions on guns are justified. The most common defense for owning guns is that gun ownership is protected by the first amendment. I agree to a reasonable extent (I’ll address this later) with that, but I think it should be significantly harder to get a gun. The best way to do this would probably be universal background checks, but that’s another hotly debated issue. In regard to the prohibition of some guns, I think it is completely justified. I think if you look at data, certain types of guns are much more associated with violence than leisurely activities. I think it’s a safe statement to say a machine gun is deadlier and much more likely to be used to hurt people than a rifle. Therefore, I think a prohibition on some guns is justified. Interestingly, that means that gun sellers should be punished but gun users shouldn’t be. Mill writes in Chapter 5 that while a drug user shouldn’t be punished a drug dealer should be since it hurts other people’s lives. Let’s take the statement that ownership of a gun causes harm to be true. Assuming this, gun sellers should be punished for selling guns since they cause harm. It depends on whether the statement that gun ownership causes harm is true or not, and I believe that for certain guns the statement is true.
ReplyDeleteAnother important principle to look at is the Harm to Others principle. Insofar as guns can cause harms to others, I think there should be restrictions on them. However, one might argue that just owning a gun doesn’t cause any harm to another person. But using similar logic, just owning a drug won’t cause harm to another person. I think it’s important to look at the probability that the gun/drug will cause harm to another person. For example, poison is much more likely to cause harm to someone than fertilizer. Similar to what I said above, it’s important to look at the data for each gun and see the likelihood it will cause harm to another person. Unfortunately, this means that we would need to determine a number/percentage at which we would ban the substance. I think it’s reasonable to say if there are no benefits to a substance it should be banned (poison). If it is a beneficial substance, but it has led to a lot of deaths it should be banned (opioids, guns). However, I don’t know how to determine how many is a lot of deaths.
Going back to solutions, background checks to determine the probability that selling a gun will cause harm to others is probably a good solution. If someone suffers from mental health problems and has past criminal convictions, they are probably more likely to harm others than someone with a clean record. In my opinion, it is all based on the data and the probability of harming others, and if the government has a reasonable doubt that a gun will harm others, it should not be sold due to the Harm to Others principle.
With an understanding of both sides of the argument, I believe that further restrictions on gun ownership and a more regulated buying and selling should be put in place. One reason why the issue of gun control is so complicated is because the Second Amendment can be interpreted in mainly two different ways. One way is that the Second Amendment protects citizens who wish to own a gun for the purpose self-defense, and another way it can be interpreted follows closer to the actual written words of the Second Amendment; for the purpose of a “well-regulated militia”. The United States is home to those who are instant of maintaining what they believe to be their Constitutional right to own a firearm for self-defense purposes. On the contrary, the United States is also home to those who are very liberal in their beliefs that the militia intentions of the Second Amendment no longer apply nor are relevant today. However, with the argument of "guns don't kill people, people kill people", it is partially correct and partially incorrect in my opinion. It is true that the human is the one using the gun to kill another person and the gun has no choice because it is an inanimate object and has no say on whether it should be fired or not. But, on the contrary, people made the weapon that kills other people. As such, we can conclude that it is the humans that are doing the actual killing of people as they are the ones who constructed and use the weapon. With this knowledge that people are the ones responsible for killing, it is therefore justifiable to place restrictions on them as it violates the first point in liberalism: harm to others. There is a saying that "when a man has a weapon, they tend to use it" and this case of gun control is the epitome of such. This case compares to things like the possession of other dangerous material because the purpose of guns is to kill things, whereas most other dangerous household things serve other purposes. Since public safety and security is questioned, the government has the right to restrict weaponry that endangers the wellbeing of their citizens and the United States' coveted liberalism.
