In this paper, I will be analyzing and criticizing the argument given by Jeff McMahan in his paper “Why Gun ‘Control’ Is Not Enough”. This essay goes against my personal bias and strives to support an argument in favor of private gun ownership to a certain extent. McMahan is hasty in deciding that a complete ban is necessary to restore order and peace; I refute his conclusion by showing that a gun ban would not be able to stop the ongoing need for safety and because of this an increase in gun control policy would be the best solution to the gun problem in the United States. One portion of the paper provides a summary of the argument given by McMahan in his paper in depth, evaluating his premises and conclusion to establish the position the
…show more content…
He states their assumption as that which includes: that everyone’s overall safety will increase as more individuals own gums because it provides the people with a successful means of defense for themselves and others around them because the increase in the possibility of attacking armed victims decreases criminals’ disposition to attack.
This, he says, does not provide logical evidence of a need for an increase in private gun ownership. The increase in the availability of private guns will only make the criminals who are already willing to attack more likely to be armed, and more likely to fire their weapons. The gun advocates, he advises, wrongly believe that a solution to this problem is to have more private citizens armed; however, as the perceived amount of safety increases so does the number of guns readily …show more content…
Private gun ownership creates more problems than it can handle if there isn’t a law to prevent situations in which anyone who feels the urge to murder has the same opportunity to get a gun as the person who will purchase a gun in the name of self-defense. If the benefits of banning private gun ownership are greater than its perceived wrongs and the ban will help maintain order in society, then the United States should ban gun ownership. McMahan knows that the reason why there is an authorized body of defense in the country is to defend its citizens; however, if there is a rise in private individuals who own guns, the control the police has becomes ineffective. Gun advocates, he says, are the perfect partners in crime of those willing to commit a crime. There will be no way of carrying out laws that have been established because all of the citizens have the same amount of power the police have. It is a delusion, McMahan states, to assume that the power of the democratic government of the United States will become so centralized that all right will be swept away from the feet of millions of individuals. And for that reason, he states that banning private gun ownership helps maintain order in a
He states their assumption as that which includes: that everyone’s overall safety will increase as more individuals own gums because it provides the people with a successful means of defense for themselves and others around them because the increase in the possibility of attacking armed victims decreases criminals’ disposition to attack.
This, he says, does not provide logical evidence of a need for an increase in private gun ownership. The increase in the availability of private guns will only make the criminals who are already willing to attack more likely to be armed, and more likely to fire their weapons. The gun advocates, he advises, wrongly believe that a solution to this problem is to have more private citizens armed; however, as the perceived amount of safety increases so does the number of guns readily …show more content…
Private gun ownership creates more problems than it can handle if there isn’t a law to prevent situations in which anyone who feels the urge to murder has the same opportunity to get a gun as the person who will purchase a gun in the name of self-defense. If the benefits of banning private gun ownership are greater than its perceived wrongs and the ban will help maintain order in society, then the United States should ban gun ownership. McMahan knows that the reason why there is an authorized body of defense in the country is to defend its citizens; however, if there is a rise in private individuals who own guns, the control the police has becomes ineffective. Gun advocates, he says, are the perfect partners in crime of those willing to commit a crime. There will be no way of carrying out laws that have been established because all of the citizens have the same amount of power the police have. It is a delusion, McMahan states, to assume that the power of the democratic government of the United States will become so centralized that all right will be swept away from the feet of millions of individuals. And for that reason, he states that banning private gun ownership helps maintain order in a