Russ Shafer-Landau provides us with an article by Jeff McMahan in order to give us an analytical argument on gun control. Jeff McMahan, in his article Why Gun Control Isn’t Enough, discusses why he believes guns should not simply be controlled in the United States, rather they should be banned. McMahan makes the case that gun ownership, in its entirety, is dangerous and illogical. Through several examples and through his own reasoning, McMahan hopes to convince the reader that the only way forward on the topic of ‘guns’ in the United States is to completely ban civilians from owning traditional firearms, from the ground up. Through my counter-argument, I intend to show that while McMahan’s argument is versed well on intent, it is mostly normative,
…show more content…
The majority of McMahan’s claims are based on the fact that guns should be outlawed because we should not need them. However, all one has to do is compare McMahan’s claims to situations in the world around us. The first example the author makes is that “when most citizens are armed, as they were in the Wild West, crime doesn’t cease” (391). This argument is easily rebutted as his claim is based upon events that have taken place over one-hundred years ago. This claim does not take into consideration the improvements in law enforcement as well as the Judicial system that have taken place since the days of the ‘Wild West’. While an increased percentage of armed citizens may not have a positive effect on crime, one cannot determine this from events that happened so long ago, as McMahan states. Another example is when McMahan mentions one of Congressman Jay Dickey’s quotes, that “We have a right to bear arms because of the threat of government taking over the freedoms that we have” (392). While this may seem to be a foolish claim, many would not feel so lighthearted about it, and other countries around the world are great examples of this. McMahan states that the probability of a large, liberal, democratic society such as our own, of turning on its own citizens is relatively nonexistent. While I believe McMahan to be correct in this assumption, this still does not mean that citizens do not have the right to protect themselves from the minuscule chance of a tyrannical government. The United States, while relatively conservative compared to the rest of the world, is still quite dynamic in its ability to change. In my own lifetime, and especially the lifetime of the author, this country has gone through a great many changes and much more are to come; who are we to believe we can predict what the future may hold? In what I believe to be McMahan’s primary argument, he makes the point that a well-armed
The majority of McMahan’s claims are based on the fact that guns should be outlawed because we should not need them. However, all one has to do is compare McMahan’s claims to situations in the world around us. The first example the author makes is that “when most citizens are armed, as they were in the Wild West, crime doesn’t cease” (391). This argument is easily rebutted as his claim is based upon events that have taken place over one-hundred years ago. This claim does not take into consideration the improvements in law enforcement as well as the Judicial system that have taken place since the days of the ‘Wild West’. While an increased percentage of armed citizens may not have a positive effect on crime, one cannot determine this from events that happened so long ago, as McMahan states. Another example is when McMahan mentions one of Congressman Jay Dickey’s quotes, that “We have a right to bear arms because of the threat of government taking over the freedoms that we have” (392). While this may seem to be a foolish claim, many would not feel so lighthearted about it, and other countries around the world are great examples of this. McMahan states that the probability of a large, liberal, democratic society such as our own, of turning on its own citizens is relatively nonexistent. While I believe McMahan to be correct in this assumption, this still does not mean that citizens do not have the right to protect themselves from the minuscule chance of a tyrannical government. The United States, while relatively conservative compared to the rest of the world, is still quite dynamic in its ability to change. In my own lifetime, and especially the lifetime of the author, this country has gone through a great many changes and much more are to come; who are we to believe we can predict what the future may hold? In what I believe to be McMahan’s primary argument, he makes the point that a well-armed