ReplyDeleteThere should be more strict regulations regarding gun laws as the United States’ gun culture is extremely flawed, and it is easy for anyone to get a weapon. Guns could potentially harm others and therefore, should be regulated in some form. Mills agrees with this by arguing that “Such precaution..as labeling..with some expressive of it's dangerous character may be enforced” (95). However, a warning in present-day America is not enough when there is a significant lack of enforcement and awareness of the potential danger of guns. Background checks are limited and do not prevent those who should not have a gun from obtaining one. The lack of security regarding the sale of guns increases the chance for “harm to others” and justifies and increase in state regulations. The sheer amount of shootings in America violates the “harm to others” principle and warrants more strict laws.
ReplyDeleteWhile it is true that guns don't kill people but rather people kill people, American culture does not take enough action to prevent people from trying to maliciously harm others, nor does it educate its citizens on what is acceptable and what is not. Most Americans believe that gun ownership is a right; this creates a society in which citizens don’t respect the potential harm that a gun can do or the power they wield when holding a gun, and this increases the chance for someone to harm others. Following in Mill’s logic, since the state can’t pass laws that directly oppresses the freedom of expression towards guns, the state can and should pass smalls laws that regulate the qualification for gun ownership. A really good example is Switzerland where there are many citizens who possess a gun, yet there are almost zero incidents with these weapons. This is due to small laws such as mandatory gun education, a separate ammunition carrier, and other regulations. In Switzerland, people understand the potential harm of owning a gun and learn how to control the power they wield. In this sense, Mill’s “harm to others” principle can be more clearly defined because citizens understand the risk of fire arms. Although people who may be barred from purchasing guns may try to maliciously attack others through other means, controlling the sale of guns is an important first step to create the notion that America is trying to fix its problems. Also, in countries with increased gun regulations, there is often less crime, so increasing gun regulations is an important first step. At least in America, gun regulation is justified because the laid-back culture creates citizens that are more likely to engage in violence which creates harms to others.
This is a really tough issue, even when examining it from a non-philosophical perspective. As much as I would like to believe that there is a justifiable reason to ban these types of rifles outright, for all of the harm that they have caused seems at first glance to be infinitesimally larger than the good they have furthered, I cannot find one. I believe that we would be taking away liberty though the application of a convoluted definition of both the harm principle and legal moralism if we were to ban assault rifles. Let me explain. A rifle, when bought, is not automatically going to cause harm to those in the community. It is only when used with malicious intent or by unfortunate accident that harm is incurred, and we cannot generalize the entire gun-owning community as malicious killers. Even though an assault rifle has no practical purpose, we also cannot prohibit those with fallout shelters to stockpile AR-15’s just in case. When applying the harm principle correctly, it is clear that the gun itself does not cause the harm, and there is therefore no reason to restrict it. To counter a moral approach to the prohibition of assault rifles, where the community, much like it is today, bands together against the atrocities committed with these weapons to outlaw them, I would offer the same example of the overly concerned apocalyptic. Even though the necessity for assault rifles is a very unpopular opinion, we cannot force the majority’s moral values on those who hold these weapons as extremely important to their survival in the future. And, if that small group is correct, they could be the keys to the human race’s survival. In much the same way that Mill expresses that all opinions shouldn’t be restricted, we cannot take away the right of the people to live out their views of this issue. As unnerving as it is to say, especially today, we must accept that on the philosophical level, the prohibition of assault rifles in and of itself is wrong.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I am not arguing that one should be able to walk into a gun store at sixteen years old and without any hindrance at all, procure a terribly powerful firearm. That is a recipe for anarchy. I cite paternalism as having significant weight in the necessity to regulate gun sales. When looking to Dworkin’s altered state example and considering that most school shooters are under extreme mental duress, we can reasonably make the claim that most shooters would not go through with their action under normal circumstances as the risks to themselves are too great. However, the threat of prison and guilt means nothing to someone with a vendetta, an emotional condition that is most often blinding. So, to counter this, if one really wants to procure a gun, I would suggest a voluntary polygraph and emotional analysis that inquires about one’s purposes with said firearm and assesses their mental state. This cannot be claimed as an infringement on freedom because the person is actively choosing to participate in order to buy a gun. A gun is not a necessity for modern life, but if one regards it as such, it should be reasonable that they would subject themselves to some discomfort to get one. The tests would allow the state with information from which they could find the potential to harm, eventually allowing the purchase or denying it and recommending counseling or some other intervention, which would be perfectly voluntary to the recipient, of course. Though it is true that the person is the one who in the end commits the violence, the gun is the implement by which they do it, and it should be regulated to prevent, under the constraints of personal liberty, harm to others and retrospective harm to self.
For this case, both positions - arguing for and against the restriction and prohibition of guns - have a valid point according to Mill. On the one hand, he argues for the principle of liberalism: a person should have the right to do and not do whatever he would like to do. This liberty can only be restricted in certain matters, including the case of "harm to others". He introduces the principle of harm to others in his book "on liberty", which defines that something ( a thing or action) that is primarily used to harm others can be restricted. Now we would have to define: is a gun something primarily used to harm others or protect oneself? This is similar to the case of rat poison: it can be used for good (poisoning rats), but also for bad (poisoning people). Mill suggests here that the thing can NOT be prohibited because it can also have a positive effect, but its use can be limited or restricted. Some guns - those who are said to only cause harm and have nothing good with them, could and should still be prohibited.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, guns do more harm than good. I agree with Mill's principle of restriction instead of banning guns in general. That is why I think that American gun laws should be tightened harshly, allowing only specific types of people to bear guns. The test for eligibility should include a deep-reaching background check, a mental check and - most importantly - a reason. Valid reasons would be needing the gun for a job (policeman or hunter), but NOT solely self-defense. I believe that guns only beared to provide defense do more harm than good and should therefore be banned, although this point does not correspond to Mill's thinking. I still believe this infringement of liberty is important to keep citizens safe.
I feel that there is no correct position when it comes to legality surrounding the ownership of guns. I believe that the state has a right to put restrictions on who can own guns and the types of guns we allow common citizens to own because, in the wrong hands, it can become a larger threat to people in everyday society. However, there are ways to minimize this threat. There is justification to prohibiting certain types of guns and limiting modifications that can be put onto guns to increase their lethality. Restrictions can reduce potential harm a person and the weapon can inflict on others. The possession of a gun encourages an aggressive ideology. Even if a person bought a gun without the intention of hurting someone/something, there is no other use for a gun besides destruction. No matter what the bullet hits, something will be destroyed in that process. The whole existence of a gun is based on harm and destruction. On the other hand, you can argue this point of poisonous items, but not all things that are poisonous are intended to hurt people. Many objects that we use in everyday life can be considered poisonous if we misuse them. For example, bleach is something we use to clean our homes and clothing, but if it is used improperly it can cause harm. As a society, we trust that people would not misuse household staples like these. Another example is ibuprofen. When used properly, ibuprofen can help people alleviate their pain, but when it is combined with other drugs or taken at too high of a dosage, it can become a poison. These objects, however, were not made with the intent of harm. The sole purpose of bleach or ibuprofen is not to harm people, but make their lives easier and more bearable. The harm to others principle can justify restrictions and prohibitions on gun possession because, overall, it is providing a greater defensive system for the general public from those who do have ill intentions.
ReplyDeleteI believe that owning a gun does not cause harm, but I also believe that there need to be more restrictions. Owning a gun on its own is not dangerous, much like owning shoes does not make you exercise. There are millions of Americans who are responsible gun owners and who manage the right to own a gun properly, the problem lies with the small percentage of people who irresponsibly own a gun. These events dominate the headlines and create controversy among the American people. It is important to not let the negative headlines dominate the headline sand block out the good that can come from owning a gun. Owning a gun itself does not cause harm to others, but it often causes offence to others.
ReplyDeleteThat being said, I think that there need to be more sanctions imposed on people who are buying guns because the problem does lie within the small portion of people who buy guns and use them poorly. If we were to impose more regulations involving background checks and whatnot, which would really help. Many people own guns and use them responsibly, and I think that any new rules would not affect them. Anyone who is responsibly using a gun would not have a problem buying a gun because there would not be a problem with them owning a gun. This is hard to explain but I think you get my point.
Ultimately I think that neither position is right and the “true” opinion is somewhere in the middle. Gun owner argue that “guns don’t kill people, people kill people”, but I think this misses the point. I agree that guns don’t kill people, and I disagree that people kill people, because the truth is that people with guns kill people. Because when certain people have guns it increases the risk of harm to others, gun control in many cases is completely justified. It is truly just a probability analysis. By allowing dangerous or mentally unstable people to have guns, you inherently significantly increase the risk of harm to other. But moreover, you increases the chance of harm to self. In both cases I think the government is just to prevent gun ownership. I think Mill would argue that it doesn’t directly harm others and it would therefore be unjust to regulate owning a gun, but I think it is similar to getting a drivers license. The government doesn’t just let anyone drive. They have to prove that they can safely use the vehicle. Gun control should be the same way and therefore is just under the Harm to Others Principle. Finally, I think it should be treated differently than owning dangerous materials. Generally, in the real world most people owning things like plutonium are companies or the government who are using it for research which generally means it is not being used maliciously. However in the cases where a civilian wants to buy it, I think that as long as they can legally buy it, it should be fine because it is impossible to regulate and prevent everything, but gun ownership ought to be regulated because guns are used far more often in crimes than things like poison. This means that regulating gun ownership has a vastly higher probability of preventing harm to others than regulation of other materials.
ReplyDeleteThis issue has been debated for a very long time and while I do think that there are pro’s and con’s to each side, I believe there should be stricter restrictions on gun ownership and the purchasing of guns. I think that the process of purchasing a gun should be rethought and made much more thorough. I also think that assault rifles should be banned, because when listening to news stories and looking at data there are certain kinds of gun that are much more dangerous and that are used in these kinds of shootings more often. Due to these situations, I believe that banning some guns is justified. I think that the statement “guns don’t kill people, people kill people” is not a good defense for gun owners to use. While it is true that the person makes the decision to shoot or use a gun, owning or having a gun to use in that situation is a much more dangerous weapon than having a knife or something else. When talking about the Harm to Other Principle, I don’t think that right at first you would be able to prohibit or place restrictions on gun ownership, because even though guns are dangerous they aren’t always used for bad things. On the other hand though, if someone is caught having repeat offences with using a gun in dangerous ways that have or could have harmed others, then I think the state can place a ban on that person owning any more guns. I do think though that in order to fix this problem, there needs to be more background checks and restrictions on how many guns you can own. I do think that the government should be able to prohibit ownership in some situations because wrong use of guns can cause harm and danger to others.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the topic of gun ownership is difficult yet, through the harm to others principle, shows that there should be some restriction on gun ownership. I do not believe that guns can be completely restricted. In the midst of our modern day and age, guns have proven to be extremely dangerous and effective. Despite this, the blame would not be upon the guns but the people that own the guns and hurt other people. By the principle of harm to others, the restrictions should not be to ban guns outright but to restrict their access to people that would cause harm. The restriction could be based on an intense background check along with a mental health check. Through these checkups, it would allow the average American who would like to own a gun to have the ability. On the other hand, it would help keep guns away from people who are mentally ill and criminals who have a higher likelihood of using guns for a bad purpose. The purpose of guns could range from hunting to self-defense, to ban guns because they have the potential to hurt someone is unjust reasoning. Rat poison also has the potential to kill another human being in the wrong hands. If rat poison was used, the blame for the murder would be placed on the user of the rat poison and not the rat poison itself. The intent of rat poison is to kill rats yet it has the potential to kill humans. Another example could be the use of fertilizer. The main use of fertilizer is to fertilize gardens and plants yet it could be used to make a strong explosive. While guns could be used as a lethal force against other humans, that is only possible in the wrong hands. Therefore the justest response to the ownership of guns would be a careful background and mental health check that ensures the safety of the American citizen.
ReplyDeleteI believe that gun ownership should be further restricted in the United States. There are ways that owning a gun could help a person, like as a means of self-defense. However, in general, owning a gun could be used for malicious purposes and would fall in the Harm to Others Principle. People should be over the ages of 21 to own or purchase a gun and pass multiple tests to prove that they are of a stable mind. The owners should also have a reasonable purpose and use for the gun that they are purchasing. The claim that “guns don’t kill people, people kill people” is false; the amount of harm done by guns alone is also something to take into consideration. If a student— under the age of 18— comes to school with an automatic gun, they could do a lot of damage in a very short amount of time. Versus if the student came to school with a less dangerous weapon, a hunting knife, the student would do less damage. This is not to say that a gun applies to the Harm to Others Principle but a knife does not; it just shows that both people and guns do harm. I argue that most of the time that people buys guns is for sole purpose to harm someone else. However, when someone buys rat poison or fertilizer the main reason to buy that is not to kill someone else. The Harm to Others principle can justify restrictions and prohibition on gun possession because as shown by the multiple shooting per day, guns are harming people across the country.
ReplyDeleteWhen discussing the issue of gun ownership, I believe regardless of political leanings, 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 mass shootings, which claim the lives of innocent students each year in this country. Henceforth, I do believe a mandatory background check must be being performed on individuals wishing to purchase a gun. If any sexual improprieties, for instance, were to appear 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 for many reasons. With that being said, I do believe that if someone has a mental illness and wishes to harm others, they will do so, with or without the assistance of a gun. Therefore, I believe the solution ought to be more complex than simply outlawing all firearms, which would likely not stop those who were already destined to commit crimes. 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. 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 there are those who are irresponsible with their weapons, and can result in harm. While I believe it’s justifiable to compare firearms to other dangerous substances or weapons in the sense that they can all do extreme harm, but not recognizing that firearms make it significantly easier in many situations to commit a murder, and therefor guns should be regulated accordingly. With all that said, people not weapons, harm others, meaning Mill’s Harm to Others principle cannot be fully applied.
ReplyDeleteI do not believe that simply gun ownership causes harm. According to Mill, it is justified to restrict freedoms that harm others. However, the freedom to own a gun does not harm others. The premise behind gun ownership is to protect ones own rights. There is an epidemic in gun violence in the United States. I believe that guns are tools, and just like any other tool, a car, rat poison, or even fertilizer, tools can be used for both good and evil. rather the harm from these tools always comes from a user that is unstable. I also believe that my rights should not be taken away from me if others given the same right misuse them. We never talk of banning cars when we see people getting run over. We never talk of banning rat poison when we see someone become poisoned. I also would like to mention that the argument could be taken two ways when it comes to guns? Are they tools for harm, or are they tools for self defense? We will always disagree upon this but what we can agree on is that those who would like to harm others will find a way. I believe that if someone truly wanted to harm someone else they could always find a way, using poison, a car, or a knife. Rather what i would like to see happen is investment in mental health services and more extensive background checks. It seems as if we focus on the tool much more than the user when it comes to mass shootings. i am much more concerned about the growing mental health epidemic than the current gun violence. As long as there are people set on hurting others, violence, of any kind, will not come to an end.
ReplyDeleteOn a second note the facts would support my case. it turns out that roughly 60% of mass shooters have some sort of diagnosed mental health disorder before they take action. secondly you are 3 times more likely to die because of alcohol or a vehicle related accident. We have a 1 in 6 chance to be killed by heart disease and a 1 in 51 chance to die fro diabetes. these are all thinks that could possibly kill us, and I think these should be focused on first and foremost before we tackle gun violence if we are truly concerned about conserving life. (facts from National Safety Council and National Center for Health Statistics)
While solely the ownership of a gun obviously does not cause any direct harm, the huge potential for the harming of others definitely calls for increased restriction, but not an all-out ban. The large increase in school shootings is not primarily attributed to the existence of guns in our country (more to the state of mental health), but guns are a primary factor and aspect nonetheless. It’s for this reason that, while harm is done through more means than just guns, the specific rise of such a harmful medium is something that needs to be responded to. Times have changed, and doing nothing will not achieve anything, however, some oppose any type of restriction through the argument that “guns don’t kill people, people kill people.” Essentially, the argument bases on the fact that guns are merely a medium for killing people, and are not primarily at fault. The argument makes comparisons to everyday items or substances which could be used in the ‘same’ harmful fashion: they are not restricted/banned, so why should guns be? The argument is quite basic, and effective in that regard, but lacks and is opposed in its lack of content. Obviously people can kill and harm others through a wide range of means; there are just some things that laws can’t stop or completely guarantee, but for the things that it can, it should. I’m not saying that anything that has any amount of potential to harm should be restricted, but things that have larger degrees of potential of harm should be (or at least should be taken into consideration). It makes sense to additionally compare/balance this potential for harm with the utility of the object, and come up with restrictions based on this balance. For example, a knife can be used as a weapon, but its utility far trumps the need for restriction (or at least, any excessive restriction). In another example, rat poison, there is definitely a use, but not a use as great as a knife, however, we also need to take into account of the time: unless rat poison murders are substantially on the rise, there is no reason for any such restriction; we have to be malleable to the time, and take this third aspect into account when justifying any sort of restriction. So, when returning to the subject of guns, we find that household guns definitely have a justifiable use (for home defense), they provide a potential for harm which, paired with our current time, is very much prevalent. Their prevalent use and place in America makes us find that an all-out ban would not necessarily be convent, but restrictions for age, further background checks and types of guns are for no reason something to oppose, or at least completely deny the need for.
ReplyDeleteI have a lot of friends and some family members that are split on this issue, so I think my views on if fall somewhere in a grey area. First of all, I absolutely believe the legal age to purchase a gun should be raised to 21. In my mind it just seems dumb that someone can own a gun yet their brain isn’t developed enough to drink for example. There also should absolutely be extremely thorough background checks, and I think in many places right now that is not necessarily the case. That said, guns should be legal. A lot of people that are in the same “grey area” as me believe guns should be legal, with the exception of automatic weapons. While I personally do not see the use or the draw of owning an automatic weapon, I know that a large amount of people do. When I hear people say why do they need a fully automatic weapon, I think to myself: well they don’t, but why do you need your car to be able to drive over the speed limit? As humans we indulge ourselves with a lot of things we don’t need, and in the case of fast cars the only reason anyone would want to prohibit cars that can travel at a certain speed is because it could be a danger to the driver and others. In my opinion this is the same argument as with guns, but just on a larger scale. Also I think most people would agree if the government prohibited fast cars it would be an over extension of their power, so I think it’s the same with guns.
ReplyDeleteWhile it is technically true that “guns don’t kill people, people kill people,” the effect that having a gun has on a person’s ability to cause harm to others is drastic and has shown to often be a resource for those who do wish to harm others. Because of this, I believe that there should absolutely be more strict gun laws to prevent people who would use guns to harm others from getting guns, but that it would be a restriction on the freedoms of the average citizen to completely ban gun possession. I believe that it is important to be able to regulate whether or not a person with a mental illness or disability or a person who has been convicted of a crime involving a gun can easily access a gun because there is a much higher risk of these individuals causing harm to others. The ownership of a gun technically does not cause harm; however, it provides a way for others to much more readily and severely harm many people if they wished, which is why I think it is important to take into consideration the relative risk of certain people having ownership of a gun. In my opinion, possession of poisons, fertilizer, and plutonium should also be restricted based on the relative risk that they and the people who own them have on society. For example, fertilizer and some poisonous materials have real and important uses in the lives of the average citizen, so it feels as if there should be much less regulation on those than, say, weapons grade plutonium, which wouldn’t have any use for the average citizen. This also goes for being more restrictive on the ability to buy something extremely poisonous but useful in the case of someone who has been convicted of attempted murder by poisoning someone than another person who has not. While the harm to others principle would not justify these restrictions by any means because guns, poison, and plutonium do not pose any direct harm to others, I still think that the relative risk of each should be taken into account in determining how restrictive we should be.
ReplyDelete